economic situation is dire

[ianrobo1]

just because I work somewhere does not mean I agree with it

but frankly CV compalins because his bonus has dropped, tough, he works in an industry that has caused us all massive harm

we the tax payers had to give the banks £183bn in loans to stop them collapsing, we have had to buy out two, force another to merge

will they learn the lesson

**** will they

[Awol]

The problem is quite simple, where Bonus's become the norm they are no longer a bonus.

In the banking sector especially they have become the norm. The package should be more like a sales plan and commission paid on certain targets being reached. These targets are measurable and changeable. Typically they will work on a hockey stick scale where they rise as you get closer to 100%

The down side, if you can call it that, is typically base salary goes down which incentivises you to work to achieving target. If you reach 100% one year next year your target is adapted accordingly in the following to a higher ceiling points

What we are seeing here is a mix of base salary and commission (they call it bonus) and the rest of the real world dont work like that

Exactly, but bonuses per se are no bad thing at all. No way could I get the same level of work out of my people if there wasn't a tangible financial reward over and above their basic salary to aim for. Why should they?

[drat01]

I agree Jon a bonus is fine if it returns to being a bonus rather than an expected massive part of someone's salary

The biggest mistake anyone can make is to rely on a bonus and then get all upset when it doesn;t arrive

EDIT: and again there has to be a clear distinction made between bonus and commis

[tonyh29]

See Tony you have made that big mistake of mixing job types - base is low on those with incentives being the higher portion

you've kinda lost me here ?

[ianrobo1]

AWOL if someone is a poor worker or the company performs badly do their basic salaries drop ?

of course not

so the bonus is only a one way thing there is actually no disincentive to failure is there (is that what you are saying Ian ?)

and no I am not jealous because my basic pay is more than higher enough to live without a bonus, those people I know who work in banks and had their bonuss cut this year get much lower than me

[drat01]

OK - the point I was making was that the job's you showed had low base salary compared to say the banking sector where they seemingly have high base plus expect high bonus.

In a sales job, which they were, their OTE would be a mix of base, bonus and commis

In the bank jobs they are seemingly expecting a high base, high bonus and sometime high commis and in most, if not all, main street jobs it don't work like that

[Awol]

AWOL if someone is a poor worker or the company performs badly do their basic salaries drop ?

If someone is a poor worker they get sacked mate, so yes there is a disincentive to fail.

[tonyh29]

but frankly CV compalins because his bonus has dropped, tough, he works in an industry that has caused us all massive harm

Only if you subscribe to the doctrine that it's all the banks fault and everyone else is absolved of blame

but what if his particular department made huge huge profits , met all it's targets etc etc ... why should he then not be entitled to a bonus ..

I worked in Canary wharf for 5 years in an investment bank , these guys don't turn up work half an hour and then go home , they work 14 hour days or more under great stress and pressure .. day in day out ..

the trouble you are having is you once watched Wall Street with Michael Douglas and can't differentiate between fact and fiction .. the real banking world is nothing like that

[ianrobo1]

but frankly CV compalins because his bonus has dropped, tough, he works in an industry that has caused us all massive harm

Only if you subscribe to the doctrine that it's all the banks fault and everyone else is absolved of blame

but what if his particular department made huge huge profits , met all it's targets etc etc ... why should he then not be entitled to a bonus ..

I worked in Canary wharf for 5 years in an investment bank , these guys don't turn up work half an hour and then go home , they work 14 hour days or more under great stress and pressure .. day in day out ..

the trouble you are having is you once watched Wall Street with Michael Douglas and can't differentiate between fact and fiction .. the real banking world is nothing like that

get real

you really think anyone is worth million pound bonuses for basically gambling on shares and as it appears our economy

the city contribuites 10% of GDP but frankly if they all **** off tomorrow would we be any worse off without them ?

what do they actually produce or contribute ?

does any City worker think their job helps the rest of us out ?

all smoke and mirroes

[ianrobo1]

AWOL if someone is a poor worker or the company performs badly do their basic salaries drop ?

If someone is a poor worker they get sacked mate, so yes there is a disincentive to fail.

someone can be poor and yet still get a decent salray

there is no disincentive to fail, bonus's (and lets just talk about the city) just encouraged more and more risk taking and gambling, it failed and yet we read that RBS may still give them out, well they were lucky the government could not afford for it to fail

and BTW my best mate works for RBS and he agrees with me, his BU was profitable but Goodwin decided to gamble and it failed, but how much did he get ?

£4m was it ?

[Gringo]

the city contribuites 10% of GDP but frankly if they all **** off tomorrow would we be any worse off without them ?

what do they actually produce or contribute ?

does any City worker think their job helps the rest of us out ?

all smoke and mirroes

I don;t get any bonuses at work and the levels they got it for pushing bits of money around and actually contributing nowt was and is obscene

Strange how they were contributing nowt, but now that they aren't pushing these bits of money around any more the global economy has seized up. Maybe they were doing something important after all?

Just because you don't understand something, it doesn't make it worthless.

[tonyh29]

OK - the point I was making was that the job's you showed had low base salary compared to say the banking sector

gotcha .. but that wasn't why i postd them so not really relevent

the jobs I showed were at the company where ian worked as he said there was no justification for any job having them ..just thought he might want to take that up with his boss's :-)

[tonyh29]

get real

great counter argument .. not sure my debating skills are good enough to compete with you on that one :shock:

I would argue borrowing £117BN as Brown is doing is a gamble ... yet you seem to want to blame it all on the banks ...... Darling does not know how to fix Brown's mistakes and thus it's wrong to try and pin it all on the banks

[ianrobo1]

get real

great counter argument .. not sure my debating skills are good enough to compete with you on that one :shock:

I would argue borrowing £117BN as Brown is doing is a gamble ... yet you seem to want to blame it all on the banks ...... Darling does not know how to fix Brown's mistakes and thus it's wrong to try and pin it all on the banks

the get real was to your load of bollocks about watching wall street

and as for the borrowing I ask you once again would you have saved RBS or let it fail, there was no soverign fund stupid enough to take it on ?

RBS let me remind you employs well over 100k people

[thetrees]

OK - the point I was making was that the job's you showed had low base salary compared to say the banking sector

gotcha .. but that wasn't why i postd them so not really relevent

the jobs I showed were at the company where ian worked as he said there was no justification for any job having them ..just thought he might want to take that up with his boss's :-)

My understanding is that everyone at depot level with the company concerned has the opportunity to receive some kind of bonus, so Ian may have a case for discrimination.

But then a number of their management were run through the mill of reapplying for their jobs before Christmas, and only the chosen few were retained, so at least the axe falls on the semi-fat cats, which probably suits some.

[Awol]

Interest rates cut again to new lowest ever level, now at 1%.

As previous cuts have made little/no difference, is this now just deepening the problems of savers without creating any actual economic benfit?

[ianrobo1]

OK - the point I was making was that the job's you showed had low base salary compared to say the banking sector

gotcha .. but that wasn't why i postd them so not really relevent

the jobs I showed were at the company where ian worked as he said there was no justification for any job having them ..just thought he might want to take that up with his boss's :-)

My understanding is that everyone at depot level with the company concerned has the opportunity to receive some kind of bonus, so Ian may have a case for discrimination.

But then a number of their management were run through the mill of reapplying for their jobs before Christmas, and only the chosen few were retained, so at least the axe falls on the semi-fat cats, which probably suits some.

well middle management certainly did suffer and depots are treated differently from ICS and it does not concern me but I believe the company should pay higher basic's as paying bonus's is cheaper

[drat01]

Interest rates cut again to new lowest ever level, now at 1%.

As previous cuts have made little/no difference, is this now just deepening the problems of savers without creating any actual economic benfit?

Jon the BOE and organisations like Institute of Directors, The Ernst & Young Item Club etc all see it still as the right move.

Now you could easily argue that the main causes of these problems were the very people who are saying they are the right thing to do, but at this moment you have to listen to them.

Savings are being put on hold, but a lot of people are using the benefits they are gaining from lower interest rates on mortgages to increase their payments and lower their debt - so there is a big swings and roundabouts

The key still is the banks and their unwillingness to pass on the cuts and lend more money. When we see them still "looking after their own" you can start to question what exactly their motives are.

The banking sector are really being shown for what they are

[snowychap]

Interest rates cut again to new lowest ever level, now at 1%.

As previous cuts have made little/no difference, is this now just deepening the problems of savers without creating any actual economic benfit?

It is certainly increasing the problems of savers and especially those who rely on the income from that to supplement meagre work income.

My mother told me yesterday that her interest payment on her savings last month was the odd couple of pounds whereas last year it was around a hundred.

It makes a big difference to someone like her who works part time for not much more than the minimum wage.

Whether it creates any benefit is anyone's guess.

The institutions mentioned above may support the cut though the support is not universal - the Federation of Small Businesses polled its members and only 24% wanted a further cut, for example.

Also, the BSA (Building Societies Association) are 'arguing that the move could hinder the funds available to societies to lend as mortgages'. (link)

[tonyh29]

All it's really proved is that the last cut of 1.5% failed to kick start the economy as was hoped whilst highlighting the weakness of the country's economic position.

interestingly , Japan cut it's interest rate to 0% in the 90's ... it didn't help their economy , indeed many argue that it actually took longer to recover on the back of it

as a side issue , Whilst bored in the queue at Nationwide the other day i looked through all their brochures and one of them being a mortgage brochure .. it offered a 2 yr fixed rate deal is 4.5 % , or as you could pay a one off £500 aat the time of taking out the mortgage and get slightly lower interest rate ..

Now i did the math and taking into account that the "saving" is only over the 2 year period of the fixed rate .. you would save £248 a year by taking the lower fixed rate ..however you paid £500 for the privilege ... anyone spot the flaw here ??