Lockjaw Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 So as RBS are doing so well now then Hester must be doing his job properly and deserving of his bonus..so the gov. have no need to be involved? Or have I mis-understood Possibly. I don't have enough understanding of the salary structure of RBS to enable me to judge whether he merely deserves his basic salary or whether he deserves his million quid bonus. My issue, as I have stated throughout this thread is, simply, with the OP's claim that we've "lost" millions of quid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 So if Asda employ an extra member of staff and pay them £10K per year, and Asda’s profit margin is 20% on the generous side. Asda will have to sell £50K of produce to break even; if they don’t break even they make less profit and pay less tax. Assuming the person was on £5K in benefits there is now an extra £5K for this person to spend which is only 10% of the expansion that is required to break even. This means for Asda to sell this extra produce a competitor must lose some sales and will either make less profit or pay less tax or will make one person redundant. The only way employing someone will benefit the economy is if they are employed to do something that isn’t already being done by someone in the UK, rather than taking work from a UK business we take work from a foreign business, that would put extra money into our economy and take someone that is unemployment in to employment, unless we then employ a foreign worker to do this extra work. If the economy worked like that then we'd never have had any economic growth & would still be bartering with our neighbours for cabbages. You add value to the economy as a whole by doing more things, by increasing economic activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Possibly. I don't have enough understanding of the salary structure of RBS to enable me to judge whether he merely deserves his basic salary or whether he deserves his million quid bonus. My issue, as I have stated throughout this thread is, simply, with the OP's claim that we've "lost" millions of quid. We may have been that 900 mill better off but we'll never know.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizmachin Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 All this is nothing new. The bonus row blew up in 2009 when the UK Government bought into the bank. There was an immediate row over bankers bonuses and thousands of key staff left to find jobs where they would get the pay in line with their contracts. It is perhaps largely due to the fact that so many key staff have already left that the share price has halved in the last couple of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Possibly. I don't have enough understanding of the salary structure of RBS to enable me to judge whether he merely deserves his basic salary or whether he deserves his million quid bonus. My issue, as I have stated throughout this thread is, simply, with the OP's claim that we've "lost" millions of quid. It's not about whether he deserves it or not. It's about the money that other banks are willing to pay to get similarly qualified & experienced people. It's a competitive market & there aren't many people with experience of running huge multinational banks well - they're generally already busy running another bank & being paid an obscene amount of money to do so. If RBS pay lower bonuses than other banks that operate all over the world they wont attract the best staff & any staff they have who could get better paid jobs elsewhere will probably leave. If they end up being run by even bigger idiots (like the government) they wont ever be a successful bank & we all (as taxpayers) lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Money is made all the way down the line not just at Asda..and people other than Asda employees shop there.. I know, more stock is delivered to Asda so isn't delivered to the shop next door. Ultimately the farmer still sells the same amount of food stuff just to a different store and we still import the same amount but again it just goes to a different store. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 If the economy worked like that then we'd never have had any economic growth & would still be bartering with our neighbours for cabbages. You add value to the economy as a whole by doing more things, by increasing economic activity. If it worked how you suggest everyone would be employed. It would make perfect economic sense to employ everyone, unfortunately it doesn’t work like that so we do have unemployed people, and employing them all tomorrow won't help the economy unless they are employed to do the jobs we don't already do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I know, more stock is delivered to Asda so isn't delivered to the shop next door. Ultimately the farmer still sells the same amount of food stuff just to a different store and we still import the same amount but again it just goes to a different store. You reckon having more people working doesn't equate to a larger and more prosperous economy? You've already worked out that there's £5000 more spending power per new employee...if a farmer has a bigger market to sell into he'll grow more food... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T 42 Posted February 2, 2012 Author Share Posted February 2, 2012 I know, more stock is delivered to Asda so isn't delivered to the shop next door. Ultimately the farmer still sells the same amount of food stuff just to a different store and we still import the same amount but again it just goes to a different store. But it doesn't work like that in investment banking. Folks don't need to buy from the bank next door. They can buy from the brokers on Wall Street. So perhaps the level of business does remain the same. But the level of business and jobs in this country isn't and our balance sheet isn't a beneficiary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 You reckon having more people working doesn't equate to a larger and more prosperous economy? It depends what they do, employing extra people in one company to do something employees already do at another company will just result in some of those employees being made redundant. A county full of shop keepers just won’t work. We need new businesses to make thing we import. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.