People turn down money for happiness every day.
I am a good example
Minx is too.
I was chatting to a lass who works at our local bank the other day. Ever so clever n bright one of those real "assets" when you run a business that deals with the public. Anyways I asked about her ambitions and she said "Yes its a fantastic career path here but I am happy doing what I do. I would never want a job that I had to take home with me."
It is usually a mistake to assume that others share ones views or values. To accuse those who take a differing view of life of being motivated by greed, hate or jealousy is simply asinine.
Totally agree with Ben, money ain't everything.
About 18 years ago was offered a job in Houston, it came with a house, swimming pool, car, full works and probably doubled my money.
Problem was, I'd have to be working away all over USA and Canada, so while wife and kids might be sitting round the pool, I wouldn't be seeing the kids enjoying it or them growing up. So turned it down, stayed on Tyneside.
A case of "Love over Gold"
John
I am certainly not jealous of people with stupid amounts of money - I have made choices in my life that have gone to contenment rather than stress - they tend to lead away from large earnings.
My objections in previous posts have all been to the huge gulf between the lower paid producers of wealth and the higher paid 'directors of action'.
Without one group the other would be meaningless. But the balance should be a damned sight more even. I'm not just talking about the wage packet - I'm talking about the risk of losing that income, the availability of progression, the acknowledgement and respect for one's abilities and contribution.
just to confirm there is no guarantee that the rich will always be rich :doh:
so what we're saying then max is open a bank a business and you can't fail based on the knock on effect to the financial industry :sad:
a bank is like any other business if it folds then others can take a big hit investors, employees ect ect all the bailouts have done it allowed those that run the banks to feel untouchable
yet in the states a few of the largest financial institutions where allowed to fold this i think sent a very strong message to the others that otherwise would have continued to lend recklessly, this in turn never! brought down the usa's banking system ?
i strongly doubt that the british taxpayer will ever recover the monies used by brown to bail out these bank lloyds and rbs owe the tax payer over 65 billion pounds
i don't even think we've received interest payments on our loan to them
I'm sorry but i still don't see how a bank is any different to any other business even if it takes a few others with it ,as the banks are still not lending to business or home owners and most business run overdrafts then these would have been transferred to either other banks or written off had the banks been allowed to collapse
yet funny that the very banks we bailed out continue to charge above average interest rates for loans and mortgages and northern rock offering to transfer mortgages to lloyds tsb with no charges out of the frying pan springs to mind
i also Doubt that 100 billion pounds would have been enough to bring down the financial system and i also doubt that the industry has learnt anything other than regardless of what they do one way or another they will get a share of our money being through the front door as savings and loans or the back door as a bailout
No Rob, that's not what I'm saying. In theory, a bank is just like any other business and should be allowed to fail but due to the current set up of the banks, I believe that the government made the right decision at the time. That's why I believe that the merchant and retail arms of the banks have to be separated in order that such bailouts are never again necessary.
Lehman Brothers was allowed to go to the wall but to the best of my knowledge was purely a merchant bank and it's bankruptcy subsequently played a major role in the global financial crisis. How bad would the crisis have been if other major banks had also been allowed to go bust.
Do you honestly believe that RBS and Lloyds going bust would have had no impact on the other major UK banks? And let's not forget that most of Lloyds problems arose due to it being "encouraged" by the government to absorb HBOS.
What would have happened to the retail arms of RBS and Lloyds had they gone bust? For starters, the government would have been left with an astronomical bill to refund depositors, although many depositors would have incurred substantial losses due to the level of the deposits guaranteed at that time. What implications would that have had on savers' confidence at other banks? It's highly probable other banks would have suffered runs on the bank.
What would have happened to industry if 2 of the main 4 high street banks had gone bust? Most probably the the bank payment system would have failed, causing massive disruption to industry. What would have happened to companies holding funds at these banks as I don't believe they would be covered by government's guarantee? What would happen to companies reliant upon overdrafts for their financing? The failure of the banks would take many corporations with them and if major corporations start to fail they do have a domino effect upon their suppliers.
I'm no supporter of the banks and am angry at both the Labour government and the current government for not demanding stricter control in return for all the taxpayers cash they have received but I still believe that the measures taken by GB and AD were the correct ones at the time.
The government should not be setting pay rates, Mr Clegg stressed, while making clear he supported top executives being well rewarded if their companies were successful.
But he said "greater transparency" was needed over the process of setting pay and that top bosses should not be rewarded for poor performance.