I would disagree with Barber's comment too. Bankers don't work hard or take risks. Bankers are not entrepreneurs. Goldman Sachs is not going to go bust if the contract merging Pointless Corps and Another Pointless Corps goes belly-up. In fact, bonuses will still be paid out for 'work on the deal'. It's a low risk, low work, high paid environment. The complete opposite of an entrepreneur starting up his/her own business, in other words. The latter creates real jobs and wealth while the former, well, let's check the article -

"multi-million pound windfall was thanks to a boom in the City with frantic mergers and acquisition activity."

So, in actual fact, no real activity or economic benefit at all.

Ted,

"low work"

It would appear that you have precisely zero knowledge of the banking industry. Goldman Sachs is noted as being one of the most gruesome and gruelling banks in the city.

Whatever one may think of the function of such banks within a capitalist economy (and my view is that though they are undoubtedly evil, they are unfortunately a necessary evil), the suggestion that city employees in general - and Goldman Sachs employees in particular - do not work hard is so absurd as to discredit your opinion on this topic in its entirety.

PG

Oh, it's 90-hour weeks and 10 day weeks, etc, etc. Your pen might even run out with the excitement of 'activity and mergers and activity'. I wonder if the cleaners at Goldman Sachs work hard. Not as hard obviously otherwise they would be suitably recompensed because GS always rewards hard work, eh?

It's funny how the CBI, which opposed the minimum wage, only has a problem with 'wage inflation' at the 'lower end of the market'. Weird, eh?

Just dropping in to say that I agree with every one of Ted's words. As someone who has twice tried to set up a small business (and failed, through nobody's fault but my own), I think I know the difference between being a manic money-pusher taking a cut off the senseless gyrations of the City roulette wheels, and doing real work that serves real clients and adds something to the sum of the country's wealth. And as one of the most successful CEOs I ever met used to say, "Money as a motivator is no good; all it does is pay your bills". That is why people who destroy their energies doing things that have no reason to be done are so keen on huge wads of money. The rest of us think like Mr.Bamber.

'Senseless gyrations' - it's funny because it's true.

Paolo, it's people like you that take the real risks and do real hard work and I'm only sorry you didn't get the reward. The bankers at the likes of Goldman Sachs aren't even risking their own money, for goodness sake! At worst, they might lose their job but that's a risk we all live with on a daily basis.

This isn't an envy issue either. James Dyson, for example, is reported to have paid himself £40m this year. However, he took risks, worked hard, created jobs and wealth and is deserving of the rewards now.

"This isn't an envy issue."

Why would anybody get that impression?

ted,

"Oh, it's 90-hour weeks"
Actually: yes. I think you will find that it is - the people who earn these kind of bonuses are doing those kinds of hours. To deny that doing a 90 hour week is hard work - which you do above when you say "low work" - is absurd.

"Your pen might even run out with the excitement of 'activity and mergers and activity'."
Bite me.

" I wonder if the cleaners at Goldman Sachs work hard. Not as hard obviously otherwise they would be suitably recompensed because GS always rewards hard work, eh?"
No in fact - I will be very surprised if the cleaners do work as hard. Nor do they earn revenue for Goldman Sachs. Nor will they be as highly qualified or in as short supply.

Paolo,

"and doing real work that serves real clients and adds something to the sum of the country's wealth."

Exactly where did I suggest the opposite? My ONLY quibble was with Ted's ridiculous assertion that the recipients of these bonuses are in a "low work" environment. Read my comments above.

For the record I agree absolutely that it is those who set up their own businesses that are the real wealth creators. The risks and effort involved are huge. I have infinitely more respect for those who do take these sorts of risks than for the bankers we are discussing here.

But to try to deny that the people who are being paid these bonuses are working hard entirely discredits the comment and the commenter.

I hate to say it, but I once received a bonus for doing little more than being a competent P.A. to a departmental head in a City stockbroking firm.

It was probably the best paid job I've ever had - in that while I earned a bit less than I do now, it was strictly nine-to-five (or equivalent) and I could completely switch off outside office hours.

True, the bonus was only four figures, hardly zillions - but it absolutely was not for doing hard work, or at least nothing in excess of what I was supposed to do anyway. I have no doubt that some of the people getting bonuses genuinely earned them, but my experience suggests that being in the right place at the right time and connected to the right person can be a key factor too.

Funny how noone seems to get worked up over footballers getting 100k a week (which involves about 10hrs work), or rock stars or Jordan getting a zillion a week for getting her tits out or Paris Hilton for partying, but middle class bankers? ....

Ted - your ignorance is only trumped by your envy.

Pompom, save your insults for people who care what you think.

As it is, the post was *about* middle class bankers, in case ya hadn't read it.