Bonus arguments show bogus logic

The fact that the head of Barclays Bank thinks bank bonuses are a good thing that should remain should come as no shock to anyone. It is like asking the head of Cadbury's if people should buy chocolate or a Premiership footballer if he thinks footballers are overpaid. But the argument she gives just do not hold water.

The most often used argument from those who support bonuses for the fat cats in the city is that "if you don't pay them the going rate, these people will go elsewhere", but this argument holds no water at all now as bonuses around the world have been slashed. Very few companies, if any, will be paying massive bonuses to its fat cat executives so how can they maintain this as an argument.

Then there is the argument that "banks will not get out of this mess if they lose all their best people", but as I have already pointed out, other banks are not paying bonuses so there is little chance of these people leaving to go elsewhere.

And finally, there is the argument that "success should be rewarded", which might be true were it not for the fact that the "success" these banks talked off were the very things that later put the banks in to such a sorry financial state. So many executives received benefits last year and in previous years for their investments in sub prime. If banks cannot differentiate between good work and bad, then bonus payments make no sense other than being a way for banks to reward themselves, not success.

We all know that the city has no morals and no ethics and we should not be surprised as bankers greed. The saddest thing is though that the government seem so toothless to stop the city and we, the taxpayer, are paying the price.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Whilst I agree with you (to an extent)... I think that Barclays may have been one of the banks to still make a profit, even if it was a reduced profit.