The best of them won't come for money

steddyeddy

A quote from Lawrence of Arabia for those who don't know. Basically I wonder is there an established connection between paying large amounts of money to bankers and people like consultants and performance?

According to Dan Pink large financial incentives have the opposite effect and decrease productivity. If a person is attracted simply for the money are they the best person for the job? I think no.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y

LDN_Irish

You'd love the thread on "people who hire hookers" running now.

steddyeddy

LDN_Irish wrote: »

You'd love the thread on "people who hire hookers" running now.

They literally cum for money

Geniass

'Basically I wonder is there an established connection between paying large amounts of money to bankers and people like consultants and performance?'

Is there a connection between successful people and their ability to also get high salaries.

What makes you think someone that's earning €30k PA now and who would run a bank for €50k PA would make a good go of it?

steddyeddy

Geniass wrote: »

'Basically I wonder is there an established connection between paying large amounts of money to bankers and people like consultants and performance?'

Is there a connection between successful people and their ability to also get high salaries.

What makes you think someone that's earning €30k PA now and who would run a bank for €50k PA would make a good go of it?

Basically because there are consultants in other countries who earn a lot less money for the same job. I'm a scientist and like a lot of scientists I follow the best research. The financial incentives should come second or else my heart wouldn't be in it.

KomradeBishop

As you say in the OP, it has the opposite effect - the higher the CEO pay is, the worse the company does:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/the-highest-paid-ceos-are-the-worst-performers-new-study-says/

It completely depends on the area we're talking about. If you're working in the financial sector I can imagine no other incentive that would compare to money for the people attracted to the industry.

KomradeBishop

The point though, is that disproportionately increasing the 'incentive' (in this case, money), leads to or selects for worse performance - and the evidence backs this.

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

It completely depends on the area we're talking about. If you're working in the financial sector I can imagine no other incentive that would compare to money for the people attracted to the industry.

Well why imagine if there are studies? Look at the Ted talk I linked too. I think the problem is that too many people assume that high money = best performance.

Eugene Norman

Candie wrote: »

It completely depends on the area we're talking about. If you're working in the financial sector I can imagine no other incentive that would compare to money for the people attracted to the industry.

In which case it's clearly attracting psychopathic incompetents.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well why imagine if there are studies? Look at the Ted talk I linked too. I think the problem is that too many people assume that high money = best performance.

I wasn't implying the highest financial incentives resulted in the best performances, just that people attracted to working in finance are probably likely to do so by the money that can be commanded by some.

kowloon

A certain troll should be on this thread shortly.

KomradeBishop

I'm reminded of the title of William K. Black's book on banking fraud (he helped put thousands of bank fraudsters in prison, in the 80's Savings & Loans crisis) - which seems apt here:
The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One: How Corporate Executives and Politicians Looted the S&L Industry.

macrho12

I think the best person to ask this question to is Enda Kenny!

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

I wasn't implying the highest financial incentives resulted in the best performances, just that people attracted to working in finance are probably likely to do so by the money that can be commanded by some.

Oh yea people will be attracted to it but not necessaries the most competent people IMHO.

Roquentin

It is easier to rob by setting up a bank than by holding up a bank clerk.
~ Bertolt Brecht

KomradeBishop

Candie wrote: »

I wasn't implying the highest financial incentives resulted in the best performances, just that people attracted to working in finance are probably likely to do so by the money that can be commanded by some.

They're attracted to finance probably because it's a very privileged industry - with a significant wage advantage over the rest of the economy; you just have to put your personal ethics/morals aside is all.

Right now the entire industry is receiving a massive subsidy in the form of Quantitative Easing, and how that is inflating asset prices - which predominantly the wealthy and financial sector hold.

Dyr

steddyeddy wrote: »

A quote from Lawrence of Arabia for those who don't know. Basically I wonder is there an established connection between paying large amounts of money to bankers and people like consultants and performance?

According to Dan Pink large financial incentives have the opposite effect and decrease productivity. If a person is attracted simply for the money are they the best person for the job? I think no.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y

If thats another bleedin ted talk you can fook off with it

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

They're attracted to finance probably because it's a very privileged industry - with a significant wage advantage over the rest of the economy; you just have to put your personal ethics/morals aside is all.

By its nature it's not going to attract the altruists. The exception is development finance, a tiny portion of the industry.

Desolation Of Smug

Beyond a certain point, the pay packet just feeds the ego, and it's a small jump from ego to egit.

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

By its nature it's not going to attract the altruists. The exception is development finance, a tiny portion of the industry.

But who said altruism is what's needed? The love of the challenge or nature of the job should be the primary concern.

I think there's an element of altruism in many jobs, ones that don't attract people with big payouts. The opposite of finance in other words.

Desolation Of Smug

Candie wrote: »

I think there's an element of altruism in many jobs, ones that don't attract people with big payouts. The opposite of finance in other words.

CEO's generally don't do altruism. They do tend to do L'oreal.

EoghanIRL

I think health care is a good example of this.
The job has high satisfaction levels.
The pay is good too but I see that as a bonus.

Health care for most is a vocation! If you are in it for just the money I think you would be in it for the wrong reasons and possibly not reach your full potential.

My first remark was specifically about those working in the financial sector, an area not known for it's humanitarian values.

I think it's a possibility that certain sectors are more likely to pay large incentives for their execs, since those are the sectors with little to offer the more altruistically inclined and will have offer the lucre instead.

steddyeddy

But it's not just altruism that's needed surely? What about the love of the nature of the job?

Desolation Of Smug

steddyeddy wrote: »

But it's not just altruism that's needed surely? What about the love of the nature of the job?

A lot of people who climb the slippery pole did so simply by covering their ass better than the other ones. "Don't ever be seen to feck up" = Big money.

KomradeBishop

Candie wrote: »

My first remark was specifically about those working in the financial sector, an area not known for it's humanitarian values.

I think it's a possibility that certain sectors are more likely to pay large incentives for their execs, since those are the sectors with little to offer the more altruistically inclined and will have offer the lucre instead.

This altruistic vs self-interested idea doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Does it not seem more likely, that the financial sector pays more simply because it is in a privileged position which allows it to profit more, off the back of the rest of society?

The idea that there is a good/logical/moral reason for the high pay in finance, seems a bit close to committing the Just-World Fallacy.

dxhound2005

steddyeddy wrote: »

A quote from Lawrence of Arabia for those who don't know. Basically I wonder is there an established connection between paying large amounts of money to bankers and people like consultants and performance?

According to Dan Pink large financial incentives have the opposite effect and decrease productivity. If a person is attracted simply for the money are they the best person for the job? I think no.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y

Invented quote from an invented scene in an invented film. No historical evidence that it was ever said in real life.

http://www.telstudies.org/discussion/film_tv_radio/lofa_or_sid_3.shtml

47 Lawrence and Allenby

Invented scene - no historical basis
■
Allenby becomes fatherly 'Tell me what happened'. Allenby then plays on Lawrence's vanity. Lawrence knows he is being manipulated, but cannot escape. He agrees, bitterly, to go back

■
Lawrence says that the Arabs won't be coming for money, but for Damascus, which he'll give to them. And he'll get to Damascus before Allenby 'and when we've got it, we'll keep it.' This begins another false trail in the drama: 'the race to Damascus'

■
The false portrayal of Allenby here - doubtless driven by Bolt's personal agenda - drew strong protests

■
Allenby promises all the money there is. Lawrence, full of his own importance, replies: 'The best of them won't come for money. They'll come for me.'

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

But it's not just altruism that's needed surely? What about the love of the nature of the job?

No, not just altruism - although in some sectors it's common.

The people who perform best are those who want to do well for the sake of it, whether thats for selfless reasons - assuming there really are such things as selfless acts, financial ones, or simply for the love of the work.

The biggest rewards in life are rarely financial anyway, not just professionally either, in my humble.

Iwasfrozen

steddyeddy wrote: »

But it's not just altruism that's needed surely? What about the love of the nature of the job?

The biggest motivator for a lot of people is increasing social status. Finance is only one aspect but necessary one.

Geniass

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Does it not seem more likely, that the financial sector pays more simply because it is in a privileged position which allows it to profit more, off the back of the rest of society?

What? How is it off the back of society?