Do I really need to put sarcasm tags?
Fred the Shred != Sir
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
Do I really need to put sarcasm tags?
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
no it's not ok and whilst I haven't lost it yet I am going to be seriously ****ed if they take away my retire at 60 option. Nevermind screwing me for my pension.
That's why in a later post I said both bankers and government need the rot curing.
To be a scapegoat you have to receive unmerited negative treatment or blame. I think in this case the negative treatment is entirely merited.
He's being given far more negative treatment than he has deserved, by a long way.
Really like what? A £700k severance payment and humongous pension that'll mean he'll never go without, unlike the rest of the country who have paid for it. Doesn't sound particularly awful to me.
Why on Earth does that drive you to ask why being left wing creates such unpleasant people, though? Are you prepared to acknowledge that you are far more likely to be either racist, sexist or homophobic if you are of a right leaning persuasion?
I don't doubt that people on the left are 'unpleasant', but if you're going to use a word as wooly as that, then you're just being fallacious, as it can come from anywhere.
He does a job that commands that kind of pay to keep him in the role. Just because the vast majority of us won't get to see that kind of money, does not mean that specific people are not worth that much in important positions.
If the company needs to pay him that much to keep him in the role, as they obviously value the job he does, then that's what he is worth to them. What more is there to it?
Why on Earth does that drive you to ask why being left wing creates such unpleasant people, though? Are you prepared to acknowledge that you are far more likely to be either racist, sexist or homophobic if you are of a right leaning persuasion?
I don't doubt that people on the left are 'unpleasant', but if you're going to use a word as wooly as that, then you're just being fallacious, as it can come from anywhere.
Well, racism, sexism and homophobia come from social authoritarianism, which can apply equally to the economic left and the economic right. So does advocating violence towards those who disagree with you.
The key point is that most of the vocal 'unpleasantness' such as advocating violence against those who disagree with you, seems to be coming from those who lean to the economic left. This is further represented by movements such as Occupy and UK Uncut, who advocate stealing property and disrupting the businesses of people they disagree with. Or, in more simple terms, there is a correlation between social and fiscal authoritarianism, at least among posters on this forum.
Last edited:
I think you need to look up what a severance payment is before I explain what more there is to it.
Still part of the employment terms he agreed to though?
Although to be honest I was just thinking in broader terms about people who complain about big bonuses for those in high-paying jobs (such as the bankers, who currently seem to be in the firing line so much.
[TW]Fox;21162416 said:
Tis a good illustration of how luck plays a big part in things. If Fred the shed hadn't been successful in the bidding war for ABN then RBS would have been in much less trouble.
Conversely, because Barclays, failed to achieve it's aim of buying ABN it was left in a much better position post-crisis.
Essentially if Fred had been less competent in that particular respect then he might still be in
charge of RBS and would still have his Knighthood whereas if Barclays had been successful in that
endeavour then the likes of Bob Diamond would be getting sacked/grilled by parliament. Instead
Bob is king at Barclays, will take home a multi million pound bonus without significant political
pressure to turn it down and part of the reason he's still there is because they failed to achieve
what they intended to achieve regarding the ABN merger. So part of the reason why Fred is
a pariah and Bob is respected these days is simply down to luck.
Last edited:
I'm sure they had a total collapse of the company and a taxpayer funded bailout in mind when they appointed him.
The argument that these high flyers deserve their bumper pay packets because they're so good at it and have a stressful job had some weight before the banking crisis prompted the global economic collapse. Not anymore.