Are Cleaners more valuable than Bankers?

[GumbyLearner]

Cleaners more valuable than bankers

A study by the New Economics Foundation in Britain has found that childcare workers and cleaners contribute more to society than bankers and advertising executives.

The study called A Bit Rich tried to calculate the real value to society of a range of different professions; bankers and cleaners, childcare workers and advertising executives, tax accountants and people who recycle household waste.

On its analysis for every pound or dollar that they earned, hospital cleaners contributed 10 times that amount in benefits to society.

Childcare workers generated seven to 10 times their wages in social and economic benefits, but bankers on million dollar salaries and bonuses actually destroyed social value.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/16/2772911.htm

 

[Nyden]

Ah, but personal value is just so much more important than Social value After all, I doubt very much that even cleaners are doing what they do out of a desire to help others.

 

[WilliamP]

Well each year we send our kids teachers and child care minders a xmas card thanking them for looking after our kids.
I've never sent a bank manager or anyone like that a card. So I guess that's saying something.

 

[Nyden]

Well each year we send our kids teachers and child care minders a xmas card thanking them for looking after our kids.
I've never sent a bank manager or anyone like that a card. So I guess that's saying something.

How can you assume what the motives are for any of them, though? They're not all teachers because they love to guide, and help others. Many may teach for entirely different reasons - in some cases, "selfish" reasons. I know of a few that teach because their corresponding private field was too stressful, and they now enjoy a lot of holiday time.

Work is just that, work. We all have to work - and not every job is of benefit to others. But, who cares about that? Again, would a teacher work for free? Obviously not, because it seems as though they're always going on strike!

What is done outside of work is what is of true value. The article seems to be stereotyping. In that all bankers are evil white-collared blue-bloods, whilst the blue-collars are all saints.

I'm sure many bank managers donate to charity, help out in the local community, and so forth. Now, how many cleaners do you know that do that? I would postulate that very few would. Why? Well, substantially less disposable income is as good a reason as any.

I would really like to see how they came up with those figures as well. Because honestly, I cannot envision any scenario where the lady at the mall with the giant mop is generating 10 times her dollar-paid value. Or, is it only hospital cleaners?

 

[Wysiwyg]

Childcare workers generated seven to 10 times their wages in social and economic benefits, but bankers on million dollar salaries and bonuses actually destroyed social value.

One gives and one takes.
Money lust makes "most" people do "anything" they can get away with. At a certain level of finance; the false friend is near.

 

[Mofra]

I would really like to see how they came up with those figures as well. Because honestly, I cannot envision any scenario where the lady at the mall with the giant mop is generating 10 times her dollar-paid value. Or, is it only hospital cleaners?

Perhaps shopping-centre-cleaning-lady is preventing an outbreak of disease by improving the hygenic conditions of her work environment?

In any case, it's noble that you have tried to defend bank managers. As a former banker, I sure wouldn't be

 

[nomore4s]

Bit easier for a child care worker or cleaner earning $50k a year to give back that amount or multiples of that amount to society then "bankers on million dollar salaries and bonuses" to give that amount of value back to the community.

 

[mazzatelli]

What if we replaced the word "bankers" with "traders"? :
:fan

 

[Mr J]

I don't see the point of the study other than to make a political statement. Regardless of how necessary the service, society doesn't reward such "basic" jobs, and does reward those who make others money. I find "giving back to society" to be quite strange. I understand why someone would feel generous after being helped by another, but would anyone care to explain what we owe to "society"? Infrastructure and services are paid by tax and commerce, but some people will suggest it means more than that. Yes, I benefit from living in a society, but so does everyone else, so do we all owe each other? If we do, then we're even and owe each other nothing. Should we feel like giving back simply because we've succeeded better than most? I'm not a socialist, so while I can understand that perspective, I don't agree with it.

 

[Wysiwyg]

I don't see the point of the study other than to make a political statement. Regardless of how necessary the service, society doesn't reward such "basic" jobs, and does reward those who make others money. I find "giving back to society" to be quite strange. I understand why someone would feel generous after being helped by another, but would anyone care to explain what we owe to "society"? Infrastructure and services are paid by tax and commerce, but some people will suggest it means more than that. Yes, I benefit from living in a society, but so does everyone else, so do we all owe each other? If we do, then we're even and owe each other nothing. Should we feel like giving back simply because we've succeeded better than most? I'm not a socialist, so while I can understand that perspective, I don't agree with it.

It is quite different from the hunter/gatherer tribal days. If you went out with the hunting/gathering party then you had contributed to the tribe. This 'earns' a place within the tribe and worthiness of participating in eating and procreation.

Nowadays, there are numerous tribe members who are busy apportioning themselves a large percentage of tribal contributions. Of course the lower intelligent members don't know money skills so they're easy prey. Tis the coloured paper that makes 'em do it. Tis a trick.

 

[Julia]

I don't see the point of the study other than to make a political statement. Regardless of how necessary the service, society doesn't reward such "basic" jobs, and does reward those who make others money. I find "giving back to society" to be quite strange. I understand why someone would feel generous after being helped by another, but would anyone care to explain what we owe to "society"? Infrastructure and services are paid by tax and commerce, but some people will suggest it means more than that. Yes, I benefit from living in a society, but so does everyone else, so do we all owe each other? If we do, then we're even and owe each other nothing. Should we feel like giving back simply because we've succeeded better than most? I'm not a socialist, so while I can understand that perspective, I don't agree with it.

I'd like to see the protocols of the 'study' to demonstrate how these conclusions were derived. It sounds pretty specious to me, and I essentially agree with Mr J's remarks above.

It is quite different from the hunter/gatherer tribal days. If you went out with the hunting/gathering party then you had contributed to the tribe. This 'earns' a place within the tribe and worthiness of participating in eating and procreation.

So? Today's society is still philosophically based on the hunter/gatherer principle in that we all do whatever we can to contribute to the tribe (society, in the case of the present day).

Moreover, those who contribute the most financially are supporting via their taxes those who contribute nothing financially and require care. That, of itself, imo places a reasonably high value on our high earners, e.g. bankers.

And before we all get so carried away with the immorality of bankers and the saintliness of cleaners and childcare workers, let's remember that the soundness of our banks were one of the reasons Australia came through this GFC so well.

All up, I'd have preferred the researchers, whoever they were, to spend their intellectual endeavours on something a little more worthwhile.

 

[Mr J]

It is quite different from the hunter/gatherer tribal days. If you went out with the hunting/gathering party then you had contributed to the tribe. This 'earns' a place within the tribe and worthiness of participating in eating and procreation.

We still "earn our spot" by getting a job, paying tax for our share of the infrastructure and services.

Nowadays, there are numerous tribe members who are busy apportioning themselves a large percentage of tribal contributions. Of course the lower intelligent members don't know money skills so they're easy prey. Tis the coloured paper that makes 'em do it. Tis a trick.

We've always had hierarchy in society, so nothing has changed. We can look at society as groups of predators and prey (who are often both in turn), but we can also just look at it as typical animal hierarchy.

 

[Wysiwyg]

We've always had hierarchy in society, so nothing has changed. We can look at society as groups of predators and prey (who are often both in turn), but we can also just look at it as typical animal hierarchy.

Yes this is observable in all of nature, but why is the collector of tribal contributions more valuable than the hunter/gatherer?

 

[questionall_42]

HOSPITAL CLEANERS HELP KILL OFF GREEDY PENSIONERS
14-12-09
HOSPITAL cleaners create £10 of value for every £1 they are paid because they help kill off thousands of people who would otherwise be claiming a state pension, according to new research.

The enemy of fiscal surplus The Institute for Studies found that an average hospital cleaner on £15,000 a year can leave enough bacteria-ridden plastic cups lying around to save the taxpayer £150,000 in benefits to frail old ladies with vulnerable immune systems.

Professor Henry Brubaker said: "In a very short space of time a hospital cleaner can generate huge quantities of highly valuable death.

"Investment bankers, on the other hand, live for years after they retire, often in foreign countries where they use up precious local reserves of cheese and brandy."

Martin Bishop, who runs a Porsche dealership in Mayfair, said: "Bankers are useless, though it has to be said that every time I sell a penis substitute to one of these ****nuts it does generate a profit of about twenty thousand quid.

"I then use that to pay people who pay taxes which are then used to pay hospital cleaners to continue with their patriotic acts of genocide."

He added: "Tell you what, the next time a hospital cleaner walks through the door and orders a 911 Carrera, I'll give you a buzz. Then again there's always the chance you'll miss my call because you'll have been dead for 200 years and so will I."

The study examined the economic and social benefit of a range of occupations including:

Investment bankers
Aside from the last 18 months, have been running outrageously successful companies which have generated billions of pounds in corporation tax and will do so again. Still dicks though.

Hospital cleaners
In an example of far-sighted economic planning, are paid very little money to do an unbelievably important job resulting in billions of pounds in unpaid benefits and obscene profits at Co-operative Funeral Care.

Waste recycling workers
Fat, greasy men with no O-levels. For every £1 they are paid they generate another £12 by waiting until you've gone and then stealing your old fridge.

Tax accountants
Best. People. Ever. But where's their parade?

Advertising executives
For every £1 they are paid they defile everything that is good. Unmitigated bastards who should be bulldozed into the sea.

Source: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...help-kill-off-greedy-pensioners-200912142308/

 

[moXJO]

HOSPITAL CLEANERS HELP KILL OFF GREEDY PENSIONERS
14-12-09
HOSPITAL cleaners create £10 of value for every £1 they are paid because they help kill off thousands of people who would otherwise be claiming a state pension, according to new research.


Source: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...help-kill-off-greedy-pensioners-200912142308/

LOL

 

[Mr J]

Yes this is observable in all of nature, but why is the collector of tribal contributions more valuable than the hunter/gatherer?

The collector is likely an elder, who has worked his way up the hierarchy. He may or may not be more valuable - he doesn't provide a service necessary for survival, unlike the hunter, but his tribe may perceive him to be more valuable.

The analogy can't properly relate to modern roles though. You could pick almost anyone off the street and make them a cleaner, but for banking we need a bank. I think nobody will deny that cleaning is a necessary service, but so is banking in the current system. Almost everyone borrows, saves, and transfers money. Banks are necessary and in such high demand that they can charge what they do. I would suggest they're worth what others are willing to pay. Many won't agree, but will also continue to pay these guys . We'd see whether banking is perceived as more valuable than cleaning if banks shut down, resulting in massive unemployment, and no loans for houses, cars and huge tvs.

If we think of society as a food chain rather than as working together (such as a tribe of hunters/gatherers), then social value means absolutely nothing. This is the way I tend to think of society, because I think we act primarily for our own benefit and for those close to us. Yes, many feel social obligations, and I'd love to explore the motivations for those.

 

[Wysiwyg]

If we think of society as a food chain rather than as working together (such as a tribe of hunters/gatherers), then social value means absolutely nothing. This is the way I tend to think of society, because I think we act primarily for our own benefit and for those close to us. Yes, many feel social obligations, and I'd love to explore the motivations for those.

Yeah for sure. In nature we see small groups that exist independent of the species, but are of that species. The strong have a lower mortality rate than the weak. The mainstays are physically or mentally superior. The bankers are supposedly mentally superior but what is laughable is when they command millions of dollars per year in salary. The "value" a small cross section of society (shareholders ?) places on these fellows is extraordinary.

On an infinite level we are all flesh and blood and no amount of money exempts anyone from the multiple circumstances, either good or bad, that evolve every day.

 

[prawn_86]

The reason they can command these wages is that management no longer answer to the shareholders, as the shareholders have no direct connections. Most shares are held through faceless institutions and super companies on others behalf, meaning that those at the very end who get left with the profits/losses do not actually know what shares they own.

Its created something similar to a retail situation where the customer (shareholder) is extremely disconnected from the original supplier (management)

 

[Mr J]

The bankers are supposedly mentally superior but what is laughable is when they command millions of dollars per year in salary. The "value" a small cross section of society (shareholders ?) places on these fellows is extraordinary.

Well, I think it's more a case of society letting this group value themselves. If the amount they are paid is laughable, aren't we all just as laughable for letting it happen? I don't have a problem with it, but then I'd like to become a wealthy trader, and many people would put these two occupations in the same group ("significantly overpaid and not contributing").

 

[OK2]

We all know about Joe Kennedy and the shoeshine boy leading up to the great depression but if you want real insider information then just ask a cleaner. They have unhindered after-hours access to all executive offices and collect the rubbish daily or are asked to shred it first. I have known a few cleaners who worked for an added income during the late 1980's when interest rates went through the roof and most people found paying the mortgage to be difficult. The things they knew were quite eye opening.