Are Cleaners more valuable than Bankers?

[GumbyLearner]

I think a lot of this surveys problem is timing.

This is a recently released study. And I think the natural response of most (including myself is to not be too happy with financial capitalists.)

If this study was released 12 or 18 months earlier when all these people such as boardroom bankers were asking for government handouts (taxes from ordinary people to rescue them from their OWN over-leveraged greed-blinded decisions) it would have had a much greater effect.

It's a nonsense really! Just as much as this sociologist post-trauma academic lady's conclusions are.

Nice after f**K study IMVHO.

It really makes you wonder who is actually involved. As if sensible people who opposed bailouts should have been ignored in the first place.

 

[Macquack]

Are Cleaners more valuable than Bankers? I voted Yes.

Cleaners clean up for everybody, bankers just clean everybody up and clean them out.

 

[Naked shorts]

Well,

Do you really have to have basically the same display picture as me?

No but seriously.

 

[Naked shorts]

hmmm 44% think yes, great to see the ignorance out there.. please let me take the other side of all your trades

 

[Smurf1976]

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.

Banking is certainly valuable and necessary, but bankers in the generally accepted context of the term are another matter. Simply providing a banking service doesn't involve armies of people speculating, creating money out of thin air and the like and that's the sort of thing many, myself included, take exception to.

For years we've heard arguments against state-run entities, how "competition" is so wonderful, how free markets will save us and so on. Sorry guys, but that's crashing down in a big way now as we see "competitive" markets pushing prices up, not down, destroying real industry and welath in the process. And that's without even mentioning the GFC.

Bottom line is the great experiment of letting bankers run the world has demonstrably failed, requiring the very thing the bankers argued against (government) to bail them out. And now we're seeing more and more smaller failures of the same system around us.

Look around you and see what's happened. We kicked out the engineers, scientists and so on and put bankers in charge. Now the roads are falling apart, the trains don't work, we're running out of water, we're stuck in a communications backwater and the power grid is ready to fall over as well. Meanwhile we've lost most of our productive industry and locally owned companies whilst accumulating a mountain of debt. That is the legacy of bankers running the world.

The bankers have done a very, very poor job of running Western countries and Australia is no exception. What engineers, scientists and general workers spent over a century building up, bankers have effectively destroyed in a few short years in the pursuit of profits which ultimately evaporated amidst the GFC. Lose, lose and lose again as far as anyone other than the bankers themselves is concerned.

 

[Macquack]

Good post Smurf1976

Look around you and see what's happened. We kicked out the engineers, scientists and so on and put bankers in charge. Now the roads are falling apart, the trains don't work, we're running out of water, we're stuck in a communications backwater and the power grid is ready to fall over as well. Meanwhile we've lost most of our productive industry and locally owned companies whilst accumulating a mountain of debt. That is the legacy of bankers running the world

.

Infrastructure is becoming an obsolete word as there is no short term money to be made in producing something of long term value to the public.

At the end of the day, bankers produce nothing of tangible benefit to society.

 

[Julia]

Good post Smurf1976

.

Infrastructure is becoming an obsolete word as there is no short term money to be made in producing something of long term value to the public.

The wasted money that went into producing a short term spike in retail figures with the $900 handouts could have much better been used for infrastructure.

 

[Dowdy]

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?

well, i think i'm more qualified to talk about this then anyone else here.

I'm a childcare worker. In the extreme minority of a straight male working in childcare. You get paid crap but you don't do it for the money. You do it because you love working with children and helping people is one of the most satisfying experiences

Seeing a child walk, talk and not to mention the great presents you get from the parents

Teachers do get alot of holiday time (childcare workers only get 4 weeks) but it's one of the most stressful jobs out there and the job of a teacher doesn't finish at 3:30 everyday.

My motivies are clear and not money driven.

As for community value, if there were no childcare workers, then you'll have alot of parents forced to stay home and the economy will feel the effects of only 1 source of income.
Next year they'll feel the effects more as child:teacher ratio of childcare workers will be improved. That's great news for the childcare workers but only in the short term. For the not-for-profit centres, they have to raise their daily fee of $5 to pay for the extra worker employed and some centres are raising their fees by $20/day. I wouldn't be surprised if some parents decided to keep their kids home instead but they (childcare workers) obviously don't see the effects to their job if there are no kids to care for...

 

[Mr J]

Do you really have to have basically the same display picture as me?

No but seriously.

It's not like I chose it with you in mind - I looked, and that is what I liked.

Banking is certainly valuable and necessary, but bankers in the generally accepted context of the term are another matter. Simply providing a banking service doesn't involve armies of people speculating, creating money out of thin air and the like and that's the sort of thing many, myself included, take exception to.

Would banking exist without bankers?

For years we've heard arguments against state-run entities, how "competition" is so wonderful, how free markets will save us and so on. Sorry guys, but that's crashing down in a big way now as we see "competitive" markets pushing prices up, not down, destroying real industry and welath in the process. And that's without even mentioning the GFC.

I don't recall any free markets, but then I might have dozed off for an hour or so. Without competition, Telstra would be even worse than it is, and it is horrible. How do you know how high or low prices would otherwise be? Perhaps state-run services may have lower prices, but subsidised through tax?

Look around you and see what's happened. We kicked out the engineers, scientists and so on and put bankers in charge. Now the roads are falling apart, the trains don't work, we're running out of water, we're stuck in a communications backwater and the power grid is ready to fall over as well. Meanwhile we've lost most of our productive industry and locally owned companies whilst accumulating a mountain of debt. That is the legacy of bankers running the world.

This is nothing new, as bankers have held their positions of influence for centuries. As for those problems, why blame bankers? Why not blame politicians and yourselves for not demanding better?

Lose, lose and lose again as far as anyone other than the bankers themselves is concerned.

That's actually a great deal for them, as their relative wealth skyrockets. Again, don't blame them, blame those who don't do anything about it, which is almost everyone.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

There is no difference in IQ or money management skills between a cleaner and a banker.

Luck decides who does what and how much they are respectively paid.

I know some bankers and cleaners and without knowing which were which, one would be none the wiser. In fact one cleaner has his own cleaning business and drives an X5. That does rather demolish my argument I realise as X5's are thrash anyway.

A Cartoon.

gg

 

[Macquack]

This is nothing new, as bankers have held their positions of influence for centuries. As for those problems, why blame bankers? Why not blame politicians and yourselves for not demanding better?

Mr j, do you blame the police for crime?

 

[Mr J]

Mr j, do you blame the police for crime?

I don't think that is an appropriate analogy. That said, police (the higher ups at least) are partly to blame for poor policies. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks that police could be put to better use by not chasing down 3km/h over the limit offenders.

 

[Smurf1976]

Would banking exist without bankers?

In the context that I'm using the term "banker", the answer is basically "yes". Providing a basic banking service doesn't require that anyone end up with several times the world GDP in derivatives that nobody properly understands.

I don't recall any free markets, but then I might have dozed off for an hour or so. Without competition, Telstra would be even worse than it is, and it is horrible. How do you know how high or low prices would otherwise be? Perhaps state-run services may have lower prices, but subsidised through tax?

Agreed we don't have free markets. But think about these:

Electricity. We let low cost plant sit idle, or worse still burn fuel and dump steam straight into condensers (a total waste of the fuel burned), in order to force the use of high cost plant and thus push prices up. Meanwhile we import second hand plant from New Zealand and elsewhere, run clapped out old plants belching CO2 and so on because all the money got wasted playing silly games.

That's adding real costs and vandalising the natural environment for no reason other than to suit the ideology of turning a natural monopoly into a "competitive" market. And with the huge price rises coming through across the country, it's not as though there's been much actual benefit in it all.

Now we're seeing the same with household water supply. Lots of obvious things that can be done that any engineer can see. But instead we get the banker mentality - make it scarce and then charge a fortune for it rather than just fixing the problems.

Transport's the same too. Lots of rational ideas on how to best move things about with rail, road, water and air. Instead we run the trains to the ground and put everything on the roads. Then we close perfectly good roads in order to force traffic onto selected roads that just happen to be owned by the bankers. That's what I'd call an outright scam...

This is nothing new, as bankers have held their positions of influence for centuries.

Indeed they have. But prior to the 1980's, infrastructure decisions were generally left to engineers who tended to focus on the long term rather than the short. Then the banking types rose to prominence in the 80's and 90's, promptly putting a stop to such long term planning because it didn't deliver an immediate profit.

That's actually a great deal for them, as their relative wealth skyrockets. Again, don't blame them, blame those who don't do anything about it, which is almost everyone.

Can't argue about that. Australians seem to be very easily fooled on such matters and, with the odd exception, don't do anything about it.

 

[Julia]

Now we're seeing the same with household water supply. Lots of obvious things that can be done that any engineer can see.

Smurf, could you outline how the household water supply issue could be fixed?

 

[Smurf1976]

Smurf, could you outline how the household water supply issue could be fixed?

It's a bit off topic but the basic process and engineer would do is as follows:

1. Seek an external decision as to how reliable the water system should be. It can never be 100% under all circumstances, but should restrictions be a 1 in 50 year event? Or should it be 1 in 20? 1 in 10? 1 in 100? That's the first key thing to work out.

2. Do the math on present consumption and supply infrastructure to determine the supply / demand situation (actual demand, as opposed to consumption with compulsory restrictions) with respect to the reliabiltiy criteria in point 1. This will in most Australian cities show that supply reliability is inadequate.

3. Identify all possible sources of additional water supply. New dams, stream diversions into existing storages, long distance pipelines with or without storage, stormwater recycling, black water recycling, desalination etc.

4. Identify means of reducing actual demand (as opposed to consumption). Forecast the likely actual consumption levels for the next 30 years based on this.

5. Based on the above, compile a list of all practical options to balance supply and demand thus achieving the reliability criteria. Rank these in order of cost. Also rank in order of preference due to any other relevant factor (eg environment).

6. In the event that the lowest cost option is not considered unsuitable on other grounds, commence construction.

7. In the event that the lowest cost option has significant non-cost disadvantages, the political process will need to make the decision.

8. Problem fixed once construction is completed.

9 Continue to monitor system capability (might vary due to changing climate etc) and consumption levels to identify any need for additional infrastructure based on long term (30 year) forecasting. Initiate the process to evaluate and construct if/when the need to do so is identified with sufficient time to get them built before they are actually needed, noting that the present storage position will be a key determinant of the future construction timetable (that is, delay it if there's a flood, bring forward if a drought).

10. There are very few cities in Australia, certainly none of the state capitals, where this process would not result in a reliable water supply being delivered. Technically there are so many options it's hard to form a preference without a proper evaluation. The scarcity situation is a man-made construct of the political / financial system and not something that needs to exist from an engineering perspective.

Same applies to transport, energy and so on.

Want a x% cut in CO2 emissions? An engineer will just go away, work it out and come back with rough details and costs. If those results lead to broader support for the idea, they'll go back and get the details and costs worked out more accurately. Then we start doing whatever it is that needs to be done. Problem fixed - at a cost that the engineer will have minimised within the limits of available technology and resources.

But a banker, on the other hand, will devise a means to make themselves rich from concern about CO2, with any actual reduction in emissions occurring only to the extent that those who have handed their money to bankers can no longer afford to buy fuel with which to pollute. Sound familiar?

Same with transport. Faced with overcrowding on trains, an engineer will look at getting bigger trains, running them faster, encouraging travel outside peak periods, building more tracks and so on. A banker will just put fares up such that many people can no longer afford to travel by train.

I'm not against banks or banking, they are a necessary service. But I'm not at all keen on seeing everything done not for the service of the public, but for the profits of the bankers.

We need a better balance - there's nothing wrong with private profit, but not to the point that we start ruining entire industries and systems to benefit very few.

 

[Julia]

Thanks, Smurf. It all seems so obvious, really.

The area where I live seems tohave ticked most of your suggestions. The dam wall was raised well ahead of the projected expanded population, it receives whatever rain and run off is going, and it's now probably three years since we have had any restrictions, other than 'do not use sprinklers between 10am and 2pm'. Even after about four months of no rain, the dam was still at around 80%.

So maybe this is a good example of something working well when engineers were in charge and bankers kept out of it.

 

[Smurf1976]

So maybe this is a good example of something working well when engineers were in charge and bankers kept out of it.

Indeed.

Bankers and their ilk will point out that the engineers' solution involves spending significant sums of money on new works and that this will need to be recovered from consumers. Indeed that is correct.

However, what is missed is that the bankers will instead create a market where one would otherwise not exist and that, due to shortage, this market will have prices higher than the cost of simply supplying the service. That cost will also be passed onto consumers, but they get no improvement in service in return for their money.

Water, power, transport etc all the same. Faced with a problem, both the engineers and bankers will both seek to increase charges that is true. But the engineers will use the money to fix or at least improve the situation whilst the bankers will work out means to trade and speculate upon it.

When the bankers and their ilk gained influence during the 1980's we had plenty of power, plenty of water, the trains worked and toll roads were rare.

A couple of decades later and the power grid runs on a knife edge under perfectly foreseeable circumstances, water restrictions are permanent, trains are unreliable and toll roads are a fact of life for many. Meanwhile prices for these things are soaring not at CPI, not at 5 or 10%, but in huge 20 to 60% leaps in many cases.

What, exactly, has been achieved by letting the bankers run our key infrastructure? Other than profit for a few, I can't see too many benefits.