A letter to the editor of the Financial Times asks the right
> questions.
>
> "What is so special about bankers?
>
> Sir, Andrew Hill repeats what seems to be the new commonplace: that we
> need the right kind of bonus system, what he calls "incentives for
> success" ("Fear of rewarding failure mustn't curb pay for success",
> Lombard, FT.com March 4). =A0What this seems to mean is that we need to
> pay extra to get people to do their jobs to the best of their
> abilities. =A0I don't imagine Mr Hill gets a bonus for consistently
> writing as well as he does. =A0I read his column while waiting to see a
> consultant rheumatologist: he doesn't get a bonus, but it's always
> seemed to me as his patient that I couldn't ask more from him.
>
> During my working life I've been a naval officer, a school teacher, a
> university lecturer, and now I'm a barrister. =A0I've never been in a
> bonus scheme, but that fact has never made me work any the less hard. >
> I can see the argument for bonuses in demanding manual occupations
> where =A0straightforward output is the only test, but in highly socially
> valued, professional jobs? =A0Can anyone tell me what it is about
> bankers and others like them that they have to be paid extra to get
> them to do their best?"
Why should people get paid millions of dollars to drive a car on a track or play games? why should a teacher get paid more than the parents of the kids they teach? Why should a computer programmer get paid more than a train conductor? Why should robin Williams get paid more than the surgeon who will fix his heart?
It all has to do with the value of the product to the people who are buying.
Financial institutions are in a special caragory because their services are so important and so central to our financial system. That doesn't mean that they should get millions more than teachers or doctors.
Jeff