Are you 18-30 and financially frustrated?

[amir_j]

Got this in an email and think a few people on here may be interested

http://www.bbc.co.uk/showsandtours/shows/shows/pes...

Are you 18-30 and financially frustrated?
Put your money moans to business guru Robert Peston in a live audience debate.

For over two years this country and the rest of the world has been hit by the biggest financial disaster in half a century. But who's to blame and why does it matter?

Award winning business journalist, Robert Peston, has been at the centre of this storm, unearthing stories of financial greed and mismanagement that affect us all.

In this BBC Three show Robert will be looking at how these issues affect young people. Robert will tackle questions, such as:
Why does my boss earn 100 times more than me and what do they do to deserve it?
How does a bank work and why do we need them?
Does debt really matter and how much debt is dangerous?

This show is unlike anything Robert has done before and is specifically aimed at explaining the basics of money and banking to people under the age of 30.

Please note that throughout the recording you will be asked to contribute and interact with the show. For example, the audience will be asked to give a show of hands if they are in debt.

When you receive your tickets, you will also be asked to email in a money related question that you have for Robert, which may be put to him in the show.

By applying for tickets, you are agreeing to be a contributing member of the audience.

[ShadownINja]

Will he/they just blame greedy bankers as one would expect? Or will it educate people into living within their means?

[Dupont666]

I vote for a PHer group outing and this is the venue...

[jerwatt]

I think it's a combination. People should live within their means (was the way I was brought up [I'm 22]) but there is also something to be said for some people getting paid so much in comparison to some others. It's certainly fair enough to be paid more as a boss as there is more stress etc, but so much more? (I guess also related to things like Premier League footballers etc).

[ShadownINja]

jerwatt said:

It's certainly fair enough to be paid more as a boss as there is more stress etc, but so much more?

If it's private money, I don't care... if I choose to pay the kid next door £50,000 to wash my car, it's my own business. If I chose to pay a footballer £1,000,000 a week of my own money and my cleaner £6000 a year, again, it's my own business. The thing is, can you convince me that it's wrong for a boss to earn 1000x a clerk's salary if it's legitimately earned and to the contract? How dare Tesco charge 95p for Krackerwheat? I shall not buy it.

Don't get me wrong. I'm definitely no greedy banker and really like the idea that the genuine poor have some sort of financial help in this country but providing it's legitimate, I have no qualms with someone earning a million a week. It's a reflection of the freedom and entrepreneurialism that we have in this country.

Edited by ShadownINja on Monday 17th May 17:57

[Ari]

jerwatt said:

It's certainly fair enough to be paid more as a boss as there is more stress etc, but so much more? (I guess also related to things like Premier League footballers etc).

I suppose that market forces must come into this somewhere. If you could find a footballer that plays as well as Beckam but you can pay £20K a year then that's what you do. However you can't, there's effectively a market rate for people of such calibre, so the £20K lad will go elsewhere and earn more. Supply and demand.

However if tomorrow 40,000 people roll up that can play as well as Beckam then the market rate for skills at that level will drop significantly.

Same with corporate salaries I guess. Presumably you only pay £150K a year to a person of a certain standard because if you don't someone else will and you'll have no employee. No one pays big bucks just for fun do they?

[jerwatt]

I understand those reasons, it's not so much something I think would happen realistically, more just a general "it'd be fairer" thought. Not got anything against the person who earns millions, just do they help the company to get 100x more money than the person on 1/100th of their wage? If they do then fair enough, but I disagree that even when the fail they get paid this, plus all the extra bonuses (a lot of the time), when the person who was on 100th of their wage is now out of a job.

[ShadownINja]

jerwatt said:

I understand those reasons, it's not so much something I think would happen realistically, more just a general "it'd be fairer" thought. Not got anything against the person who earns millions, just do they help the company to get 100x more money than the person on 1/100th of their wage? If they do then fair enough, but I disagree that even when the fail they get paid this, plus all the extra bonuses (a lot of the time), when the person who was on 100th of their wage is now out of a job.

I think there are two issues there.

Fair: sure, it isn't fair. Life isn't fair. The clerk should have worked harder at school or networked more or... accept that life is st sometimes.
Bonuses: snag is, their contract stated that if they achieved X then they would be paid Y. It's annoying when they destroy a company and get paid off but that's part of their contract, I expect.

[jerwatt]

ShadownINja said:

jerwatt said:

I understand those reasons, it's not so much something I think would happen realistically, more just a general "it'd be fairer" thought. Not got anything against the person who earns millions, just do they help the company to get 100x more money than the person on 1/100th of their wage? If they do then fair enough, but I disagree that even when the fail they get paid this, plus all the extra bonuses (a lot of the time), when the person who was on 100th of their wage is now out of a job.

I think there are two issues there.

Fair: sure, it isn't fair. Life isn't fair. The clerk should have worked harder at school or networked more or... accept that life is st sometimes.
Bonuses: snag is, their contract stated that if they achieved X then they would be paid Y. It's annoying when they destroy a company and get paid off but that's part of their contract, I expect.

I know things aren't fair, but the debate is to get people's views, and so that would be mine, in the hope it would improve in future (although I doubt whether it ever will).

And yes, it's written into their contract, but again, it's more prefering that it wasn't. As above I doubt it'll ever happen, but would be good if it did.

[ShadownINja]

jerwatt said:

ShadownINja said:

jerwatt said:

I understand those reasons, it's not so much something I think would happen realistically, more just a general "it'd be fairer" thought. Not got anything against the person who earns millions, just do they help the company to get 100x more money than the person on 1/100th of their wage? If they do then fair enough, but I disagree that even when the fail they get paid this, plus all the extra bonuses (a lot of the time), when the person who was on 100th of their wage is now out of a job.

I think there are two issues there.

Fair: sure, it isn't fair. Life isn't fair. The clerk should have worked harder at school or networked more or... accept that life is st sometimes.
Bonuses: snag is, their contract stated that if they achieved X then they would be paid Y. It's annoying when they destroy a company and get paid off but that's part of their contract, I expect.

I know things aren't fair, but the debate is to get people's views, and so that would be mine, in the hope it would improve in future (although I doubt whether it ever will).

And yes, it's written into their contract, but again, it's more prefering that it wasn't. As above I doubt it'll ever happen, but would be good if it did.

I don't know if it would be better. I can see the positives on the face of it, like you, but could it restrict opportunity and entrepreneurialism, thus affecting the economy? Would jobs such as chauffeurs, cleaners, babysitters and dog walkers be reduced because the rich have less money?

[SmoothRB]

No but I am sexually frustrated.

[Dupont666]

jerwatt said:

I understand those reasons, it's not so much something I think would happen realistically, more just a general "it'd be fairer" thought. Not got anything against the person who earns millions, just do they help the company to get 100x more money than the person on 1/100th of their wage? If they do then fair enough, but I disagree that even when the fail they get paid this, plus all the extra bonuses (a lot of the time), when the person who was on 100th of their wage is now out of a job.

how many people do you know that is on 10k that has a direct boss that is on 1 million or is just provoking the fact that someone could be on 1 million in the company?

Say you are tea boy on £10k and the owner is on £1 million are you honestly trying to say that is not fair and you demand/deserve a better wage in the name of equality?

I can see that happening... yep siree bob!!

[jerwatt]

Dupont666 said:

jerwatt said:

I understand those reasons, it's not so much something I think would happen realistically, more just a general "it'd be fairer" thought. Not got anything against the person who earns millions, just do they help the company to get 100x more money than the person on 1/100th of their wage? If they do then fair enough, but I disagree that even when the fail they get paid this, plus all the extra bonuses (a lot of the time), when the person who was on 100th of their wage is now out of a job.

how many people do you know that is on 10k that has a direct boss that is on 1 million or is just provoking the fact that someone could be on 1 million in the company?

Say you are tea boy on £10k and the owner is on £1 million are you honestly trying to say that is not fair and you demand/deserve a better wage in the name of equality?

I can see that happening... yep siree bob!!

As I said in my post it's not so much a problem with someone earning that money, but just are they contributing that much more to the company? So I doubt the tea boy would be adding that amount to the company, but someone else low on the pay scale might be giving far more value to the company relatively. And I'm not saying their direct boss would be on that, more meaning CEOs etc. As I said it's generally unrelistic but it would be nice.

It's not really going to affect me as if I pass my exams I'll be earning a very good wage, just more the overall system.

SmoothRB said:

No but I am sexually frustrated.

So am I, but now's not the place for it!

[Yelly]

Dupont666 said:

jerwatt said:

I understand those reasons, it's not so much something I think would happen realistically, more just a general "it'd be fairer" thought. Not got anything against the person who earns millions, just do they help the company to get 100x more money than the person on 1/100th of their wage? If they do then fair enough, but I disagree that even when the fail they get paid this, plus all the extra bonuses (a lot of the time), when the person who was on 100th of their wage is now out of a job.

how many people do you know that is on 10k that has a direct boss that is on 1 million or is just provoking the fact that someone could be on 1 million in the company?

Say you are tea boy on £10k and the owner is on £1 million are you honestly trying to say that is not fair and you demand/deserve a better wage in the name of equality?

I can see that happening... yep siree bob!!

I can see a tea boy getting fired!

[dictys]

The Owner might have well been the tea boy at an earlier stage of his career.

Work hard and you will be rewarded.

[JRM]

amir_j said:

By applying for tickets, you are agreeing to be a contributing member of the audience.

You can bet your a*se I'll be a contributing member in any audience that left wing sensationalist moron

[sday12]

dictys said:

Work hard and you will be exploited.

EFA

[Yelly]

sday12 said:

dictys said:

Work hard and you will be exploited.

EFA

Don't be a tea boy then. No one is forcing you.