When Bankers were good
Discussion
chimster said:
Really fascinating programme, and good to see such generosity of spirit aimed at those less fortunate. Interesting so see that Peabody only gave to those who were willing to help themselves, not the 'feckless'. Good watch.
Interesting that he appeared to be the only one with that atitude. Also interesting that, apart frpm Peabody, the other philantrophists were driven by strong Christian beliefs - and that a lot of them were Quakers.Large employers having a wider responsibility than just their shareholders was quite a common atitude up until the end of the 1970s. Even if companies or rich individuals did not give their money away, they often had a very caring atitude to their workforce, with housing, welfare and entertainment schemes set up for the workers. You only have to look at all the clubs and societies that were set up as part of schemes to "improve the life of the staff". Such an atitude completely disappeared in the 1980s.
I wonder what happened?
Perhaps the drive towards "efficiency" in the 1980s and the emphasis on businesses becoming "lean and mean" resulted in the bosses becoming very much fixated on the "mean" aspect - except when it came to rewarding themselves, of course.
I was at a talk by an expert on the history of money a while ago and he mentioned something about how businesses had moved away from owner(family) runners to runners. People who had no real connection to the business, just bosses who moved it. Something to do with removing that from the pool made the current situation. I can only vaguely remember.
Every business now is so desperate for the bottom line, to squeeze maximum profit and headhunting people who will ruthlessly follow this principle.
There was a line on the news yesterday about how shortly differences in wages will hit Victorian levels
Every business now is so desperate for the bottom line, to squeeze maximum profit and headhunting people who will ruthlessly follow this principle.
There was a line on the news yesterday about how shortly differences in wages will hit Victorian levels
Halb said:
I was at a talk by an expert on the history of money a while ago and he mentioned something about how businesses had moved away from owner(family) runners to runners. People who had no real connection to the business, just bosses who moved it. Something to do with removing that from the pool made the current situation. I can only vaguely remember.
Every business now is so desperate for the bottom line, to squeeze maximum profit and headhunting people who will ruthlessly follow this principle.
There was a line on the news yesterday about how shortly differences in wages will hit Victorian levels
Absolutely true and one of my firmly held beliefs.Every business now is so desperate for the bottom line, to squeeze maximum profit and headhunting people who will ruthlessly follow this principle.
There was a line on the news yesterday about how shortly differences in wages will hit Victorian levels
When a business is run by people who have a passion for the actual business itself, good things generally happen.
Frederick Handley Page and Geoffrey de Havilland did not start building aeroplanes to please their shareholders, They did so because they had a burning desire to design and build better and better aircraft.
When the business is run by people who only appreciate bottom line figures and personal reward, we have the foundations of the current disastrous mess we have ended up in.
Eric Mc said:
I wonder what happened?
Perhaps the drive towards "efficiency" in the 1980s and the emphasis on businesses becoming "lean and mean" resulted in the bosses becoming very much fixated on the "mean" aspect - except when it came to rewarding themselves, of course.
What were the taxation rates at the when this banker charity occurred? If taxation is high and there is a welfare state, provision of education, a health service, housing and so on, then we are not comparing moral like with like in any way.Perhaps the drive towards "efficiency" in the 1980s and the emphasis on businesses becoming "lean and mean" resulted in the bosses becoming very much fixated on the "mean" aspect - except when it came to rewarding themselves, of course.
The modern welfare state substitutes charity for enforced collection and distribution in this regard.
(Re)dit to correct quotes.
Edited by 0a on Wednesday 23 November 10:49
0a said:
Eric Mc said:
I wonder what happened?
Perhaps the drive towards "efficiency" in the 1980s and the emphasis on businesses becoming "lean and mean" resulted in the bosses becoming very much fixated on the "mean" aspect - except when it came to rewarding themselves, of course.The modern welfare state substitutes charity for enforced collection and distribution in this regard.
Edit to correct quotes.
Mr_B said:
Many were more than a bit religious and gave a fair chunk of money. I guess there is a downside to people being less religious today.
Religion - for all its faults (and it has many) - does provide a moral bedrock and framework within which people run their lives. Since the 1920s, religion has played less and less of a part in people's lives and for many, this has removed any awareness that perhaps having a moral perspective is a good thing.Indeed, post World War 2 culture has tended to promote "badness" as being the right way to behave and "goodness" as somehow being uncool and not desireable. The very fact that people who try to do good things are pooh-poohed as "do gooders" or "goody goodies" indicates that being good has somehow become bad.
We really do live in a crazy, topsy turvey confused society.
chimster said:
Really fascinating programme, and good to see such generosity of spirit aimed at those less fortunate. Interesting so see that Peabody only gave to those who were willing to help themselves, not the 'feckless'. Good watch.
It was, but they were, relative to the general population, fabulously wealthy people.Peabody's first building cost £22,000 in the 1860's - a straight money comparison puts that at just about £1M. But that building today would probably cost more like £30M, maybe more.
Deva Link said:
chimster said:
Really fascinating programme, and good to see such generosity of spirit aimed at those less fortunate. Interesting so see that Peabody only gave to those who were willing to help themselves, not the 'feckless'. Good watch.
It was, but they were, relative to the general population, fabulously wealthy people.Peabody's first building cost £22,000 in the 1860's - a straight money comparison puts that at just about £1M. But that building today would probably cost more like £30M, maybe more.
chimster said:
The point made earlier about owners not 'runners' is particularly pertinent as they had to convince no one but themselves this was a good idea.
Maybe there are exceptions, but business just doesn't work like that anymore. Eric mentioned Frederick Handley Page and Geoffrey de Havilland but you couldn't start a business building pretty well anything nowadays without significant funding.chimster said:
Can we name any current philanthropists? There must still be a few around surely, didn't I read somewhere that Bill Gates gives away loads? Not sure...
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was getting into difficulty as it was making more money than it was able to give away to maintain its charitable status in the US!There are some UK ones here: http://www.philanthropyuk.org/resources/personal-s... . Sigrid Rausing pictured there is the Tetra-Pak heiress.
Edited by Deva Link on Wednesday 23 November 12:18
I seem to recall from my history lessons that the victorians had a "laissez-faire" approach ie do what you like.
I don't buy the religion = morality argument. I consider myself very moral but haven't an ounce of religion to fetter my logic. I'm sure that religion in Victorian times had greater significance because they needed to believe there was something better than the drudgery they lived in.
Personally, while I have no doubt that there was some degree of philanthropy involved in making the lot of common folk better, let us not forget that the provision of housing meant tied rents, happier and more healthy workers who could work harder and longer and be more grateful and who could produce more children so there was always a ready workforce. It was a business decision as much as anything else and such benefits doubtless came in a package that wasn't really so far removed from the concept of slavery without the actual ownership.
I don't buy the religion = morality argument. I consider myself very moral but haven't an ounce of religion to fetter my logic. I'm sure that religion in Victorian times had greater significance because they needed to believe there was something better than the drudgery they lived in.
Personally, while I have no doubt that there was some degree of philanthropy involved in making the lot of common folk better, let us not forget that the provision of housing meant tied rents, happier and more healthy workers who could work harder and longer and be more grateful and who could produce more children so there was always a ready workforce. It was a business decision as much as anything else and such benefits doubtless came in a package that wasn't really so far removed from the concept of slavery without the actual ownership.
LuS1fer said:
I seem to recall from my history lessons that the victorians had a "laissez-faire" approach ie do what you like.
I don't buy the religion = morality argument. I consider myself very moral but haven't an ounce of religion to fetter my logic. I'm sure that religion in Victorian times had greater significance because they needed to believe there was something better than the drudgery they lived in.
Personally, while I have no doubt that there was some degree of philanthropy involved in making the lot of common folk better, let us not forget that the provision of housing meant tied rents, happier and more healthy workers who could work harder and longer and be more grateful and who could produce more children so there was always a ready workforce. It was a business decision as much as anything else and such benefits doubtless came in a package that wasn't really so far removed from the concept of slavery without the actual ownership.
I wasn't inferring that lack of religion equated directly with lack of morals. The converse is also true - possessing "religion" does not always cobnfer morals.I don't buy the religion = morality argument. I consider myself very moral but haven't an ounce of religion to fetter my logic. I'm sure that religion in Victorian times had greater significance because they needed to believe there was something better than the drudgery they lived in.
Personally, while I have no doubt that there was some degree of philanthropy involved in making the lot of common folk better, let us not forget that the provision of housing meant tied rents, happier and more healthy workers who could work harder and longer and be more grateful and who could produce more children so there was always a ready workforce. It was a business decision as much as anything else and such benefits doubtless came in a package that wasn't really so far removed from the concept of slavery without the actual ownership.
However, if there is a general "atmopshere" around that having a good moral outlook on life is "good", then the corollary will be that bad behaviour is somehow shameful. We do suffer badly these days from a general lack of shame. In other words, people behave whatever way they want to behave, they have no internal "good" or "bad" compass to remind them that perhaps what they are doing may not be such a good thing - either for themselves or for those they affect in life.
In past times religious observance provided that compass. Nowadays, that particular route to finding the "compass" has gone and people are left to their own devices to find it. Indeed, they are educated to believe that they are perfectly within their rights to set their own moral compass. For many people that is fine, as they probably possess a pretty good sense of rightness and wrongness anyway. But there does seem to be an awful lot of people who live in pretty much a moral vacuum - which manifests itself at all levels of life, whether it's rioting in Ealing High Street or awarding themselves a massive bonus for ripping everyone else of.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff