83,240
edits
Loyalty discount: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
But over those periods, good employees get ''better''. They learn things, they gain experience. They build networks. They bat themselves in. They may see less able, less loyal coworkers forge ahead with lateral moves. | But over those periods, good employees get ''better''. They learn things, they gain experience. They build networks. They bat themselves in. They may see less able, less loyal coworkers forge ahead with lateral moves. | ||
===Tiny violins?==== | |||
Now, none of this is to defend, much less justify, city pay levels which, however you look at them, are absurd. | |||
So should we shed tears about relative disfavour among a group as systematically overcompensated as city drones? We should not. And we do not. But we should understand the [[systemantic]] forces at play. | |||
City pay is what it is. The multinationals are still remarkable [[flywheel]]s: they generate extraordinary returns despite being staffed with mediocrity. They might generate more if they looked after good staff.Fundamentally, the deployment of capital to investment — this is what the financial services machine, at a basic level, does — is a very risky, important and therefore valuable thing. Historically, markets that have most effectively allocated capital have done best. It is painful to concede but hard to deny: for at least a century, our American friends have been the best. | |||
In any case those who are good at it stand to make a lot of money. This will not change. It is worth paying for. | |||
The [[JC’]]s operating premise is that those who do get to do it — and the [[agency problem|remoras, nits and flukeworms]] who accompany them as they go — do ''not'' do nearly as good a job of it as they should. Our [[roll of honour]] refers. | |||
The longer good staff stay, the worse, generally, they are treated. Their only way to correct this — to [[mark-to-market|mark yourself to market]] — is to [[lateral quitter|leave]]. This seems a bit mad. | The longer good staff stay, the worse, generally, they are treated. Their only way to correct this — to [[mark-to-market|mark yourself to market]] — is to [[lateral quitter|leave]]. This seems a bit mad. | ||