BBC Pay

[Bobsbeer]

Am I the only one who thinks the world has gone mad when I look at the pay of some of the so called stars?  Personally I feel disgusted reading the figures being quoted.  How society values people is beyond me.  We seem to be happy to pay £millions to windbags on the radio and those kicking windbags around a lawn, yet deny those who save lives a decent living.  Crazy.  Yes I understand that they are in a marketplace and they get paid what the market pays, but the market has got it's head in the clouds.  I would also bet my yearly salary that they could get a replacement for Matt Baker and a good looking confident female to take Alex Jones place for less than £100k.  Save £600k along the way and reduce my TV licence by a few quid.  I'm not even going to say anything about Chris Evans.  Totally disgraceful.

[thebishman]

Yes i was taken back by some of the salaries.

I completely agree with your opinion of the unfairness when comparing salaries to people who save lifes. The soldiers at the bottom of the rank structure in afghan/iraq earned a measley 20 odd grand a year...would you stand infront of incoming bullets/bombs for that??

Yet just talk a load of rubbish on a radio station can earn you half a million a year!!

However, no matter what we say...its life isnt it

[Bobsbeer]

Glad it's not just me. I think it's down to numbers. Society seem happy to pay £millions for one TV/Radio star, but baulk at £billions to pay for people putting their life on the line. They only need a few radio presenters, but they need thousands of soldiers and nurses. Strange that they can advertise and get thousands to put their life at risk for £20k yet the BBC think they need to offer £2million to chat about shit on the radio. I'll do it for £80K. Available now.

[Edge]

Sadly people don't care what a soldier/teacher/nurse gets paid.
What they do care about is watching/listening to a famous person, they may talk tripe and have little to no talent but they are famous.
Sad but true.
Celebrity makes them much more important that someone with the ability to contribute to society.

[*-SARIN-*]

Unfortunately you will get paid well if:

1) You can do something that a limited number of other people can.
2) You are willing to do something that other people don't want to.

As for the soldier argument there are a few things to point out here too:

1) Any able bodied person can be a soldier, it requires no qualifications unless you are going into a specialist role. A librarian by comparison has to have A-Levels which not everyone is able to achieve.
2) They chose to do that job knowing the risks and salary beforehand.

Don't think for a minute that i think that this is right but there are reasons that these people earn what they do.

[thebishman]

Jul 19, 2017 19:17:26 GMT *-SARIN-* said:

Unfortunately you will get paid well if:

1) You can do something that a limited number of other people can.
2) You are willing to do something that other people don't want to.

As for the soldier argument there are a few things to point out here too:

1) Any able bodied person can be a soldier, it requires no qualifications unless you are going into a specialist role. A librarian by comparison has to have A-Levels which not everyone is able to achieve.
2) They chose to do that job knowing the risks and salary beforehand.

Don't think for a minute that i think that this is right but there are reasons that these people earn what they do.

Hi sarin great to see you on here again

I disagree with the "anyone can be a soldier mindset" bit.

Most regiments with any form of trade skill require good qualifications..i wouldnt call that specilialist.

Also..."even" infantry solidiers need to be super fit and pass alsorts of exams to become a solider. Plus they require a big pair of bollox to go with them.

Yes they may know the risks and the salary...but i for one do not take that for granted that they still join up. Amazing people

[Chrissie]

Jul 19, 2017 17:51:54 GMT Bobsbeer said:

Am I the only one who thinks the world has gone mad when I look at the pay of some of the so called stars?  Personally I feel disgusted reading the figures being quoted.  How society values people is beyond me.  We seem to be happy to pay £millions to windbags on the radio and those kicking windbags around a lawn, yet deny those who save lives a decent living.  Crazy.  Yes I understand that they are in a marketplace and they get paid what the market pays, but the market has got it's head in the clouds.  I would also bet my yearly salary that they could get a replacement for Matt Baker and a good looking confident female to take Alex Jones place for less than £100k.  Save £600k along the way and reduce my TV licence by a few quid.  I'm not even going to say anything about Chris Evans.  Totally disgraceful.

Couldn't agree more - what a crazy world it has become. How the heck can a TV/radio presenter/footballer be worth so much more than a nurse, doctor etc?

[Bobsbeer]

Jul 19, 2017 17:51:54 GMT Bobsbeer said:

 I would also bet my yearly salary that they could get a replacement for Matt Baker and a good looking confident female to take Alex Jones place for less than £100k.  Save £600k along the way and reduce my TV licence by a few quid.  I'm not even going to say anything about Chris Evans.  Totally disgraceful.

I think my argument is won on this one.  A soldier may get paid £20k, and put him/herself in harms way.  Yes they know what they were signing up for, and they don't on the whole need mega qualifications.  Pray tell me what academic qualifications Chris Evans, Matt Baker or Alex Jones needed to apply for their job?  None I would guess.  You are right *-SARIN-* a librarian is probably better academically qualified than those three.  I don't agree that they are the best for the job.  They had the best managers or agents.

I find it funny that those in the industry think that salaries will go up as a result of the revelations.  Somehow I thing the opposite will be the result.  Or at least I hope so.  Personally I would say sack the lot of them and have a competition to replace them.  Somehow I think they would find some great talent at a decent price.

[Edge]

Jul 19, 2017 21:23:51 GMT Bobsbeer said:

Jul 19, 2017 17:51:54 GMT Bobsbeer said:

 I would also bet my yearly salary that they could get a replacement for Matt Baker and a good looking confident female to take Alex Jones place for less than £100k.  Save £600k along the way and reduce my TV licence by a few quid.  I'm not even going to say anything about Chris Evans.  Totally disgraceful.

I think my argument is won on this one.  A soldier may get paid £20k, and put him/herself in harms way.  Yes they know what they were signing up for, and they don't on the whole need mega qualifications.  Pray tell me what academic qualifications Chris Evans, Matt Baker or Alex Jones needed to apply for their job?  None I would guess.  You are right *-SARIN-* a librarian is probably better academically qualified than those three.  I don't agree that they are the best for the job.  They had the best managers or agents.

I find it funny that those in the industry think that salaries will go up as a result of the revelations.  Somehow I thing the opposite will be the result.  Or at least I hope so.  Personally I would say sack the lot of them and have a competition to replace them.  Somehow I think they would find some great talent at a decent price.

The programs they are on sell for millions world wide. They bring lots of money into the BBC. In real terms they cost the BBC peanuts.
Having a competition for new presenters is a slippery slope, think big brother, I'm a celebrity etc etc.

How much they are paid and how much talent they have are not connected in most presenting jobs.
I may not agree with their pay but that's because I'm not getting it.
As soon as the BBC realises that what they really need is a middle aged greying, bearded, grumpy man I'm in with a shout (fingers crossed). I'd take the wage happily.

[Bluefish]

Well at least CE pays half that back in tax, that the Gov give back to the beeb, so it don't actually cost what it costs.

[Bobsbeer]

I totally agree that the BBC need talented people, but to me it is obscene to pay one person £2.2million. Or to say that he is four times better than other presenters who are paid £500k, which is still an obscene amount to pay someone to sit on a couch. They should have a cap of £200k, like it or leave. Go to ITV, go to Amazon.
And to be honest, good luck to them. There will be many standing in line to do the job for £200k. That is still a lot of money to do the job that they do.

I blame the BBC management for allowing such outrageous sums to be paid. I hope the knock on effect of all this will be a reduction across the the board. I'm sure Chris Evans is a very nice person, but he ain't worth paying £2.2million to see on TV or hear on the radio. We need a reality check and think long and hard on what is important in life.

[Bobsbeer]

[fagin]

Stop watching/listening to people and they'll get paid less.

So really, it's all YOUR fault.

[Bobsbeer]

I don't watch or listen to Chris Evans but he still gets paid about 55 times more than me. Hate to think what he would get paid if I were to listen to him.

[VapingBad]

It's like "what's new?" only you can now put names to wads who don't have Jimmy Carr's accounts number. Most of use would take the money if we could and most of would work extra hard to do so, so is it friends getting them in, luck or something else because it is not easy to get to that level. Though it is very strange the meh level of most of them, but also quite subjective and it mainly comes down to bums on seats (who they believe bring the punters in). IMO life's far too short to care about this, we are not talking about keeping a hospital going kind of money.