Do bankers deserve the pay they receive? And should government do something to limit how much they get?

This is a very topical question in light of the recent financial crisis. A simple answer might be that since banks are generally private firms and workers are free to work where they wish, then the pay they receive is just the outcome of a competitive labour market. In this story, bankers earn a lot because they are very skilled and have rare talents. It is hard to see a reason for government intervention in this case – though on equity grounds one may want to have a progressive income tax system that redistributes some of this income. A good candidate would wonder why it is that seemingly equivalently talented people can get paid so much more in banking than in other occupations. Do we really believe that bankers are so much better than other workers in terms of skill? An alternative story is that the banking industry is not competitive and generates profits above what a competitive market would produce. This would then allow workers in that industry to share some of those profits and so earn much more. In this case, there is a role for government intervention - making the market more competitive. The key point about this question is trying to get candidates to think about the economics of pay rather than just whether they think it is fair or not.

은행가들이 받는 페이는 합당한가? 정부가 그들의 페이를 제한해야하는가?

단순히 보면 그들의 페이는 경쟁적인 노동시장의 결과다. 그들이 뛰어난 기술을 갖췄기 때문에 그렇게 많이받는다. 따라서 정부가 간섭할 여지가 없다. 하지만 좋은 후보자는 왜 동등한 기술을 갖췄는데 은행업분야에서 특히 많은 돈을 받는지에대해 의문을 가질것이다. 그들이 정말로 다른 노동자들보다 뛰어난 기술을 가졌는가? 대체적인 이야기는 은행산업이 경쟁적이지 않고 경쟁적인 시장이 생산하는것보다 더큰 이윤을 만들어낸다. 이것이 은행업에 종사하는 노동자들이 많은돈을 받게한다. 이러한 경우에, 정부가 간섭할 여지가 생긴다.- 시장을 더 경쟁적으로만들기.

요약:정부가 고소득자를 규제해야된다. 특히 은행업같이 경쟁적이지 않은 분야에대해

https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/applying-to-oxford/guide/interviews