Executive Pay rises 41%, worker pay 1%
Discussion
DJRC said:
Pay at the bottom will never increase either fast or by much by simple definition of how the system works. We tried that in the 60s and 70s...it destroyed large swathes of manufacturing in the face global competition.
Not strictly true. In the 60s and 70s there were many more nationalised industries in the UK than there is now, in the 70s in particular inflation was so out of control people demanded payrises in order to catch up with and beat it, which was perfectly reasonable in itself. What did you expect them to do? Theres about a dozen things which destroyed the way the UK did business after the war, we were not ready for globalisation generally, it's simplistic to suggest it was all due to paying people at the bottom too much.But like you said this is a system which means the rich get richer while the poor are forced to stay poor because anything else would 'ruin the system.' Its hard to work out why people are fed up of the system
martin84 said:
But like you said this is a system which means the rich get richer while the poor are forced to stay poor because anything else would 'ruin the system.' Its hard to work out why people are fed up of the system
Exactly - if 90% of the people think the "system" isn't working for them, why should they be concerned about upsetting it?Randy Winkman said:
martin84 said:
But like you said this is a system which means the rich get richer while the poor are forced to stay poor because anything else would 'ruin the system.' Its hard to work out why people are fed up of the system
Exactly - if 90% of the people think the "system" isn't working for them, why should they be concerned about upsetting it?TTwiggy said:
Personally, I think you need to have psychopathic tendencies to succeed in business. Which explains a lot about some posters on here 
Neat one liner which will appeal to hippies but in reality it's not real even with a smiley tagged on.Business success means having an idea which can be turned into a product or service that gains the permission of the marketplace, to have that idea is one thing then to get permission requires all sorts of ingredients - sometimes including fortuitous timing but always requiring various skills, effort and measured risk taking.
On a personal level to doing business, a workable recipe would be to decide what you want to do, work out what you need to do it, and then pay the price. After all that the marketplace will decide, whether or not you agree with it.
Of the few who get to third base very few are ultimately prepared to pay, and that's fine but then they'll need a job from somebody who is prepared (or the results of somebody who once did).
turbobloke said:
otolith said:
AstonZagato said:
Just out of interest, do you think shareholders ought to have binding votes that govern shop floor pay?
Perhaps public sector pay negotiations should be decided by binding taxpayer referenda?
turbobloke said:
Randy Winkman said:
martin84 said:
But like you said this is a system which means the rich get richer while the poor are forced to stay poor because anything else would 'ruin the system.' Its hard to work out why people are fed up of the system
Exactly - if 90% of the people think the "system" isn't working for them, why should they be concerned about upsetting it?TTwiggy said:
Personally, I think you need to have psychopathic tendencies to succeed in business. Which explains a lot about some posters on here
Neat one liner which will appeal to hippies but in reality it's not real even with a smiley tagged on.Business success means having an idea which can be turned into a product or service that gains the permission of the marketplace, to have that idea is one thing then to get permission requires all sorts of ingredients - sometimes including fortuitous timing but always requiring various skills, effort and measured risk taking.
On a personal level to doing business, a workable recipe would be to decide what you want to do, work out what you need to do it, and then pay the price. After all that the marketplace will decide, whether or not you agree with it.
Of the few who get to third base very few are ultimately prepared to pay, and that's fine but then they'll need a job from somebody who is prepared (or the results of somebody who once did).
http://www.thepowerindex.com.au/guidebook/are-busi...
If I said..
Pay at the bottom is the fundamental ingredient of competitiveness with international production costs per unit ...and pay at the top is part of the profits that are generated due to beating international competition by achieving low unit costs, bigger market share and low administrative costs.
Would I be correct?
Pay at the bottom is the fundamental ingredient of competitiveness with international production costs per unit ...and pay at the top is part of the profits that are generated due to beating international competition by achieving low unit costs, bigger market share and low administrative costs.
Would I be correct?
TTwiggy said:
There's lots of it about in the blogosphere, not much worth spending time on though.Politicians
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&a...
http://www.viewzone.com/politicians.html
Judges and Lawyers
http://johnclarkprose.com/links-to-courts-judges/i...
Surgeons
http://duncantrussell.com/forum/discussion/2421/ar...
bobbylondonuk said:
Would I be correct?
Life is always good at the top. Show me a system that isn't like this. For those right at the bottom, unless they have ownership in the company (quite unlikely) then it will be case of being paid unit cost for that type of work. I think this is a separate issue from the shareholder democracy.fido said:
Life is always good at the top. Show me a system that isn't like this. For those right at the bottom, unless they have ownership in the company (quite unlikely) then it will be case of being paid unit cost for that type of work. I think this is a separate issue from the shareholder democracy.
I dont think so...Share holders want the business to be the best investment for their own benefit. They pay people at the top out of the profits for certain targets to hit. What those targets are...that is an internal matter and none of us are privy to it.The people at the bottom are the workhorses and will always be kept at a lower cost to beat the competition. That is the only way the shareholders can beat other businesses.
Crying foul about the top pay by the general public or the workers at the bottom is irrelevant. The shareholders pay the top pay out of profits that the top people generate by managing the business in a competitive environment.
Regarding Shareholder democracy...it is not legally binding to oppose the remuneration board. It could be that way in the future...but as we speak it is not! Suppose it was binding...Unless the shareholders are as good as the workers at the top, how would they know about the effort and risk taken to achieve certain pre-set targets?
You could give a moron an AK47...and you could give a trained soldier the same weapon. Two very different results!
bobbylondonuk said:
Unless the shareholders are as good as the workers at the top, how would they know about the effort and risk taken to achieve certain pre-set targets?
Well that is the job of the executives to explain how and if they have achieved certain targets. Ultimately the shareholders will decide if they are being appropriately rewarded or should continue in those roles. To say "how would they know ..." is a bit arrogant - the power relationship is the other way round.To return to this thread after a few days away because Ive received some more details.
Over the last 3 weeks, I have put up 3 job positions in the employment section. All 3 are for "workers", trained and experienced yes, but workers, not middle or senior management. The lowest paid of those was about £70k for a yr, the middle was worth about £100k depending on what you did with taxes and the other was well north of £150k tax free.
All for workers.
Over the last 3 weeks, I have put up 3 job positions in the employment section. All 3 are for "workers", trained and experienced yes, but workers, not middle or senior management. The lowest paid of those was about £70k for a yr, the middle was worth about £100k depending on what you did with taxes and the other was well north of £150k tax free.
All for workers.
DJRC said:
To return to this thread after a few days away because Ive received some more details.
Over the last 3 weeks, I have put up 3 job positions in the employment section. All 3 are for "workers", trained and experienced yes, but workers, not middle or senior management. The lowest paid of those was about £70k for a yr, the middle was worth about £100k depending on what you did with taxes and the other was well north of £150k tax free.
All for workers.
I'll take the last one - can I do it from home?Over the last 3 weeks, I have put up 3 job positions in the employment section. All 3 are for "workers", trained and experienced yes, but workers, not middle or senior management. The lowest paid of those was about £70k for a yr, the middle was worth about £100k depending on what you did with taxes and the other was well north of £150k tax free.
All for workers.
Snowboy said:
Fittster said:
The UK has the some of the worst social mobility in the world. You'll finish just where you started.
Oh no it doesn’t.Well, it depends very much on what scale you look at actually.
You might not be able to go from the son of a miner to become landed gentry, but it’s relatively easy for the miners son to end up being a white collar bank manager.
It’s very possible for the son of factory worker to become a company director earning 80k+ per year.
The UKs social scale is very broad and in general people might not be able to move far along it – but you don’t need to move far to have huge change in lifestyle.
The opportunities for personal advancement and self progression are huge, and there are almost no barriers.
Education is free to A-level standard, and open to all at degree standard (even if it does mean a loan)
It might be hard to jump from working class to middle class to upper class.
But you can certainly go from £15k per annum working class to £50k+ per annum working class without needing to have a rags-to-riches film made about your amazing success.
That sort of thing happens every day.
Social mobility is a two way process for those who want to keep using the phrase, so when Social Mobility is being described by think tanks etc as low it can also mean that there should be some powerful/wealthy who lose their money or influence too.
This si required to allow the likes of a coal miner's child to move up from the local bank manager to the CEO of BarLloyds because the Eton educated other candidate has proved he is not worth more than being a bank manager.
The implication in recent years is that downward social mobility is now rarer than at any time since the 18h century.
Thats bad for everyone if only because it implies that the status quo is the desire of our society which implies in turn that we will not progress as a nation.
And that is why having a CEO be paid despite doing a bad job is bad for our nation. Its not socialism in the slightest, it is in fact capitalism at its best.
This si required to allow the likes of a coal miner's child to move up from the local bank manager to the CEO of BarLloyds because the Eton educated other candidate has proved he is not worth more than being a bank manager.
The implication in recent years is that downward social mobility is now rarer than at any time since the 18h century.
Thats bad for everyone if only because it implies that the status quo is the desire of our society which implies in turn that we will not progress as a nation.
And that is why having a CEO be paid despite doing a bad job is bad for our nation. Its not socialism in the slightest, it is in fact capitalism at its best.
Mikeyboy said:
This si required to allow the likes of a coal miner's child to move up from the local bank manager to the CEO of BarLloyds because the Eton educated other candidate has proved he is not worth more than being a bank manager.
That example doesn't sound very plausible. A more likely example of downwards social mobility would be those kids of wealthy people who squander their opportunities - don't work hard at school, drop out somewhere between sixth form and their second year at university, never hold down a job for long, repeatedly run up debts which they expect the Bank of Mum and Dad to settle for them. Unless their parents are rich and daft enough to leave them enough money to remain independently wealthy for another generation, they and their kids will slide down.otolith said:
Mikeyboy said:
This si required to allow the likes of a coal miner's child to move up from the local bank manager to the CEO of BarLloyds because the Eton educated other candidate has proved he is not worth more than being a bank manager.
That example doesn't sound very plausible. A more likely example of downwards social mobility would be those kids of wealthy people who squander their opportunities - don't work hard at school, drop out somewhere between sixth form and their second year at university, never hold down a job for long, repeatedly run up debts which they expect the Bank of Mum and Dad to settle for them. Unless their parents are rich and daft enough to leave them enough money to remain independently wealthy for another generation, they and their kids will slide down.The term is used to describe when a lack of talent is not in fact a bar to keeping your position over and above those with the possibility to be more succesful in the same role. For an example please look to the likes of Adam Crozier, who despite a string of high powered jobs has done little to make a mark, or prove he is worthy of better jobs, and yet he gets them. Why not give another more ambitious person a chance?
There you can see that Social mobility HAS to be a two way street or otherwise the opportunities at the top within a fixed framework. (i.e. a company) are withheld from the talented.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff