Executive Pay rises 41%, worker pay 1%
Discussion
Snowboy said:
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.
50 or 80 £K is not hugely different to 15/20/25K though - your lifestyle would be pretty well the same, just with slightly less sWell, 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.
t versions of things.The thread is talking about people who get paid £5M per year. That's two lifetime's earnings for someone on £50K.
Hmm, work hard on the factory floor and you'll make it to the board room:
• Social mobility hasn't changed since the 1970s - and in some ways has got worse. For every one person born in the 1970s in the poorest fifth of society and going to university, there would be four undergrads from the top fifth of society. But if you were born in the 1980s, there would be five
• 24% of vice-chancellors, 32% of MPs, 51% of top Medics, 54% of FTSE-100 chief execs, 54% of top journalists, 70% of High Court judges …went to private school, though only 7% of the population do
• Education is an engine of social mobility. But achievement is not balanced fairly - for the poorest fifth in society, 46% have mothers with no qualifications at all. For the richest, it's only 3%
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/may/2...
• Social mobility hasn't changed since the 1970s - and in some ways has got worse. For every one person born in the 1970s in the poorest fifth of society and going to university, there would be four undergrads from the top fifth of society. But if you were born in the 1980s, there would be five
• 24% of vice-chancellors, 32% of MPs, 51% of top Medics, 54% of FTSE-100 chief execs, 54% of top journalists, 70% of High Court judges …went to private school, though only 7% of the population do
• Education is an engine of social mobility. But achievement is not balanced fairly - for the poorest fifth in society, 46% have mothers with no qualifications at all. For the richest, it's only 3%
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/may/2...
Intelligence is to a large degree heritable. Being brought up by parents who are educated and who value education will tend to improve your chances. Being brought up in a house with books, and in a house with parents who are willing and able to pay for more and better education than the state provides will tend to improve your chances.
None of this means that talent and hard work can't foster social mobility.
None of this means that talent and hard work can't foster social mobility.
It is right that the top earner in a firm is the person who takes the responsibility for the running of the firm, though this should always be linked with also being the person who stands the most to lose form very poor performance.
The bigest disconnect over the last few years has been that their pay has become without any risk and has grown over and above the growth of the company itself.
When people suggest that its all for the good of the workers in the long run it enfuriates me. The workers themselves may just like the short term benefit of a share of the payrise that the bos has been awarded. It would probably come to a little more than the 1% of their average 16k and that would still probably leave the boss with quite a bit of a raise, and a salary which is I believe more than ten times the average workers.
The bigest disconnect over the last few years has been that their pay has become without any risk and has grown over and above the growth of the company itself.
When people suggest that its all for the good of the workers in the long run it enfuriates me. The workers themselves may just like the short term benefit of a share of the payrise that the bos has been awarded. It would probably come to a little more than the 1% of their average 16k and that would still probably leave the boss with quite a bit of a raise, and a salary which is I believe more than ten times the average workers.
Start at the bottom, just do your job and go home, moan about your lot and winge about low/no pay rises = stay at the bottom.
Start at the bottom, work hard and aspire to better things. Show an interest in the job/company. Study to improve yourself. Negotiate a better wage or move to a better paid job = Working your way up the ladder, improving your lot!
Simples!
Start at the bottom, work hard and aspire to better things. Show an interest in the job/company. Study to improve yourself. Negotiate a better wage or move to a better paid job = Working your way up the ladder, improving your lot!
Simples!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Nail on the head.Reminds me a bit of this story. They [rioters] could take what they wanted but left the books!
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/get-london-reading/...
Fittster said:
Hmm, work hard on the factory floor and you'll make it to the board room:
• Social mobility hasn't changed since the 1970s - and in some ways has got worse. For every one person born in the 1970s in the poorest fifth of society and going to university, there would be four undergrads from the top fifth of society. But if you were born in the 1980s, there would be five
• 24% of vice-chancellors, 32% of MPs, 51% of top Medics, 54% of FTSE-100 chief execs, 54% of top journalists, 70% of High Court judges …went to private school, though only 7% of the population do
• Education is an engine of social mobility. But achievement is not balanced fairly - for the poorest fifth in society, 46% have mothers with no qualifications at all. For the richest, it's only 3%
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/may/2...
Work hard on the shop floor and your son or dau might make it to the boardroom.• Social mobility hasn't changed since the 1970s - and in some ways has got worse. For every one person born in the 1970s in the poorest fifth of society and going to university, there would be four undergrads from the top fifth of society. But if you were born in the 1980s, there would be five
• 24% of vice-chancellors, 32% of MPs, 51% of top Medics, 54% of FTSE-100 chief execs, 54% of top journalists, 70% of High Court judges …went to private school, though only 7% of the population do
• Education is an engine of social mobility. But achievement is not balanced fairly - for the poorest fifth in society, 46% have mothers with no qualifications at all. For the richest, it's only 3%
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/may/2...
The trouble with social mobility is you have to have society willing to buy into it. You have to have society willing to flog their knackers off to achieve it.
The Uk offers the means of as much social and economic mobility as anywhere else in Europe. Which of course Im sure you would know because you have lived and worked in Europe right? America? Far East? Im sure you have some experience to bring to bear upon the subject? I mean, you cant really be as dumb as to just quote something off the internet can you? Again.
Fittster said:
Hmm, work hard on the factory floor and you'll make it to the board room:
• Social mobility hasn't changed since the 1970s - and in some ways has got worse. For every one person born in the 1970s in the poorest fifth of society and going to university, there would be four undergrads from the top fifth of society. But if you were born in the 1980s, there would be five
the wonder of a system that pays people NOT to do well in life. Why work hard to do better for yourself when you can do no work and still get given stuff for free • Social mobility hasn't changed since the 1970s - and in some ways has got worse. For every one person born in the 1970s in the poorest fifth of society and going to university, there would be four undergrads from the top fifth of society. But if you were born in the 1980s, there would be five
Fittster said:
• 24% of vice-chancellors, 32% of MPs, 51% of top Medics, 54% of FTSE-100 chief execs, 54% of top journalists, 70% of High Court judges …went to private school, though only 7% of the population do
showing that working hard, and being dedicated pays off- of the 120 people in my year at private school- teh vast majority (think 85-90%) had parents who made significant sacrifices to send them there. The parents worked their butts off. Fittster said:
• Education is an engine of social mobility. But achievement is not balanced fairly - for the poorest fifth in society, 46% have mothers with no qualifications at all. For the richest, it's only 3%
So what you are saying is that the poorest section of the society choose not to take advantage of the free educatino and oppotunities they have and somehow that's the richest's fault?
my experience of people with no qualifications (having employed a LOT of them) is that they just couldn't be arsed at school and about 10 yaers later they really start to regret that!
You have two things you are confusing here.
One is are top leads of tour biggest companies being paid according to their performance, and the answer is no- they are being paid ahead of performance.
and
Are people at the bottom of society unfairly disadvantaged. I would say yes they are are, but only because we have created a welfare dependant underclass with no motivation any more to better themselves. they have all the oppotunities, but no impetus to grab those oppotunities.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
No, it isn't fair. But would it be fair to compensate them for their lack of intelligence or confidence? You can get away with little education if you are willing to improve yourself and build up a skillset or professional qualifications. Yes, some jobs require a degree etc. but that's always going to be the case.anonymous said:
[redacted]
Ultimately that comes down to whether the boss can get the 20% elsewhere and whether the company can adequately replace him easily with someone who can't. Supply and demand, if an employee's skills are in high supply relative to demand, he's not going to be able to ask a premium.anonymous said:
[redacted]
This is what PH fails to realise. We cant all be Ferrari driving executive directors with seven houses and an awful attitude towards the less well off. For a forum which likes to bang on about economics, it shows horrific niavity to suggest any economy would work without people on all branches of the tree. Even if 100% of the population were good enough for these big jobs there'd never be enough of them for all those people to have one.Its not just simply about working hard and being clever, I wish it was that simple because that'd mean we live in a much nicer world.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
True. After all the boss wouldn't earn anything if it werent for the numerous people lower down in the company. Its when these directors making hundreds redundant or claim theres no money to give payrise and then pay themselves 20% extra is when the piss is being well and truly taken. Hardly surprising the public don't like such individuals and in these economic times their payslip is in the public interest.Going back to football, what are the chances Roberto di Matteo was paid as much as Andre Villas-Boas? Slim to nil, I'd guess. While a sample size of two is ridiculous I'd say there's some validity to the argument that football managers' pay (across many examples at the truly globally competitive level) has little bearing on results or ability.
Far too much money sloshes around at that level with next to no accountability (not just at Chelsea).
Far too much money sloshes around at that level with next to no accountability (not just at Chelsea).
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Not to mention Brighton and Leeds.............Some memorable results from his sojourn on the South Coast -
Brighton and Hove Albion 2 Bristol Rovers 8
Brighton and Hove Albion 0 Walton & Hersham (who?) 4
I think this illustrates another point though. Sometimes the man at the top has a huge positive influence and changes the fortunes of a business (or club) as Cloughie undoubtedly did at Derby and Forest. Sometimes he screws up bigtime. The difference in UK companies is that he seems to get a whopping pay increase win, lose or draw.
fido said:
No, it isn't fair. But would it be fair to compensate them for their lack of intelligence or confidence? You can get away with little education if you are willing to improve yourself and build up a skillset or professional qualifications. Yes, some jobs require a degree etc. but that's always going to be the case.
You view basic payrises for basic workers as compensation for being thick? God this website makes my veins boil. We're not talking about giving factory floor cleaners £100,000 a year, just proportionate rises to how the company has done. If they can pay the CEO another £50,000, why cant they afford to give those lower down another £500 a year?KaraK said:
I lack the talent to drive a car as well as Lewis Hamilton - is it fair that he should earn many times my wage to drive one?
Pathetic strawman not worthy of taking up valuable internet space, and you know it.otolith said:
Ultimately that comes down to whether the boss can get the 20% elsewhere and whether the company can adequately replace him easily with someone who can't. Supply and demand, if an employee's skills are in high supply relative to demand, he's not going to be able to ask a premium
Of course they'll be able to replace him, these are glorified administrator's we're talking about here, not astronauts. Theres always people willing to work for a lot of money, theres always going to be somebody who can do the job. Such roles are limited in number so one of them would have to take it. Glaxo can only have so many bosses before they don't need any more. They can't all walk out the door and go 'I'll get 20% more elsewhere' because they wont, elsewhere will run out of vacancies eventually.The scenario you've just described though demonstrates perfectly why Europe is going left. What you've just described is pretty vile, it may be reality but its vile all the same and it doesn't take Einstein to figure out why people might not like it.
Social Mobility aside, the issue I have with Executive pay increases like this is that nothing is getting better, in fact most things are getting worse. The products companies produce, the services they provide , how they look after their workforce (paypacket aside). It doesn't matter that a situation exists where 'If you could do it for yourself you would' as the fact remains these poeple are (for the most part) self serving scum and it would seem that the executive elite are raping the companies they are at the helm of to the detriment of the people working there, and in many cases to their customers too.
If one is to generalise (with all the inherent inaccuracies that has) the quality of most things is rocketing downwards, after sales or after care service has never been so piss poor in this country, the pay of the top flight of exacutives is rocketing up and the pay of the workforce is remaining the same, infact in real terms it's decreasing.
It's not an easy situation to fix either, I'm no supporter of socialism as we can currently see where thats got us, but neither can the rampant full ahead, lets squeeze the very last pennies out of you bds and damn the torpedos attitude to profit be allowed to continue, as I can't see how this race to the bottom is sustainable. Although how you stop it I'll freely admit I have no idea, I doubt even that it's possible with out somekind of economic holocaust, which if some doom mongers are to be believed we ay yet see.
I used to work for an extremely large software company, who made a huge song and dance about how they'd saved a huge sum of cash by using their own software. They did save some money doing that, but most of the figure that the ceo , well lets just call him PT Barnham, said he'd saved was through cut backs, no pay rises , redundancies etc etc. We even got emails and a letter from HR saying sorry no payrises as we believe the cost of living hasn't risen this year at one point. I wish i'd kept my copy as you couldnt make it up. Moral when I left wasn't high. (this was before the reccesion as well)
My point is that this total smoke and mirrors bullst by these execs who then grant themselves these disproportionate payrises (which the shareholders should have the sense to say no to) is utterly outrageous when they expect the mere employee to step up to the plate 'for the good of the company' every time.
The mantra of CEOs and top executives is "the workforce, you're our greatest asset! the workforce, you're our greatest asset! fk you get out."
If one is to generalise (with all the inherent inaccuracies that has) the quality of most things is rocketing downwards, after sales or after care service has never been so piss poor in this country, the pay of the top flight of exacutives is rocketing up and the pay of the workforce is remaining the same, infact in real terms it's decreasing.
It's not an easy situation to fix either, I'm no supporter of socialism as we can currently see where thats got us, but neither can the rampant full ahead, lets squeeze the very last pennies out of you b
ds and damn the torpedos attitude to profit be allowed to continue, as I can't see how this race to the bottom is sustainable. Although how you stop it I'll freely admit I have no idea, I doubt even that it's possible with out somekind of economic holocaust, which if some doom mongers are to be believed we ay yet see. I used to work for an extremely large software company, who made a huge song and dance about how they'd saved a huge sum of cash by using their own software. They did save some money doing that, but most of the figure that the ceo , well lets just call him PT Barnham, said he'd saved was through cut backs, no pay rises , redundancies etc etc. We even got emails and a letter from HR saying sorry no payrises as we believe the cost of living hasn't risen this year at one point. I wish i'd kept my copy as you couldnt make it up. Moral when I left wasn't high. (this was before the reccesion as well)
My point is that this total smoke and mirrors bulls
t by these execs who then grant themselves these disproportionate payrises (which the shareholders should have the sense to say no to) is utterly outrageous when they expect the mere employee to step up to the plate 'for the good of the company' every time. The mantra of CEOs and top executives is "the workforce, you're our greatest asset! the workforce, you're our greatest asset! f
k you get out."
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff