Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2
Discussion
768 said:
Carl_Manchester said:
I will come back to Melissa Mayer, $365 million USD for 5 years work.
Fair play to her for getting that deal and the people who signed it off are morons however, my point is there is little value society as a whole will obtain from those types of pay deals and she is not the first or the last person to be paid well in excess of what the people in her team are.
Does society really want or need someone to be paid that much when the average salary is approx $80-90k USD per year ?
Yahoo's a $5bn company even now. But it was only sliding one way when they took Marissa on, who'd already made $300m at Google. Yahoo's stock price nearly tripled when they hired her. Presumably they paid for the best person they could and the fact it still has some value after acquiring Tumblr (WTF?!) is probably of some credit to her.Fair play to her for getting that deal and the people who signed it off are morons however, my point is there is little value society as a whole will obtain from those types of pay deals and she is not the first or the last person to be paid well in excess of what the people in her team are.
Does society really want or need someone to be paid that much when the average salary is approx $80-90k USD per year ?
If she'd been able to put Yahoo back in the race with Google it would've been an absolute bargain. For $80k you're not even taking a stab at doing that, you may as well have folded the company in 2012.
While Jeremy Corbyn may consider it newsworthy and right-on, comrade, to whine about fat cats, he really ought to examine the value for public money from the thin tw*t in his mirror and put that right first before attacking uses of private money to appease a) chippy envyists whose lives haven't quite turned out as they'd wished (and it's somebody else's fault) and b) guilt sodden champagne socialists living on another planet.
This comment from Corbyn about only using companies whose CEO earns <£330k would be interesting if followed through.
I used to work for the MoD and I wonder where they would buy their stuff.
British Aerospace - Nope (£935,000)
VSEL - Nope (part of BAE)
Land Rover - Nope (£4.5M)
Leyland Trucks - Nope (part of Paccar [$1.1M])
You can only imagine the alternatives!!
Pick someone from this list who has a CEO earning less than £330k and they could be the next supplier of the nation's next military runaround...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_...
The obvious solution for the bidders would be to setup a small company with a CEO paid below the threshold just for the contract....
"Hello, I'm Joe the CEO of Leyland Trucks of Bolton Ltd. We are a very small company who can supply you with trucks from a much bigger company called Leyland Trucks Ltd."
"How much do you earn Joe?"
"£329,999 pa"
"Joe, you've got the contract."
"Great, I'll just tell my boss - I mean, I'll start the ball rolling. By the way, did I tell you, we only add 10% to the cost of the big company's trucks?"
I used to work for the MoD and I wonder where they would buy their stuff.
British Aerospace - Nope (£935,000)
VSEL - Nope (part of BAE)
Land Rover - Nope (£4.5M)
Leyland Trucks - Nope (part of Paccar [$1.1M])
You can only imagine the alternatives!!
Pick someone from this list who has a CEO earning less than £330k and they could be the next supplier of the nation's next military runaround...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_...
The obvious solution for the bidders would be to setup a small company with a CEO paid below the threshold just for the contract....
"Hello, I'm Joe the CEO of Leyland Trucks of Bolton Ltd. We are a very small company who can supply you with trucks from a much bigger company called Leyland Trucks Ltd."
"How much do you earn Joe?"
"£329,999 pa"
"Joe, you've got the contract."
"Great, I'll just tell my boss - I mean, I'll start the ball rolling. By the way, did I tell you, we only add 10% to the cost of the big company's trucks?"
Marissa Mayer deserved to earn millions for her early work at Google, not just with Adwords but for the Google homepage too. If homepage design was part of her remit, and she developed the 'just a search box and a logo' design then she contributed hugely to the success of Google.
As for her career as a CEO...don't get it. She never had a vision for Yahoo! and as a result was incapable of ever delivering her remit. Yeah Yahoo! was always going to be a tough gig, but she was all over the place with no consistent approach and no big ideas.
Her pay does NOT reflect her value. Anyone who argues otherwise needs to have a long talk with themselves in a quiet room.
As for her career as a CEO...don't get it. She never had a vision for Yahoo! and as a result was incapable of ever delivering her remit. Yeah Yahoo! was always going to be a tough gig, but she was all over the place with no consistent approach and no big ideas.
Her pay does NOT reflect her value. Anyone who argues otherwise needs to have a long talk with themselves in a quiet room.
pingu393 said:
This comment from Corbyn about only using companies whose CEO earns <£330k would be interesting if followed through.
I used to work for the MoD and I wonder where they would buy their stuff.
Not a problem, can you see Corbyn ever actually authorising use of military force?I used to work for the MoD and I wonder where they would buy their stuff.
768 said:
If she'd been able to put Yahoo back in the race with Google it would've been an absolute bargain. For $80k you're not even taking a stab at doing that, you may as well have folded the company in 2012.
Yes, I agree, my point about $80k vs $60m per year is not that you would look to pay a CEO $80k but the gap is so huge now between those two figures, that if you attach that behaviour to the hollowing-out of the middle class jobs/wage stagnation then social cohesion starts to dis-integrate and social unrest will follow. The following is from a presentation on U.S jobs by Citigroup, I don't have one for the U.K to hand, for the purposes of discussion assume they are going to be similar.
You can clearly see the problem, unless you are a senior manager or a computer expert, you are screwed. Not only that, the wage increase differential is large and is growing larger.
From the discussion in other threads here and other threads on PH you will also spot that the jobs to the left are also at risk of another thing - automation.
So, Corbyn is right to shine the spotlight on wages but he cannot seem to address the elephant in the room which is the collapse for living standards and availability of manufacturing and middle-class jobs, instead he scores an epic own goal from which I can't see him now recovering from, it is simply a question of waiting it out until he fails at the next general election and someone with half a brain takes over the Labour party.
No great surprise that the market increasingly values scientists, computer expertise, engineers, etc. and even management over food prep, sales, construction, etc. is it? Especially as scientists, computer experts and engineers are reforming those sectors to enable more to be done by fewer.
johnxjsc1985 said:
768 said:
computer experts and engineers are reforming those sectors to enable more to be done by fewer.
when the Fewer becomes so few that nobody has a job who is going to buy "Stuff" ?.More people and less jobs - something will have to change eventually.
As an aside, on another forum I proposed a rolling enslavement and murder of the lower classes to keep the population down, they would, in effect, become property of the state and would undertake most tasks in return for a bed, three meals a day and an orange romper suit to work in, this, I feel, would be good for the economy and the environment in the long run.
I thought about creating a detailed manifesto on the subject (the dystopian bit, not the universal benefit bit) and posting it on N,P&E but I was worried about being labelled a left wing pussy so I decided against it.
Edited by FN2TypeR on Thursday 12th January 13:29
I tend to think that this "automation will leave millions without a job" threat is akin to the Victorian fear that the streets of London would be nine feet deep in horse manure. Things change. The world adapts. Jobs are destroyed and other created. There was a slide earlier that showed how people had moved from farmers to be truck drivers. Jobs will morph into something else. Maintaining the robots. Loading the automated trucks. Digging the roads for them to go on.
That's not to say there won't be social upheaval - the closure of the mines showed us who divisive and destructive change can be. But there will be things for people to do.
That's not to say there won't be social upheaval - the closure of the mines showed us who divisive and destructive change can be. But there will be things for people to do.
johnxjsc1985 said:
768 said:
computer experts and engineers are reforming those sectors to enable more to be done by fewer.
when the Fewer becomes so few that nobody has a job who is going to buy "Stuff" ?.johnxjsc1985 said:
when the Fewer becomes so few that nobody has a job who is going to buy "Stuff" ?.
Allegedly those on benefits make a reasonably good showing with regard to tech e.g. iPhones and f-o size plasma tellies. Observation backs half of this up when reviewing media coverage of daytime demos where folks have dragged themselves away from Jeremy Kyle to smash a few shop windows and/or get free wifi at Starbucks.
Who has, Albert Steptoe? FN2TypeR said:
A transition to a society where work isn't considered the norm any more and the state pays a set benefit/stipend to every individual of working age, taxation will have to come from somewhere else of course, businesses most likely, as the income tax take will drop dramatically.
More people and less jobs - something will have to change eventually.
First of all, you can't really tax businesses. You're taxing the people that own the business.More people and less jobs - something will have to change eventually.
Secondly if all this stuff can be produced without labour, then there'll be so much of it it'll be free. So what do you need a stipend for.
Ultimately, producing more stuff more easily makes us all better off.
otolith said:
But a considerably smaller amount of tax revenue.
And keeping it with the fat cat means considerably more available to be invested to develop future earnings (shares), capital expenditure (debt) or government spending (govt bonds), not to mention govt priority investment areas (EIS, renewable energy). And even if it's shoved into a fat cat pension? Well, that gets invested too. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff