Politics, politics, politics

[Gutter Boy]

There should be a compulsory maximum 20:1 pay ratio between CEOs and the lowest earners in their organisations (cleaners/porters), like there is in much of the public sector

Real wages don't mean anything. Relative wages are key

 

[the dza]

I dunno what they are worried about. If there is anybody who could deal with the potential chaos for UK hauliers in the event of a no-deal Brexit, it's Chris Grayling MP.

 

[scaramanga]

There should be a compulsory maximum 20:1 pay ratio between CEOs and the lowest earners in their organisations (cleaners/porters), like there is in much of the public sector

Real wages don't mean anything. Relative wages are key

Relative wages mean nothing outside the context of jealousy.

The first problem with your idea is that you can't pay anyone more than £300k without increasing the minimum wage and either crippling businesses or accelerating replacing people with robots. That means you won't be able to attract the best people to perform the most important roles in business.

Worse that that though, your post shows that you have never had to employ someone from the bottom end of the wage pool if you think that some of them could ever be worth a 20th of what a good FD is earning. In many cases, the government should be discounting their cost to the employer because people like me are stopping people like that spending their days licking plug sockets or chasing squirrels into busy roads.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

Why don’t people blog anymore? This bloke should be writing on Wordpress and if necessary tweeting links to his astute articles. Twitter is so fundamentally unsuitable to reasoned arguments, and the thread format is horrendous. It’s like watching a match in a series of 300 vines.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

I do get that. I just wish that Twitter - as it's become, for better or for worse, a publishing platform - had a facility like LinkedIn which allowed long-form articles to be written in long form rather than in snippets.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Relative wages mean nothing outside the context of jealousy.

The first problem with your idea is that you can't pay anyone more than £300k without increasing the minimum wage and either crippling businesses or accelerating replacing people with robots. That means you won't be able to attract the best people to perform the most important roles in business.

Worse that that though, your post shows that you have never had to employ someone from the bottom end of the wage pool if you think that some of them could ever be worth a 20th of what a good FD is earning. In many cases, the government should be discounting their cost to the employer because people like me are stopping people like that spending their days licking plug sockets or chasing squirrels into busy roads.

I can't see anyone being worth more than £300k. My CEO is in the £250-300k bracket (we are on the 20:1) and he still lives in a mansion, has a chuffer and all those trappings.

Generally they are as incompetent as everyone else, they can just blag a bit better. I'm perhaps a bit cynical at the moment, as the most impressive senior executive I've ever come across is currently being disgraced by a Select Committee inquiry

 

[Gutter Boy]

I do get that. I just wish that Twitter - as it's become, for better or for worse, a publishing platform - had a facility like LinkedIn which allowed long-form articles to be written in long form rather than in snippets.

You are supposed to write the long piece on a wordpress site and then link too it. It's spreading the prose over multiple tweets that's the problem

 

[scaramanga]

I can't see anyone being worth more than £300k. My CEO is in the £250-300k bracket (we are on the 20:1) and he still lives in a mansion, has a chuffer and all those trappings.

Generally they are as incompetent as everyone else, they can just blag a bit better. I'm perhaps a bit cynical at the moment, as the most impressive senior executive I've ever come across is currently being disgraced by a Select Committee inquiry

People are worth what the market deems them to be worth. If you cap that worth then you won't be able to get the best.

It's not about need - I earn significantly less than £300k and if pushed, I'd probably accept that I have everything I need. There's plenty of stuff I want though, and a lot of it is quite expensive - so I'll always want to earn more.

 

[r-u-s-x]

People are worth what the market seems them to be worth. If you cap that worth then you won't be able to get the best.

It's not about need - I earn significantly less than £300k and if pushed, I'd probably a cept that I have everything I need. There's plenty of stuff I want though, and a lot of it is quite expensive - so I'll always want to earn more.

* In a capitalist economy yes this is true - Economically you are an extremist (more so than Corbyn on the left). In a mixed Economy where we have traditionally sat there is intervention where we feel the markets have failed.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Relative wages mean nothing outside the context of jealousy.

The first problem with your idea is that you can't pay anyone more than £300k without increasing the minimum wage and either crippling businesses or accelerating replacing people with robots. That means you won't be able to attract the best people to perform the most important roles in business.

Worse that that though, your post shows that you have never had to employ someone from the bottom end of the wage pool if you think that some of them could ever be worth a 20th of what a good FD is earning. In many cases, the government should be discounting their cost to the employer because people like me are stopping people like that spending their days licking plug sockets or chasing squirrels into busy roads.

Scara playing his class war politics again. He says jealousy, we say fairness and equity. There is a class war and the elite are winning it. So says Warren Buffett. One of the top five richest men in the world.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

People are worth what the market seems them to be worth. If you cap that worth then you won't be able to get the best.

It's not about need - I earn significantly less than £300k and if pushed, I'd probably a cept that I have everything I need. There's plenty of stuff I want though, and a lot of it is quite expensive - so I'll always want to earn more.

Significantly less than 300,000....275,000......

 

[Gutter Boy]

People are worth what the market seems them to be worth. If you cap that worth then you won't be able to get the best.

It's not about need - I earn significantly less than £300k and if pushed, I'd probably a cept that I have everything I need. There's plenty of stuff I want though, and a lot of it is quite expensive - so I'll always want to earn more.

Prices will come down if no one can afford it. The material and assembly costs of high-end cars for example are a fraction of what they cost. The guide of their pricing is simply 'out of reach of the 99.5%'

 

[scaramanga]

* In a capitalist economy yes this is true - Economically you are an extremist (more so than Corbyn on the left). In a mixed Economy where we have traditionally sat there is intervention where we feel the markets have failed.

If we cap the best and brightest they will just go and work where they're not capped.

I'm not promoting any particular strand of partisan economics here, it's just the natural state of economics. Rare talent will have high value.

 

[scaramanga]

Prices will come down if no one can afford it. The material and assembly costs of high-end cars for example are a fraction of what they cost. The guide of their pricing is simply 'out of reach of the 99.5%'

If prices drop then we can afford to pay the soon to be robots less and the gap remains.

 

[r-u-s-x]

If we cap the best and brightest they will just go and work where they're not capped.

I'm not promoting any particular strand of partisan economics here, it's just the natural state of economics. Rare talent will have high value.

Monopolies are a natural state of capitalism (not economics), doesn't mean they are desirable.

Does appear to have a link between inequality and productivity also.

 

[Gutter Boy]

If we cap the best and brightest they will just go and work where they're not capped.

I'm not promoting any particular strand of partisan economics here, it's just the natural state of economics. Rare talent will have high value.

I don't think the talent is that rare. There will be people who could do 99.5% as well who would do it for a fraction of the salary. Most of the brightest and best minds in the country (scientists etc) won't earn much more than £100k. Their motivation is what they do, not what the reward is

 

[scaramanga]

I don't think the talent is that rare. There will be people who could do 99.5% as well who would do it for a fraction of the salary. Most of the brightest and best minds in the country (scientists etc) won't earn much more than £100k. Their motivation is what they do, not what the reward is

It's fairly common that people think they can do what directors can and that they'd be happy to for a fraction of the pay.

I've also seen a fair few people become directors (from already high up positions) and fail miserably. Whether it's knowledge, decision-making, stress management or one of hundreds of other things, there are a lot of people who simply cannot do the job.

Just because there's not a technical qualification or easily measurable skillset as for a doctor or an engineer, it doesn't make it any less difficult a role to succeed at. The employment market (other than the unwelcome interference of the minimum wage) is reasonably free and frictionless. If the top roles at companies weren't worth a lot of money, people wouldn't be paid a lot of money for them.

 

[Rorschach]

It's fairly common that people think they can do what directors can and that they'd be happy to for a fraction of the pay.

I've also seen a fair few people become directors (from already high up positions) and fail miserably. Whether it's knowledge, decision-making, stress management or one of hundreds of other things, there are a lot of people who simply cannot do the job.

Just because there's not a technical qualification or easily measurable skillset as for a doctor or an engineer, it doesn't make it any less difficult a role to succeed at. The employment market (other than the unwelcome interference of the minimum wage) is reasonably free and frictionless. If the top roles at companies weren't worth a lot of money, people wouldn't be paid a lot of money for them.

Management is a skill and you do have to have an aptitude for it, but drop them on an island and they'll all be dead within a month. Actually that is a good idea.

 

[scaramanga]

Management is a skill and you do have to have an aptitude for it, but drop them on an island and they'll all be dead within a month. Actually that is a good idea.

Fortunately for me, surviving on a desert island is not one of my day to day tasks.

 

[Gutter Boy]

It's fairly common that people think they can do what directors can and that they'd be happy to for a fraction of the pay.

I've also seen a fair few people become directors (from already high up positions) and fail miserably. Whether it's knowledge, decision-making, stress management or one of hundreds of other things, there are a lot of people who simply cannot do the job.

Just because there's not a technical qualification or easily measurable skillset as for a doctor or an engineer, it doesn't make it any less difficult a role to succeed at. The employment market (other than the unwelcome interference of the minimum wage) is reasonably free and frictionless. If the top roles at companies weren't worth a lot of money, people wouldn't be paid a lot of money for them.

I worked in exec education for a few years, and the vast majority of them were complete fudgewits