Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
04 Jan 18
21:12
Joined:
Date Joined:
20 Sep 05
The average CEO in Britain has already earned more this year { 4th january } than the average worker will earn for the rest of it,
Happy new year.
Happy new year.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 39
|
By:
Yes it's tough at the top.
|
|
By:
deserves every penny
without this disparity the system wouldn't work cough cough!!!! |
|
By:
I had to look that up because I didn't believe it - and it turns out you left out something quite important. The story claimed the average CEO of a FTSE 100 COMPANY has earned that amount by 4th January.
|
|
By:
Seems like a timely moment to remind us all that Inequality is perfectly normal, natural and desirable.
|
|
By:
I hadn't thought of it like that Alun, but you're right - it's important to have aspirations.
|
|
By:
That's why they like to flood the market with cheap labor from abroad.
|
|
By:
It is said we are all equal at birth! That is incorrect. We all are breathing, but some are born with defects. If not born with defects our parents are all at different places on the financial scale. The only time everyone is equal is when we are dead. Because we are all just as dead as each other! The sooner everyone gets used to the idea that there is no equality AND that there is no justice, the better!
|
|
By:
It is wrong to have this kind of inequality . It is not wrong if 2 or 3 people make an exceptional amount , due to something .And this something should not necessarily be ability , a good society must also allow the possibility of luck
But if the average means that very many or all of the ceos are making this obscene amount then that means that the system is corrupt They might be awarding themselves vast pay rises and have no merit or particular skill ..which should include of course the possibility of luck |
|
By:
So it is the nature of why they are getting such vast pay
It's one thing if you are Bill Gates and started a company and an entire industry that never existed before bringing something extraordinary and new and great wealth That is not something anyone in Britain if any one of these ceos is capable of |
|
By:
Ultimately their greed will cut their own throats because they need workers to have spending money to buy the products and services that they're selling. Otherwise the whole economy will grind to a halt won't it?
|
|
By:
Unfortunately that won't happen , or may not because they have a limitless supply of people from every corner of the world coming here
The mugs in Britain vote for it and allow it One of the biggest cons in the history of any country |
|
By:
So in Britain we have a giant pyramid scheme, producing nothing
|
|
By:
I read somewhere that the wealthiest 10 people on earth own more than the rest of the population put together. It might not be ten, but it's a surprisingly small number anyway.
It is said that money equals power. It is also said that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. So is it a desirable thing to concentrate all the power into fewer and fewer hands? |
|
By:
That is not a problem , that doesn't matter
Bill Gates made a fortune becayse of something he did Our wealthy people , almost all of them don't They make a fortune by being in a certain job That's a different thing No one should make a fortune that way |
|
By:
The link between productivity and wage rises was severed sometime after the 70s (there are charts that show this I shall look later).
This was because technology replaced the easy to replace first, and devalued the workforce, but only within certain sectors and that displacement was masked by new job creation within other sectors as a bi product of technology. This became unequal as the speed of change increased along with the number of sectors that were able to be replaced as technology improved. We are now in what is called the information age, where AI threatens all sectors almost equally so the rate of change outstrips the time it takes to educate and train humans in any given position. This results in the commoditisation of the human, where its not their work that has value but their habitual existence that gets analysed for manipulative purposes. Those that get effected first are generally ill prepared for change, ill educated and impecunious. These people are forced to find work irrespective as society is conditioned to believe the lie that everyone should work (except it seems those with capital who expect a return on investment). The first instance this has on the market is to water down worker rights, zero hour contracts and part time work and wage stagnation. But as creativity itself and logic get replaced by the AI all jobs become threatened and the tsunami cant be stopped and the place of humans comes into question as to whether work itself is sustainable. Ofc there will be those types who disrupted the system and hold the majority share of capital who will continue to finance the liars in parliament to play lipservice to the mantra that all should be forced to contribute, while they themselves sit on fortunes that would otherwise have been spread over the population. The populations then are given free things like youtube and become 'workers' providing intangible capital assets in the form of free work. |
|
By:
Are we all equal ? surprisingly yes , in this sense ..
No one is missed once they are gone |
|
By:
Ambition is a euphemism for greed, it was the continuation of the lie produced by thatcher subscribing to economical advice that became debunked, that encouraged all to go and better themselves.
Well the vast majority of the workforce were workers or even self employed, 'bettering themselves' was simply being allowed to keep a little bit back from the taxman, wheras the real reason they encourage greed is so that those who amass huge fortunes that damage the economy when the ratio of capital spend is vastly reduced dont get seen as enemies but instead as heros. |
|
By:
nothing wrong with ambition , it's good
nothing wrong with money , it's the greatest of all inventions |
|
By:
Why is money good? It protects you from people like dustybin
|
|
By:
Money itself was simply a store of value when food and perishables needed something to trade in, the desire to have more than you require is constant to wanting consumer goods houses cars and any other luxury, the issue is that they all exist within a finite economy (except ofc when the economy collapses because the problems arnt addressed and are allowed to fail resulting in more money being printed)
The question isnt about money itself, but the desire to attain more wealth than required, or specifically the over rewarding and ill allocation of the reward. Take for example wages. The workers are analysed and indeed the companies that hire them subsidised with regard their pay, while those at the top are regulated by 'market economics' which doesnt tak into account the detrimental effects of over paying and ultimate crashes to the economy when this occurs. |
|
By:
I'm inclined to agree with dusty. We were told that the invention of the microchip would bring increased leisure time and more money for us all to spend on leisure activities. It hasn't quite worked out that way. The greed of the few has seen to that. AI is only going to benefit those same few, the difference being that most of the population will then be redundant and of no use to the elite. What will they do with these people who will be seen as a drain on their resources?
|
|
By:
that's unfair , it's not really him it's everyone else as well
|
|
By:
If you have enough money to be able to tell other people to .... off
That's all you really need |
|
By:
nothing new has been invented in the last 50 years
So we need not worry about that ok computers were invented 50 years ago , that brought about increased wealth and more jobs Very good |
|
By:
Was it only Bill Gates that benefitted from computers?
No we all did |
|
By:
Scientific discovery is funded by the public sector in general, this is the source of invention.
Innovation is simply recombinant, it marries things together that had already been discovered by science. Its the private sector who does the latter, 'creates' wealth via employment but over rewards the ones who married the scientific discoveries (and uses publicly funded infrastructures to grow within) then limits tax as a vehicle of opportunism and ultimately dictates to the user the limits of the service of their 'invented' product to protect rights holders who purposefully build in both obsolescence and lateral connectivity. |
|
By:
Yes it is very good, but not really good enough because of the greed of the few. Don't get me wrong, if I were in their shoes I'd probably be the same. Most of us would even if we don't like to think so. But that doesn't make it right.
|
|
By:
What lfc is referring to is a GPT, the computer as a General Purpose Technology, that encourages economic progress due to their impacts within a variety of sectors.
Except they generally have an added problem of disruption, like the steam engine was a GPT that created the Industrial Revolution (good) but had a massive impact in the direction humanity was lead (the widescale employment in factories and subsequent neurasthenia of the human that became a worker drone for enterprise-bad) This was the start of the de humanisation effect that Marx defined as the ills of capitalism. Today the computer as a GPT gives a wide advantage of uses but will ultimately disrupt the economy as we have seen as jobs become valueless and GDP ultimately falls and humans become the commodity. Bob Gordon writes about how these things plateau and ultimately result in declining growth. This occurs simply because of the disparity in who within the economy gets financially rewarded as productivity increases....its the minority that take out the profits. Sure you have a computer to play on while you have been replaced by a robot but its the corporations who make the programmes that you will be using and so the reliance will be complete. |
|
By:
Dusty, Lateral Connectivity. Is this a marketing term? Sorry I don't understand what it is.
|
|
By:
If I was CEO of a successful company I'd like a wage that matched the responsibility.
Theo Walcott earns more than the average wage in just 2 days.  |
|
By:
GMAD
Lateral connectivity (or lack of) refers to the ring fencing of consumer products that purposefully dont work with each other in order to protect their marketing and control of the use. Take apple for eg. they dictate exactly how their products can be used or not used, and the irony is their very first tv advert was of a man throwing a hammer through a screen like in Orwells 1984, their implicit message was to break with the limiting factors of other corporations who dictated how one can use their products. |
|
By:
Theo Walcott is more talented than most CEOs
|
|
By:
Dusty thanks for that explaination
|
|
By:
many people go through life thinking they are doing something right but with no results to show for it , for a long time , maybe never
When someone asks how was your year it can bring a small spasm of pain since all seems wasted And then suddenly something happens and bang you are proven right , or it might never happen |
|
By:
All the great talents , and the heads of the banks were being paid vast fortunes , for their responsibility and great talent
And then they went bust losing everything overnight , and almost bust the country with them They knew nothing |
|
By:
So you see how there is a disparity between the evaluation of the value of the work of a 'lesser' human in the minimum wage bracket and the distinct lack of empirical analysis or regulation of those 'masters of the universe' who get over rewarded based on short term policy that generally finds ways of rewarding shareholders and de-incentivising their own workers (called Shareholder Value Maximisation)
The masses hold the power, but those who dictate doctrine break up unions so how is change to occur? I pity the poor, they have neither voice nor avenue for change....their only 'way out' is diluted education that comes with massive debt which itself is a vehicle of subordination, a shackle that keeps people in their place and naturally invested in the very system that keeps a foot on their throat. |
|
By:
People should have listened more to the philosophers.
The greatest virtue was always wisdom, the Cynics even told us nothing else matters, but did people listen? |
|
By:
you ain't going to stop it EVER - although kim jon wrong un might ho ho
|
|
By:
My boss turned up to work yesterday in a brand new Aston Martin.
"Wow, that's a great car," I said. He said: "If you work really hard, put in extra hours and hit your targets, I'll get another one next year." |