news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front ... 694094.stm The figures say it all, really. Population: 311 million. Number of people living below the poverty line: 47 million

news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front ... 694094.stm The figures say it all, really. Population: 311 million. Number of people living below the poverty line: 47 million

I saw the programme and could've lamped that Republican who kept insisting that trickle-down was the only way to help "these people".

They'll all be dead before anything but sh[ii[/it trickles down their way, you fool!

Contrary to '80s thinking, I see higher taxes for the wealthy as the best way of lifting people out of poverty. The argument goes that top earners (so called wealth creators per Thatcher et al) need incentives to work harder. More logically, if they were taxed at 80% on very high earnings they may be more likely to employ and pay more if their personal incremental gains were modest? Then we look at who the high earners are these days. Generally, they are not wealth creators but directors / CEOs (ie managers) of large companies and banks. People who buy up entrepreneurs business, destroy their dynanism and make money out of those businesses not by innovation but by cutting jobs.

All in all, the risk taking (ie personally on the line) entrepreneurs deserve high earnings but simple, non -risk taking managers do not. The problem we have is the wrong people are getting high, easy rewards.

Bugger me, something's happening if I too am now agreeing with Dally.



When I hear banks and other institutions saying they have to pay the best to get the best. No they fooking don't, there will be legions of equally skilled people willing to do the job for a damn sight less than the current going rate. They'll rarely get the chance though because the club is pretty exclusive and if you don't come from the right family or garduate from the right university, you ain't getting in.

Contrary to what some on here may believe, I have absolutely no problem with true entrepreneurs earning top dollar, as Dally said, they have taken risks with their own money and they deserve the rewards. The shysters who gamble with other people's money and then expect the country to bail them out when they balls it up, should be strung by their bollox from every lamp post.

The problem I have with the theory of "trickle down" economics is it is curiously blind to the existence of capitalism outside of the west. Most of the world is capitalist - and most of the world is poor. I mean, if wealth really does trickle down to the bottom of the tank then why is it that in places such as capitalist Indonesia, or capitalist El Salvador, or capitalist India or capitalist Argentina (during the nineties) where the gloves are really off (labour unions beaten back, few restrictions on corporations and capital movement, crushingly low wages) we see enormous and [igrowing[/i poverty? In India the situation is now practically off the scale with enormous unrest amongst the poor. I'm not suggesting things were a bed of roses before the introduction of neo-liberal economics and trade restrictions but you simply cannot compare the city slums today with those of twenty or thirty years ago.

The usual response is "corruption". But I think you're on thin ice arguing half the world is corrupt whilst the West is pretty much blameless. You only need look at the billions that went missing amongst competing Western corporate interests in Iraq to realise corruption is endemic to all societies.

The US could, with the stroke of a pen, go a long way toward lifting people out of poverty without raising taxes so much as a cent. For a start it could cut military spending - which is massively disproportionate to all of the world's armies (possibly outside of the top 3) put together . It could also overhaul its grossly inefficient medical system which is leeching money away by the trainload.

Poll after poll shows that the overwhelming majority of Americans are in favour of cutting military spending. But when was the last time you saw THAT question mooted as a serious alternative on ANY of the major American networks?

So what do the "risk taking" Appalachian coal-miners, SE. Asian pearl divers and Chilean sulphur gatherers (whose LIVES are on the line) deserve?

They get paid to do the advertised job. They take it or leave it (even if the latter is a tough option). They could, of course, become entrepreneurs though.

It's ok. I was just checking what value you place on life vs the production of money.

I mean, I'm not sure why the guy at the top deserves substantially more than the people who do the real work producing [itangible utilities.[/i

But then I suppose if you pay someone a million pounds a year for long enough he'll ultimately find reasons to deserve it.

A thread, where, I think, I agree with every opinion put forth!

Without sounding all hippy, why should there be a 1% with a majority of the cash whilst the other 99% have to settle with much less or worse still nothing.

Watched a good prog last week about a Uk binman who went to work for a spell doing the Indonesian equivalent.

Basically his Indonesian counterpart worked like a dog for 14 hours a day, for peanuts, and lived with his family in what amounted to a plywood/corrugated iron lean-to against a big concrete wall, next to a tip (the contents of which the family sorted each night to extract scraps of recyclable materials which they could sell for the coppers that made the difference between meal and no meal.

On the other side of the wall were the very posh residences where the wealthy whose bins were emptied lived. These were seriously affluent people. Instead of paying a living wage to the binmen, they expected them to do extras, such as clearing out their drains or carting away a whole container of extra rubbish, for nothing, as otherwise they'd just complain to the resident's association, who would summarily sack the binman and there was apparently a very long queue of desperate men who would jump into this cushy job at a second's notice.

And yet this guy was just the model of cheerfulness, politeness and an almost irritating acceptance of his lot. Which also seemed to be substantially religion-based fatalism. Regardless of the latter, I just don't understand how a society can become so heartless as to tolerate such a situation, not only nationally, but locally. I know it's just a tiny snapshot of a moment in time, but it was the wonderment as to how the folks just over that wall could live with themselves knowing what was on the other side, and that they could DIRECTLY affect what happened to those people, by not getting away with paying peanuts of no significance to them, just because they could.

There are a few, I'd suggest, who'd like something similar here. And if people want something better, they can just 'aspire' their way top a better job with better pay.

Oh, I'm sure you're right; but while I'm not for one second suggesting we have no serious social issues here, over there there is no such thing as any form of benefits, social housing (however poor) or anything else. Scour the tip, or starve, basically.

As a society we are at least at a point where such jobs simply couldn't legally exist here (although I am aware that there is much hidden illegal exploitation) nor would the non-existent "pay" be legal. Nor would a family ever have to live in a tin hut in a rubbish dump or if they did, after a year or two they could retire on their ECHR win.

Indeed! Although looking at some of things this government is proposing, we shouldn't be complacent.

God, it's depressing.

Talk about naive: I thought I'd lived through all that shîte and things wouldn't get as dismal again.

Okay – touch wood – it isn't affecting me personally now (at present) the same way it did then, but that doesn't stop me feeling angry and close to despairing at the same time.

I personally developed executive compensation schemes for 2 FTSE 100 companies back in the 90s, and have to say that executive compensation is the achilles heel of the agency theory surrounding free markets.

The so-called control mechansisms in place simply don't work, and the fear of some flight of grey-haired execs out of the UK because they could earn more elsewhere is rubbish (put about by those very people or their mates generally). Sad to say, UK execs are generally not that well-admired internationally. Equally bogus are arguments that UK companies 'must' compete globally for talent - you'd get no shortage of very good candidates for a prestige FTSE company CEO role even if the pay was capped.

A very simple mechanism to ensure executive earnings (not entrepreneurs who are owners themselves - its very easy to differentiate based on percentage ownership) are capped at levels consistent with fairness is a simple multiple of the lowest paid full-time employees (not part-time equivalent) in a company (I'd also include private entities, councils and the public sector). That would include all forms of remuneration, and easily be adjusted post-event (e.g. due to share options etc) with execs having to pay back money if they get too much.

Any golden handshake or payoff would equally be a maximum multiple of the lowest wage, and any and all income derived from share performance would be included in the total remuneration.

For a global company, you'd make it a multiple of the lowest full time earnings anywhere in the world they employ people. That may be a higher multiple, but it would definitely focus corporate attention mightily on the need to ensure people directly employed in third world countries receive a 'fair' wage.

I have yet to see any coherent argument against this sort of approach. All the arguments in favour of loose control are bogus, as are arguments about the supposed 'diffculty' in putting such controls in place. I have no problem with private sector earnings being higher than public, or some jobs being paid more than others. I do have a problem with executive pay full stop. Some of the amounts earned for doing very little (in some cases actually destroying value) are simply obscene.

The most pi[is[/ispotical argument I heard was that companies would simply offshore their lowest paid jobs in order to make the figures look good. Quite how the cleaning of London offices can be offshored to Mombai is beyond me.

I am aslo in favour of "performance-related" annual bonuses being awarded across the board, as a percentage of basic salary. So if the remuneration committee wish to award the CEO a "bonus" of 50% of salary, that percentage should also apply to all in the organisation.

This. And I find it equally alarming and risible that precisely these bogus lines still continue to be regularly trotted out by senior government figures.







You forget that gambling (and losing) billions that's not yours is hard work, and only for the clever. True, Fred the Shred almost brought the economy down, and has cost each family in the country many thousands of pounds (at least, some far worse), but surely you guys don't begrudge him [istill[/ibeing paid, at the rate of £6,500 a WEEK, for as long as he has a hole in his arrse, it's only maybe 6 month's wages for those who clean the toilets that it used to shyite in.

OTOH maybe such are his precocious talents in matters financial, it's probably worth paying him that to ensure he stops at fookin' home and as far away from any bank as possible.

That is probably the cheaper option. Why didn't anyone think of it pre-ABN Amro?

This whole bonus business for top brass and the shop floor is rubbish. Pay them what it costs to fill the post (alot less at top level than they're getting now) and that's it.

What people forget is the shareholders. Companies exist (or should do) for their benefit. That should entail appropriate reinvestment in the company and dividends. That's the best way to spread wealth (via pension schemes and, ideally, to an army of small investors - which we don't have). The problem is the ststem is distorted in that the investors themselves are part of the problem. What would be great is of we could get mass, small scale ownership of the largest companies so their managers (directors) are kept under proper scrutiny.

Other than the traditional owner/director or family run company, very few people acquire shares so they can have a say in the running of the business. They are acquired usually as an investment, either in terms of expecting the share price to rise or dividends to be plentiful.

You would also have to question the ability and competence of many shareholders to get involved in the decision making process of a company.

John Lewis.

It would be a nightmare.

Even if the owner/family/directors felt confident enough to issue shares to employees (and some do) can you imagine the diversity of opinion at the next board meeting, and would there be a table big enough ?

And from the other end of the spectrum, if there is no financial need to do so at the moment why would an owner/director want to open up the books for browsing for any old Joe Bloggs on the shopfloor with ten shares to have a pick through and then spend the next 12 months griping about the MD's take home pay ?

I went to school with him. Did you too?

IIRC the employees have a "staff council" which is used to filter suggestions up to a Board of Directors - who are then responsible for having the final say on decisions that impact the business.

The only recourse staff have as "shareholders" is through an AGM, as they would in any other business.

But it works rather well, don't you think, Andy? And all the staff get a share in the annual 'dividend'.