Motoring8 mins ago
And The Rich Get Richer Under "austerity"
No doubt our Rightie contributors will see this as Leftie propaganda.
http://
"We've seen executive salaries pulling right away from the rest of society, creating this small elite of people that are just paid astronomically."
http://
"We've seen executive salaries pulling right away from the rest of society, creating this small elite of people that are just paid astronomically."
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If anything I'd blame Labour for the gap between rich & working poor. The gap certainly widened under them. Framing laws for/cozying up to Global Capitalism. Flooding the country with cheap labour, etc, etc.
I'd blame personal greed more than any government. It's easy to call it 'the politics of envy'. Bit of a cliché, to be honest. Some very wealthy people and David Cameron have expressed concerns about executive pay. Since the crash, when most of us have 'tightened our belts' they have doubled their pay.
I'd blame personal greed more than any government. It's easy to call it 'the politics of envy'. Bit of a cliché, to be honest. Some very wealthy people and David Cameron have expressed concerns about executive pay. Since the crash, when most of us have 'tightened our belts' they have doubled their pay.
I have a theory (one of many) on poverty and wealth. I believe that if all the money in the world could be collected from all those who own it and it was then distributed equally among all the world’s adults each would receive about $50,000 (about £35,000) although the actual figures do not matter too much).
My theory is that in a very short space of time large numbers of people would be absolutely potless, quite a few in the middle would have retained most of their share plus or minus a few quid and a very few would have multiplied their share many times over. Of course those in less developed countries would have less opportunity to spend their wisely and would probably spend their windfall simply to survive. However, I believe that if the experiment was to be conducted in a single developed county (say the UK) the same results would ensue. Some people can run faster than others, a few very much faster than others, but some cannot run at all. So it is with money making. Some have a huge talent for it, most get by and manage to keep a few bob in the bank, some have no idea how to get it or how to handle it sensibly if they do.
Short of confiscating all wealth no amount of meddling by governments (of any persuasion) will alter this – regardless of who leads the Labour Party. The rich will always get richer because of their talent for selling their labour and/or acquiring money. The poor will always get poorer (in relative but not necessarily absolute terms) and those in the middle will probably remain more or less where they are. Life ain’t fair. But nobody said it was or would be.
My theory is that in a very short space of time large numbers of people would be absolutely potless, quite a few in the middle would have retained most of their share plus or minus a few quid and a very few would have multiplied their share many times over. Of course those in less developed countries would have less opportunity to spend their wisely and would probably spend their windfall simply to survive. However, I believe that if the experiment was to be conducted in a single developed county (say the UK) the same results would ensue. Some people can run faster than others, a few very much faster than others, but some cannot run at all. So it is with money making. Some have a huge talent for it, most get by and manage to keep a few bob in the bank, some have no idea how to get it or how to handle it sensibly if they do.
Short of confiscating all wealth no amount of meddling by governments (of any persuasion) will alter this – regardless of who leads the Labour Party. The rich will always get richer because of their talent for selling their labour and/or acquiring money. The poor will always get poorer (in relative but not necessarily absolute terms) and those in the middle will probably remain more or less where they are. Life ain’t fair. But nobody said it was or would be.
fiction-factory
'Deserve' is a difficult thing to define though I think Talbot? Does someone on benefits deserve what they get, at one extreme, to does Jonathon Ross etc or Wayne Rooney deserve their huge salaries
This Q wasn't about celebs or footballers, FF.
Tell me how this lot deserve this...
http://
'Deserve' is a difficult thing to define though I think Talbot? Does someone on benefits deserve what they get, at one extreme, to does Jonathon Ross etc or Wayne Rooney deserve their huge salaries
This Q wasn't about celebs or footballers, FF.
Tell me how this lot deserve this...
http://
I can't Talbot to say that they were deemed to be worth it by their employer/shareholders
I assume you can't diagree with the idea that footballers and entertainers are paid what someone thinks they are worth. the same applies to senior execs (although they are often mapaid modestly compared to top footballers)
Having said that, in my experience a lot of highly paid managers are good at talking the talk, improve their worth but move on before they are found out as having been a waste of money
I assume you can't diagree with the idea that footballers and entertainers are paid what someone thinks they are worth. the same applies to senior execs (although they are often mapaid modestly compared to top footballers)
Having said that, in my experience a lot of highly paid managers are good at talking the talk, improve their worth but move on before they are found out as having been a waste of money
Don't know wher the word EXCEPT went
I can't Talbot, EXCEPT to say that they were deemed to be worth it by their employer/shareholders
I assume you can't disagree with the idea that footballers and entertainers are paid what someone thinks they are worth. The same applies to senior execs (although they are often mapaid modestly compared to top footballers).
Having said that, in my experience a lot of highly paid managers are good at talking the talk, improve their worth but move on before they are found out as having been a waste of money
I can't Talbot, EXCEPT to say that they were deemed to be worth it by their employer/shareholders
I assume you can't disagree with the idea that footballers and entertainers are paid what someone thinks they are worth. The same applies to senior execs (although they are often mapaid modestly compared to top footballers).
Having said that, in my experience a lot of highly paid managers are good at talking the talk, improve their worth but move on before they are found out as having been a waste of money
Footballers are on a contract though and failing players may still get their contracts paid/bought out. Senior execs can be relased too if they don't perform.
I think many are overpaid though- there seems to be a bit of a club/old boys network who look after each other. Like football managers, failing execs often get a new job through contacts pretty easily
I think many are overpaid though- there seems to be a bit of a club/old boys network who look after each other. Like football managers, failing execs often get a new job through contacts pretty easily
Just had a random google to point out what I mean.
http://
http://
fiction-factory:>"Does anyone know of any nations that have managed to succeed in narrowing the gap over a long period? Russia and China used to try in theory but something clearly changed "
'There was a period of declining inequality in the U.S.: in the three decades after World War II.'
The Merits Of Income Inequality: What's The Right Amount?
http://
'There was a period of declining inequality in the U.S.: in the three decades after World War II.'
The Merits Of Income Inequality: What's The Right Amount?
http://
Talbot
\\\\\ A rich mans lazy idiot son will get a job in the City over a hard working council estate genius every day of the week.\\\
That hasn't been my experience.
The "lazy, idiot" son, may remain that way until he goes to a Public School and that ethic will quickly be ..."reversed." Public school invokes hard work, discipline and a sense of "esprit de corps." Yes certain "thickies" may survive, but they are unlikely,extremely unlikely to get a job in the City.
As naomi has said, the Grammar Schools opened the door to success for "poor boys" which has now, arguably been reversed and not for the better.
\\\\\ A rich mans lazy idiot son will get a job in the City over a hard working council estate genius every day of the week.\\\
That hasn't been my experience.
The "lazy, idiot" son, may remain that way until he goes to a Public School and that ethic will quickly be ..."reversed." Public school invokes hard work, discipline and a sense of "esprit de corps." Yes certain "thickies" may survive, but they are unlikely,extremely unlikely to get a job in the City.
As naomi has said, the Grammar Schools opened the door to success for "poor boys" which has now, arguably been reversed and not for the better.
The report didn't have any data to support the point about inequality in the US reducing in that period but does point out that the closing of the gap was due largely to special circumstances after the war as well as progressive measures on tax.
Inequality is important in that it creates a feeling of unfairness but I think what's more important is that the poorest are not becoming worse off.
Whilst our governments (Labour or Tory) can improve things like benefits, pensions and the minimum wage I can't see how they can make any meaningful difference to the sky-high pay levels at the top in the private sector other than perhaps making pay more transparent to shareholders and allowing share holders to claim back bonuses/pensions when it comes to light the execs made things worse not better (Fred Goodwin or that Co-op crystal methodist). The top few earners already pay the bulk of the UK's income tax but no-one would shed a tear for them if they had to pay a bit more- say 55% rather than 45% at the top rate- but we'd need other countries to do the same.
Of course inequality is a much wider issue when viewed worlwide. Oxfam have said that the top 1% hold around 50% of the world's wealth. So who are these fat cats in the top 1%? It's people pretty much like many of us- anyone with a reasonable sized house in London for example. The gap between the average one of us and the world's poorest is also growing. So should we try to rectify that inequality too my massively redistrbuting our wealth to the the third world.
Has Canary had chance to see these replies yet, I wonder
Inequality is important in that it creates a feeling of unfairness but I think what's more important is that the poorest are not becoming worse off.
Whilst our governments (Labour or Tory) can improve things like benefits, pensions and the minimum wage I can't see how they can make any meaningful difference to the sky-high pay levels at the top in the private sector other than perhaps making pay more transparent to shareholders and allowing share holders to claim back bonuses/pensions when it comes to light the execs made things worse not better (Fred Goodwin or that Co-op crystal methodist). The top few earners already pay the bulk of the UK's income tax but no-one would shed a tear for them if they had to pay a bit more- say 55% rather than 45% at the top rate- but we'd need other countries to do the same.
Of course inequality is a much wider issue when viewed worlwide. Oxfam have said that the top 1% hold around 50% of the world's wealth. So who are these fat cats in the top 1%? It's people pretty much like many of us- anyone with a reasonable sized house in London for example. The gap between the average one of us and the world's poorest is also growing. So should we try to rectify that inequality too my massively redistrbuting our wealth to the the third world.
Has Canary had chance to see these replies yet, I wonder
The gap between the average one of us and the world's poorest is also growing. So should we try to rectify that inequality too my massively redistrbuting our wealth to the the third world.
Agreed, and maybe then the third world might just consider staying where they are rather than risking life and limb geting to the UK.
Agreed, and maybe then the third world might just consider staying where they are rather than risking life and limb geting to the UK.
Yes Canary42, there are 2 groups that are getting richer under austerity; for some remuneration/earnings from work has increased and the other group is 'old money' ( though there can be some overlap,and protecting their interests are mutual )
This article deals with the real 'wealth'
http://
This article deals with the real 'wealth'
http://
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV15 mins ago
ChatterBank16 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
Well At Least Sir Kier Is Topping One...
News23 mins ago
