Lefties who like McDowell

monument

What ever about acknowledging he is intelligent etc, a “leftie” actually overall liking McDowell has to be a complete and utter joke. It would be a contradiction of terms.

Akrasia

Sand wrote:

There was that survey a week or two ago that demonstrated that top managers in companies had a worse standard of life than patients with terminal illness. Ill see if I can dig up a link, but it was bounced around. Generally managers/decision makers get paid a lot because they are expected to be available 24/7 especially in the age of modern communication.

You have to be joking. Link to that survey please. I'm dying to read it.

True, because any worker can simply walk away to a better offer tommorrow, having lost or contributed nothing but their time/expertise for which they are compensated by their salary. They didnt invest any cash in setting up the firm, leasing the place of business, taking out loans to cover the initial losses whilst the firm was looking for contracts. *All* the risk is taken on by the owners. They are locked into their investment. They cant walk away to another investment just like that. They certainly cant suddenly dump their shares on the market and expect the price to hold. Hence, the costs and profits of the owners are the only costs that need to be considered at the end of the day.

Absolute nonsense. I can't even think where to start. You honestly think the jobs market is that open and free and that workers have absolute mobility and transferrable skills? You don't think that workers take any risks? you don't think they have anything invested in their jobs?

If work was fun theyd be charging you to do it tbh.

more nonsense. work doesn't have to be menial, repetitive and soul destroying. Not all jobs are equal by any stretch of the imagination. If it's so hard to be a manager and se easy to be a bottom rung employee, how come the most privileged people almost always choose certain types of jobs? If all jobs were equal, in terms of quality of life (risk versius reward) then how come there aren't the same proportion of millionaire's sons working in McDonalds as the poorest parts of the economy.

Eh, so? Whats the problem with inequality so long as basic minimum standards of living are met? The reason Ireland is becoming more unequal is that a large proportion of people have finally got the opportunity to work *in* Ireland, earn a decent wage and enjoy a good standard of life as payoff for their hard work up until that point. And then you have the layabout underclass who we saw on display in the riots a few weeks back. Not even working class, these people simply have stood still through the sheer unwillingness to get a job or put their heads down and study for qualifications. So theyre at the bottom of the heap and being left behind by those who have worked. They seem wealthy enough to afford their Celtic shirts so they cant be starving. **** em tbh.

What are the minimum standards of living. What would you considert he minimum that you would deem necessary to make your life worthwhile? Prisoners recieve enough to stay alive, would you be content to be in prison?
Suicide levels are rising every year. and its not just an irish trend, it is reflected in all economies that share the values of the PDs and the Chicago School of economics.

gilroyb

Akrasia wrote:

You have to be joking. Link to that survey please. I'm dying to read it.

I remember seeing it as well. Of course they wouldn't change places though, bad quality of life is better than life that's about to end.

Akrasia wrote:

Suicide levels are rising every year. and its not just an irish trend, it is reflected in all economies that share the values of the PDs and the Chicago School of economics.

Suicide levels are rising every year in a lot of places, not just ones with free economies. Also to suggest that the PD's values are the same as the Chicago School is simply wrong. The PD's believe in a huge amount more regulation than the Chicago school.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

A Dub in Glasgo

gilroyb wrote:

I remember seeing it as well. Of course they wouldn't change places though, bad quality of life is better than life that's about to end.

Which goes to so how utterly pointless and irrelevant the comparison is. I am pretty sure those top managers who allow themselves to be miserable will have a sudden huge increase in their mood if they were to choose between living with a terminal illness and being a top manager. Some people need to learn a sense of perspective.

Sand

You have to be joking. Link to that survey please. I'm dying to read it.

Here ya go.

Absolute nonsense. I can't even think where to start. You honestly think the jobs market is that open and free and that workers have absolute mobility and transferrable skills? You don't think that workers take any risks? you don't think they have anything invested in their jobs?

Yeah. The job market is that open and free. The sector Im in is practically screaming for people. I can leave my job tommorrow and be back in employment inside a month. The owners of the company I work for cant get out of the company as fast or as painlessly as I can.

And Ireland is so desperately short of workers that we have people travelling thousands of miles to take them up whilst our local celtic supporters sit on the dole.

more nonsense. work doesn't have to be menial, repetitive and soul destroying. Not all jobs are equal by any stretch of the imagination. If it's so hard to be a manager and se easy to be a bottom rung employee, how come the most privileged people almost always choose certain types of jobs? If all jobs were equal, in terms of quality of life (risk versius reward) then how come there aren't the same proportion of millionaire's sons working in McDonalds as the poorest parts of the economy

Yeah, another world is possible but in the meantime someone has to collect the bins. Work is menial, repetitive and soul destroying. Else it would be a hobby and wed all love getting up on Mondays.

As for certain jobs..."privledged" people tend to have decent educations, the investment in which is only paid off by using them to achieve a better job than they would without them. If Anto doesnt have a degree or at least a good leaving cert hed best get learning the McDonalds corporate anthem. On the other hand what would be the point of spending 3-4 years in 3rd level and still ending up with McDonalds? A question arts graduates have asked themselves down through the decades...

What are the minimum standards of living. What would you considert he minimum that you would deem necessary to make your life worthwhile? Prisoners recieve enough to stay alive, would you be content to be in prison?
Suicide levels are rising every year. and its not just an irish trend, it is reflected in all economies that share the values of the PDs and the Chicago School of economics.

Minimum in terms of need or want? I feel need is the real minimum, but Im guessing you prefer want as the determining factor. If Anto feels like life just isnt worth the bother without a free annual subscription to Sky Sports, free holiday well thats too bad. He can sod off and get a job. This isnt the 80s, jobs are out there.

Sand

lol

You think the top managers would swap places? lol

Itd depend on how the day was going Id imagine...

The_Minister

If I remember right CEO's often die quite young as well.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

Itd depend on how the day was going Id imagine...

Wow, people feel so depressed working in a high pressure job, they somethimes feel they would be better off as a terminal ill patient. Strange priority that, how about they just leave their job and down shift their lifestyle. Much better than wanting to live the life of a terminally ill patient.

Sand

Wow, people feel so depressed working in a high pressure job, they somethimes feel they would be better off as a terminal ill patient. Strange priority that, how about they just leave their job and down shift their lifestyle. Much better than wanting to live the life of a terminally ill patient.

As I understand it they werent asked if they felt they were worse off than terminally ill patients, they were evaluated as being worse off (psychologically id imagine) than terminally ill patients.

And anyway, were all terminally ill unless youve discovered a cure to the aging proccess.

As for why someone would work in a stressful, demanding job like that? I guess they feel the pay packet makes it worth it. Are they right? I dont think so. Im a work to live person, I do what needs to be done, I go extra when needed but if I found my work ringing me at all hours of day and night Id tell them to get stuffed. Theres a certain tipping point, usually when you start working for the government, wheres the extra hassle and responsibility just isnt worth it.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

As I understand it they werent asked if they felt they were worse off than terminally ill patients, they were evaluated as being worse off (psychologically id imagine) than terminally ill patients.

A sense of perspective was not their strong point I see. Perception and reality are two different things.

And anyway, were all terminally ill unless youve discovered a cure to the aging proccess.

Of course we are all going to die but you presented a terminal ill patient scenerio, ?I suspect there is a difference.

As for why someone would work in a stressful, demanding job like that? I guess they feel the pay packet makes it worth it. Are they right? I dont think so. Im a work to live person, I do what needs to be done, I go extra when needed but if I found my work ringing me at all hours of day and night Id tell them to get stuffed. Theres a certain tipping point, usually when you start working for the government, wheres the extra hassle and responsibility just isnt worth it.

I certainly don't think they are right but the whinging from them is laughable. Cannot take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Not one of them would choose to swap places with a terminal ill patient which makes the work to try and highlight their feelings as laughable

Johnny Storm

Firespinner wrote:

I sorta know him actually. He's a nice guy but quite arrogant. I think he looks at the big picture so he often does lack empathy, but I would trust him more than most politicians (not that I wouldn't keep an eye on him)

Thanks for that observation, Firespinner.
(All i know about him is what I see on TV etc)

Sand

sense of perspective was not their strong point I see. Perception and reality are two different things.

Again, from my reading of the article they werent asked to rate their own well being against that of terminally ill patients so their sense of perspective doesnt really come into it.

I certainly don't think they are right but the whinging from them is laughable.

Again, see above. Either way people were asking where the insane salaries come from - theyre linked to the stress/pressure of the job. Its not a perfect linkage by any means as Id consider doctors/surgeons to have as least as much pressure on their shoulders. But then doctors and surgeons can make a fair bit as well when they have a few years under their belt - and theyre employed by the government which tends to distort economic incomes.

mountainyman

monument wrote:

What ever about acknowledging he is intelligent etc, a “leftie” actually overall liking McDowell has to be a complete and utter joke. It would be a contradiction of terms.

Why is that?

I liked the remark to John Gormley. I like the codification of pre independence law. Thornton Hall will probably work out pretty well.

I don t accept that he is out to criminalise dissent and I think he will put manners on the guards. In terms of economic policy would he be more right wing than that toss pot McCreevy or even Quinn (worst finance minister ever) ?

When he said that to Gormley why didn t Gormley come back with some crack about Brian Curtin. Pat Rabitte wouldn t have missed that trick.

"In a cabinet of mediocrities minister O Kennedy stands head and shoulders below the rest"

What school did Rabitte s kids go to?

Where are my apostrophes?

MM

gilroyb

mountainyman wrote:

What school did Rabitte s kids go to?

I only brought it up because someone mentioned that McDowell's children went to a private school.A politician should be measured on their positions, not their private lives in my opinion. I don't think it should be an issue for either of them, so I'd rather not talk about any more of the details to do with it.

Akrasia

Sand wrote:

Here ya go.

That survey, for which there's very little information in that source, seems to only use 'stress' as the principle indicator of quality of life. A terminally ill patient has very different kinds of problems than a CEO or manager has. I wonder what the results would be if you compared the stress of a mother of 5 young children with the stress of a CEO. The mother has just as many demands on her time, if not more, than the CEO, and if she is from a low income family, she has just as many financial worries, if not more, than the CEO.

Yeah. The job market is that open and free. The sector Im in is practically screaming for people. I can leave my job tommorrow and be back in employment inside a month. The owners of the company I work for cant get out of the company as fast or as painlessly as I can.

And Ireland is so desperately short of workers that we have people travelling thousands of miles to take them up whilst our local celtic supporters sit on the dole.

What sector of the Jobs market are you in? Do you have specific skills that rare? If there is such a demand for workers and the jobs are so great, then why would people work in McDonalds when there are so many excellent jobs available? The reason is, the workers have to invest in the skills that are required to work in your particular job. That is an investment by the workers, and training in those skills is not available to everybody equally. In the construction sector there is a high demand for tradespeople so lots of people are investing in those skills, but when there is a downturn in the building sector, they wont all be able to suddenly become computer programmers. Highly paid executives are not much more exposed to risks than lower paid workers.

As for certain jobs..."privledged" people tend to have decent educations, the investment in which is only paid off by using them to achieve a better job than they would without them. If Anto doesnt have a degree or at least a good leaving cert hed best get learning the McDonalds corporate anthem. On the other hand what would be the point of spending 3-4 years in 3rd level and still ending up with McDonalds? A question arts graduates have asked themselves down through the decades...

the point is, the privileged people will always have the advantage in terms of education and the requirements to do the best jobs will reflect that. Jobs that required a Leaving Cert when only the rich had a leaving cert, now require a PHD or masters degree. There is an inflation in standards, and income inequality makes it harder for the bottom earners to compete with the top. Private schools and Grinds are not available to the lowest paid, and while it is still possible for the children of poor parents to achieve very good academic results, it is much more difficult.

Minimum in terms of need or want? I feel need is the real minimum, but Im guessing you prefer want as the determining factor. If Anto feels like life just isnt worth the bother without a free annual subscription to Sky Sports, free holiday well thats too bad. He can sod off and get a job. This isnt the 80s, jobs are out there.

Who decides what the minimum needs are? Have you an understanding of human psychology? do you think good mental health is a need or just a want?

Macy

mountainyman wrote:

Any other lefties out there who admire McDowell. I just like the way he is such a gurrier and so sly and sneaky. He is full on a complete and unashamed asshole.

He also seems to be quite effective and he is good in interviews. Obviously very intelligent.

MM

I don't see how anyone, either left or right, can admire a man that never takes responsibility for his actions, and who abuses Dail privilege so much. In a Cabinet of ministers ducking responsibility he really is King Shirker.

To me he comes across as the worst kind of bully - he obviously has the majority party in Government running scared (either that or they have lurched to the extreme right too?)

So no, this lefty has nothing but contempt for the man, even ignoring his policies.

Sand

That survey, for which there's very little information in that source, seems to only use 'stress' as the principle indicator of quality of life. A terminally ill patient has very different kinds of problems than a CEO or manager has. I wonder what the results would be if you compared the stress of a mother of 5 young children with the stress of a CEO. The mother has just as many demands on her time, if not more, than the CEO, and if she is from a low income family, she has just as many financial worries, if not more, than the CEO.

Well feel free to contact the Prof and demand a copy of his findings Akrasia. Its not my job to spoon feed you tbh.

As for stress being used as a determining factor in quality of life - most people would agree that the more stressed you are the lower your quality of life. As for the mother of 5, if she didnt figure out it wasnt going to be roses after the first one, second one, third one, or fourth one - well I guess she considers rearing children to be a joy and not stressful.

What sector of the Jobs market are you in? Do you have specific skills that rare? If there is such a demand for workers and the jobs are so great, then why would people work in McDonalds when there are so many excellent jobs available? The reason is, the workers have to invest in the skills that are required to work in your particular job. That is an investment by the workers, and training in those skills is not available to everybody equally. In the construction sector there is a high demand for tradespeople so lots of people are investing in those skills, but when there is a downturn in the building sector, they wont all be able to suddenly become computer programmers. Highly paid executives are not much more exposed to risks than lower paid workers.

Mutual fund services. Nothing thats impossible to achieve if you want it. The general reason why people choose to work in McDonalds over working in say mutual funds is because they made the decision to work in McDonalds back when they were licking prittstick at the back of their maths class. They chose not to work at school, they chose not to earn qualifications, and the result is they dont have the qualifications to get a decent job. Equal opportunity but happily not equal outcomes.

And highly paid executives are employees, not owners ( at least usually not major shareholders other than stock options). Owners are highly exposed to risk. CEOs can walk anytime, just like other employees. Dont try and switch the goalposts.

the point is, the privileged people will always have the advantage in terms of education and the requirements to do the best jobs will reflect that. Jobs that required a Leaving Cert when only the rich had a leaving cert, now require a PHD or masters degree. There is an inflation in standards, and income inequality makes it harder for the bottom earners to compete with the top. Private schools and Grinds are not available to the lowest paid, and while it is still possible for the children of poor parents to achieve very good academic results, it is much more difficult.

There is an inflation in standards because theres a glut in qualifications, so theyre worth less. The same reason ice is sold in shops in spain but is worthless in antartica. How does a Leaving Cert mark out your CV as being worth an interview when theres a thousand CVs with Leaving Certs? Even degrees are beginning to be worth less than they were because every Tom, Dick and Harry can grab a degree in sociology or some other doss subject easy enough. What employers (in my line anyway) look for is a signal of the qualities neccessary to do the job. I.e. the application to achieve a standard of education of distinction, filtering out the Antos who lacked the application to achieve. And the filtering is results based, which is fair.

The only advantage the majority of people have over the the non-working class is that they achieved a good standard of living based on having a good education so they tend to instill the same in their own kids. Whereas the non-working class placed no value on education, leading to crap or no jobs, and the failure to consider education important.

I do feel sorry for their kids though, I passed a 3 of them drunkenly shouting at each other whilst their toddler played unattended. With a family like that the little girl hasnt a chance, but if I advocated compulsory neutering and removing their kids from them Id be the bad guy.

Who decides what the minimum needs are? Have you an understanding of human psychology? do you think good mental health is a need or just a want?

The person whose taxes are paying for it maybe? Ive enough understanding of human psychology to know that making people dependant on you breeds contempt and failure in equal measure - hence our Celtic shirt wearing underclass. Good mental health is dependant on factors other than free Sky Sports.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

As for the mother of 5, if she didnt figure out it wasnt going to be roses after the first one, second one, third one, or fourth one - well I guess she considers rearing children to be a joy and not stressful.

Surely that works for all these 'stressed' out managers as well, if they continue to do stay in their job, I guess they consider the job to be a joy and not stressful

Sand

Surely that works for all these 'stressed' out managers as well, if they continue to do stay in their job, I guess they consider the job to be a joy and not stressful

Well they get paid hefty sums for it Glasgo, whereas parents are in it for the love/joy of it. Surely Glasgo youd not be accusing mothers of 5 of abandoning widely available birth control for the child benefit/free housing?

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

Well they get paid hefty sums for it Glasgo, whereas parents are in it for the love/joy of it.

Where is the difference with respect to the rewards each group feels that make it worthwhile?

You have essentially dismissed the correlation of the stress levels for top managers and mothers who have large familes as irrelevant because the mothers must enjoy it for the love of their children therefore their stress is not really the kind of stress that top managers feel.

It is shown that a top manger lives with the stress because of the reward he gets from it in just the same way that a mother would get reward from having children. You cannot seriously deny that bringing up children can be a stressful time in people lives (unless, of course, you have no children). Similarly, I cannot deny that being in a top manager job can be a stressful time in peoples lives.

Out of all the scenerios given, I would contend that the top manager has the easiest choice with respect to reducing the stress levels if it gets too much. The

Akrasia

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Where is the difference with respect to the rewards each group feels that make it worthwhile?

You have essentially dismissed the correlation of the stress levels for top managers and mothers who have large familes as irrelevant because the mothers must enjoy it for the love of their children therefore their stress is not really the kind of stress that top managers feel.

It is shown that a top manger lives with the stress because of the reward he gets from it in just the same way that a mother would get reward from having children. You cannot seriously deny that bringing up children can be a stressful time in people lives (unless, of course, you have no children). Similarly, I cannot deny that being in a top manager job can be a stressful time in peoples lives.

Out of all the scenerios given, I would contend that the top manager has the easiest choice with respect to reducing the stress levels if it gets too much. The

Not to mention the fact that another of the reasons Sand gives to justify the massive wages given to CEOs and top managers (regardless of how well they perform in many circumstances) is that they are tied to their investment while all workers are, as he said, 'Perfectly free to move on to a different job whenever they want'. Well, a Top manager certainly isn't tied to his (it's almost always a he) job for 18 years minimum, and if he decides to leave, he'll take with him a massive pension and a goodbye package that is often worth more than the entire lifes earnings of a working class person.

I think Sand's entire premise is the same as the 'Greed is Good' speech that Michael Douglas gives in Wall Street. (transcript http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechwallstreet.html ) He shares the same kind of profession. Mutual fund managers don't produce anything of economic value, they just move money around. And according to a piece on The last word today, the return from investment for the small and medium investors are barely even keeping pace with inflation, while they are forced into these funds by the greed of banks who give practically zero interest on personal savings and charge very high interest on personal loans (but low interest on corporate and high value loans)

gilroyb

Akrasia wrote:

Mutual fund managers don't produce anything of economic value, they just move money around.

At least the money is just moved around, what about thosee awful people like carpenters who destroy a perfectly good piece of wood just to use a bit of it making something silly like a chair?

Money gets moved around to provide opportunities for talented people to do what they want to do. The money they move goes into efficient factories and other efficicient investments such as property. This creates jobs in areas that can make the most profit, and will support their workers. If there is competition then the price for consumers drops.

Mutual fund managers by definition produce something of economic value, what you mean is that they don't qualify as having a 'proper job' in your opinion. You mean they don't provide anything of agricultural value, because after that everything is economic value.

Akrasia

gilroyb wrote:

At least the money is just moved around, what about thosee awful people like carpenters who destroy a perfectly good piece of wood just to use a bit of it making something silly like a chair?

Money gets moved around to provide opportunities for talented people to do what they want to do. The money they move goes into efficient factories and other efficicient investments such as property. This creates jobs in areas that can make the most profit, and will support their workers. If there is competition then the price for consumers drops.

Mutual fund managers by definition produce something of economic value, what you mean is that they don't qualify as having a 'proper job' in your opinion. You mean they don't provide anything of agricultural value, because after that everything is economic value.

You have just equated high profits with worthwhile economic activity and workers jobs. The activities of the stock exchange have nothing to do with supporting workers or producing worthwhile products and services, their single aim is to maximise the profits they get from their speculation. The stock market will reward mass lay offs, worker exploitation, pollution, destruction of the environment, animal cruelty, War as long as they believe these activieties will make them money. Commodoties traders absolutely cream themselves whenever they hear about atrocities in Iraq or potential war in Iran because they see the opportunities for huge profits for themselves.

gilroyb

Akrasia wrote:

You have just equated high profits with worthwhile economic activity and workers jobs. The activities of the stock exchange have nothing to do with supporting workers or producing worthwhile products and services, their single aim is to maximise the profits they get from their speculation. The stock market will reward mass lay offs, worker exploitation, pollution, destruction of the environment, animal cruelty, War as long as they believe these activieties will make them money. Commodoties traders absolutely cream themselves whenever they hear about atrocities in Iraq or potential war in Iran because they see the opportunities for huge profits for themselves.

That's nice.

Akrasia

No it's not. But it's the truth. Ethics and the stock exchange really don't have anything to do with one another the vast majority of the time. Haliburton's share price has tripled since the Iraq war began in 2003, and this is in spite of numerous corruption and bribery scandals, overcharging and shoddy work, stealing 25 million dollers from employees pensions and shocking corporate irresponsibility (in 1998 KBR and a newly acquired Subsidiary DLL filed for bankruptsy protection to avoid paying compensation to over 300,000 aspestos victims.

The market rewards this behaviour richly if they believe the corporations won't be held accountable for their actions.

rsynnott

He's certainly a lot smarter than the average politician. And I quite like his stance on SF.

samb

Akrasia wrote:

No it's not. But it's the truth. Ethics and the stock exchange really don't have anything to do with one another the vast majority of the time. Haliburton's share price has tripled since the Iraq war began in 2003, and this is in spite of numerous corruption and bribery scandals, overcharging and shoddy work, stealing 25 million dollers from employees pensions and shocking corporate irresponsibility (in 1998 KBR and a newly acquired Subsidiary DLL filed for bankruptsy protection to avoid paying compensation to over 300,000 aspestos victims.
.

our state pension reserve fund (or whatever its called) has shares in Haliburton. Bush's country might not be doing well out of Iraq, but his friends and family are.:mad:

Sand

You have essentially dismissed the correlation of the stress levels for top managers and mothers who have large familes as irrelevant because the mothers must enjoy it for the love of their children therefore their stress is not really the kind of stress that top managers feel.

It is shown that a top manger lives with the stress because of the reward he gets from it in just the same way that a mother would get reward from having children. You cannot seriously deny that bringing up children can be a stressful time in people lives (unless, of course, you have no children). Similarly, I cannot deny that being in a top manager job can be a stressful time in peoples lives.

Are you saying Glasgo that a mother who loves children so much that she has 5 of them is worse off than a terminally ill patient? Has any study been carried out or is it just bar stool talk? And theres no correlation between CEOs and mothers that has been identified afaik.

Either way, a CEO might get a similar non-monetary reward from his job ( success, satisfaction from a good results etc etc) but he still needs a salary of millions to justify the stress. Mothers afaik are satisfied with the non-monetary reward they get from children to justify having those children, so logically a CEOs stress must be greater?

Not to mention the fact that another of the reasons Sand gives to justify the massive wages given to CEOs and top managers (regardless of how well they perform in many circumstances) is that they are tied to their investment while all workers are, as he said, 'Perfectly free to move on to a different job whenever they want'. Well, a Top manager certainly isn't tied to his (it's almost always a he) job for 18 years minimum, and if he decides to leave, he'll take with him a massive pension and a goodbye package that is often worth more than the entire lifes earnings of a working class person.

Thats the second time youve tried to misrepresent my position. I already corrected you in my last post so I can only assume youre deliberately lying at this point. Owners are tied to their investments, and I *specifically* noted in my last post that CEOs were like any other employees in that they could leave easily from their companies.
Heres the quote from my last post:

And highly paid executives are employees, not owners ( at least usually not major shareholders other than stock options). Owners are highly exposed to risk. CEOs can walk anytime, just like other employees. Dont try and switch the goalposts.

Stop lying about my position. If you need to lie then its a good sign youre wrong.

I think Sand's entire premise is the same as the 'Greed is Good' speech that Michael Douglas gives in Wall Street. (transcript http://www.americanrhetoric.com/Movi...allstreet.html ) He shares the same kind of profession.

Would this be my premise or the strawman youre building for me because you cant counter my actual views?

Mutual fund managers don't produce anything of economic value, they just move money around. And according to a piece on The last word today, the return from investment for the small and medium investors are barely even keeping pace with inflation, while they are forced into these funds by the greed of banks who give practically zero interest on personal savings and charge very high interest on personal loans (but low interest on corporate and high value loans

What a quaint stalinist view of economic activity comrade. IT specialists arent toiling in the fields or working on assembly lines building Ladas so I guess theyre not economically useful in your view either? Why dont we go back to living in caves and smacking one rock off another to make fire, hunting animals with sharpened sticks...

Mutual funds take peoples savings and invest them in companies, generating a return for their members. The economic benefit is that they offer a funds to a company to invest in new products, facilities or entire new ventures far more easily than can be done with a normal bank (you can sell a share or a bond far more easily than you can sell a bank loan so its a safer way to get a return). I wouldnt expect Stalinist era economists to see why its useful to provide enterprise with capital to invest but you did ask.

The interesting thing to note is that mutual funds are the biggest investors around - the days of "old money" dominating markets is gone. The biggest members of mutual funds are workers saving for their pension. In a roundabout fashion, mutual funds are the way in which the workers control the means of production...

And BTW - Very high rates of interest on personal loans?!?!? Are you for real? Interest rates has been at historic lows for years (fueling the property market) and are only now beginning to slightly rise.

The activities of the stock exchange have nothing to do with supporting workers or producing worthwhile products and services, their single aim is to maximise the profits they get from their speculation. The stock market will reward mass lay offs, worker exploitation, pollution, destruction of the environment, animal cruelty, War as long as they believe these activieties will make them money.

Damn those investors trying to make money!!

What did you think? That they should be trying to *lose* money? Theyre doing a good attempt of it I grant you though, much to the anger of a lot of workers hoping to retire before theyre 90. Stock markets are neutral - they invest lawfully in firms that operate lawfully. If the firms dont operate lawfully then bring them to trial.

Lets face it - your alternative would be government regulation over and above the law again. Seeing as Nike can operate child slavery in the third world without it impacting their sales its clear no one in Ireland or elsewhere views Nikes practises as a significant problem. Hence a representitive government wont view it as a problem either surely?

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

Are you saying Glasgo that a mother who loves children so much that she has 5 of them is worse off than a terminally ill patient?

Certainly not. You are suggesting that a top manager is worse off than a terminally ill patient.

Has any study been carried out or is it just bar stool talk? And theres no correlation between CEOs and mothers that has been identified afaik.

You do not need to pay consultants 6 figures to come with the fact that raising a large family can be stressful

Either way, a CEO might get a similar non-monetary reward from his job ( success, satisfaction from a good results etc etc) but he still needs a salary of millions to justify the stress.

He *needs* a 7 figure salary to *justify* the stress? How do you work that one out?

More likely, the top manager *wants* that salary to justify his own notion of the stress he is under. It is very easy for a top manager to relieve himself of the stress and indeed a lot of top managers I see work hard on their golf handicap so all this talk of a comparison to terminally ill patients is a joke and a total irrelevance.

Mothers afaik are satisfied with the non-monetary reward they get from children to justify having those children, so logically a CEOs stress must be greater?

Nope