The top 1% and the one to twelve ratio...

No Pants

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

Do I need research to support my view? It's an opinion, why should I need research of any sort to back it up? Should I need research to show why I like blue more than green?

Blue or green is a personal choice. Deciding on whether or not you support a legislative proposal should be based on something more.

Akrasia

Jawgap wrote: »

Seriously?

Don't mind surveys - have a look at the actual process involved in setting up a business here - it's ridiculously wasteful. You've to provide the same info over and over again to a range of bodies, the bureaucracy is impenetrable and unless you're Apple or Google, the practical help available is minimal.

Now you're joking.
Setting up a business is very easy in Ireland.

There are also multiple grants and assistance programs. If you're uncertain, you can go into the local county enterprise board of local development company and someone will fill in all the forms for you.

It would be hard to imagine a system that is easier yet still functions within a modern legal framework.

Buzz Killington the third

No Pants wrote: »

Blue or green is a personal choice. Deciding on whether or not you support a legislative proposal should be based on something more.

Calculating a 12-1 ratio for salary in PS jobs would still leave the top of the chain on enormous salaries you know. I actually don't think many at all would be affected by it. But it would limit the huge bonuses which are handed out.

folan

could be worse, could be more like the ratios here (from joe.ie).

seamus

Jawgap wrote: »

Seriously?

Don't mind surveys - have a look at the actual process involved in setting up a business here - it's ridiculously wasteful. You've to provide the same info over and over again to a range of bodies, the bureaucracy is impenetrable and unless you're Apple or Google, the practical help available is minimal.

To be fair, it's quite straightforward. You don't even have to register a business name or fill out any forms. I can start trading as "seamus's landscaping" tomorrow.

I think the main problem is that there are no supports in place to help get you over the initial barriers and no mats in place to catch you when you fail.

As a sole trader setting up a business, you get zero government assistance to purchase materials or rent a business premises. Your tax credits are half those of a PAYE worker, and you are excluded from claiming practically any personal income assistance from social welfare.
On top of that, if/when you begin to struggle and your business fails, you are locked out of claiming government assistance for quite a long time, and your entire asset portfolio is at risk.

So anyone looking at starting a new business in Ireland - especially those with the industry experience to do so - will see a massive yawning chasm into which they could easily fall and lose everything, and be left there to die by the state. So they stay put on the gravy train as a PAYE employee.
My brother worked as a sole trader for about ten years before moving into a PAYE role. About two weeks into it he said, "Paid holidays, less tax, evenings and weekends off, no equipment costs - lads, I was a mug for ever working for myself".
Obviously we need to prevent individual people setting up tonnes of crappy businesses, but at the same time there needs to be supports in place to encourage those with the skills to give it a go.

No Pants

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

Calculating a 12-1 ratio for salary in PS jobs would still leave the top of the chain on enormous salaries you know. I actually don't think many at all would be affected by it. But it would limit the huge bonuses which are handed out.

1:12 still means that the CEO makes the same in the month as the lowest paid makes in a year. It's about fairness, both within the company and society.

Jawgap

Akrasia wrote: »

Now you're joking.
Setting up a business is very easy in Ireland.

There are also multiple grants and assistance programs. If you're uncertain, you can go into the local county enterprise board of local development company and someone will fill in all the forms for you.

It would be hard to imagine a system that is easier yet still functions within a modern legal framework.

Have you set up a business here?

Because that is certainly not my experience.

I think at the last count a small manufacturing business I was involved with was dealing with nearly 20 different state agencies.

........then there's the business rates.....

Buzz Killington the third

No Pants wrote: »

1:12 still means that the CEO makes the same in the month as the lowest paid makes in a year. It's about fairness, both within the company and society.

So what? They're the CEO, not a secretary! I don't buy the "fairness" argument at all. Is it fair that while most of us work, there's a very large portion of society that scrounge off the state?

oppenheimer1

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

It's something they're talking about on Newstalk at the moment. The idea is that within a company, the top earner can not earn more in a month than the lowest paid worker earns in a year.

I think it's something that should be enforced and would work well in the Civil/Public service but in a private company I think limiting wages is just wrong. When someone starts a company, why should they not benefit from it?

The lowest wages in the public service are about 22k for an entry level clerk. Almost no one in the public service earns more than 12 times that.

Jawgap

seamus wrote: »

To be fair, it's quite straightforward. You don't even have to register a business name or fill out any forms. I can start trading as "seamus's landscaping" tomorrow.

......

Perhaps setting up service based business is straightforward enough - but if there are tangible goods involved, especially coming in and going out of the country it's orders of magnitude more complicated.

And it's not even that you have to deal with so many organisations - what's frustrating is that their requirements are often diametrically opposed! Even within the same organisation - you get one division telling you to do one thing, then another comes along and warns you not to!

Tiddlypeeps

No Pants wrote: »

1:12 still means that the CEO makes the same in the month as the lowest paid makes in a year. It's about fairness, both within the company and society.

That would only be unfair if the lowest paid worked full time hours for a rate that can not provide them with the basics needed to get by. If the lowest paid are in no way being exploited then where is the unfairness?

This does not exist in Ireland, it's just a cliche that people have latched onto for some reason.

What anybody else in a company earns should be totally irrelevant as long as everyone working for the company is provided with a reasonable standard of living from their wages.

SligoQueries

Frynge wrote: »

I bought a brand new car last year that was not cheap.

From the money in the safe?

No Pants

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

So what? They're the CEO, not a secretary! I don't buy the "fairness" argument at all. Is it fair that while most of us work, there's a very large portion of society that scrounge off the state?

Studies show that it causes resentment and morale problems, which cost the company. Seeing as the CEO is responsible for the company to the owners, that should be a concern.

There's nothing wrong with a CEO earning more than a secretary. However, there is a problem when the pay ratio reaches 273:1, 354:1 or even 1,795:1. At that point, it becomes a threat to democracy.

Buzz Killington the third

No Pants wrote: »

Studies show that it causes resentment and morale problems, which cost the company. Seeing as the CEO is responsible for the company to the owners, that should be a concern.

There's nothing wrong with a CEO earning more than a secretary. However, there is a problem when the pay ratio reaches 273:1, 354:1 or even 1,795:1. At that point, it becomes a threat to democracy.

Better call Team America... :rolleyes:

shruikan2553

No Pants wrote: »

Studies show that it causes resentment and morale problems, which cost the company. Seeing as the CEO is responsible for the company to the owners, that should be a concern.

There's nothing wrong with a CEO earning more than a secretary. However, there is a problem when the pay ratio reaches 273:1, 354:1 or even 1,795:1. At that point, it becomes a threat to democracy.

If I start a business will the state create legislation in order to make it as profitable as possible?

It seems like the issue is with people who have a lot of money bribing polititions, I recommended looking into preventing that before you worry about what people earn.

No Pants

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

Better call Team America... :rolleyes:

I don't think that's necessary. The numbers I quoted are from the US, so they're well aware of them and the problems they cause. However, nothing is likely to change any time soon.

Dyr

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

There is a significant lack of entrepreneurs in Ireland as it is, yet people want to disincentivize entrepreneurship even more.

Remarkable.

http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/ireland-most-entrepreneurial-country-in-europe-1533477-Jun2014/

Now stop posting for christs sake, it's like you paid sean gallagher to coach you in having opinions.

Dan_Solo

How entertaining that it's the same people who want the public service to be run more like the private sector are those who are saying pay ratios are great for the public service but would never work in the private sector...

Iwasfrozen

No Pants wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with a CEO earning more than a secretary. However, there is a problem when the pay ratio reaches 273:1, 354:1 or even 1,795:1. At that point, it becomes a threat to democracy.

People are paid what they're worth to the company.

I'd love to see you provide an example of these outlandish figures btw.

steddyeddy

Celly Smunt wrote: »

No.You pay the best to get the best.


The less meddling by governments in the private sector the better.

You don't believe this cliché do you?

Aongus Von Bismarck

I always have to snort when I read about this supposed 1% and how they are keeping the oppressed majority down. Usually by the same chaps who extol the virtues of a hellhole like Cuba, where the 99% are truly oppressed and miserable.

I came from an average middle-class home in rural Ireland. I now work in investment banking in Germany for a well known bank. I didn't get to where I am because I came from some elite club, or because I went to a specific school. I got here because I had drive, determination and a deep desire to succeed. Like almost all my colleagues. I made sacrifices, excelled academically and took setbacks in my stride. I now enjoy an extremely high standard of living.

Some of those most vocal about this supposed glass ceiling would do well to apply their extraordinary skills in criticism and insight at themselves for a while.

dwayneshintzy

http://deadspin.com/bill-james-calls-for-revolutionary-changes-to-the-ameri-1595361407

Interesting link

Dan_Solo

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

I now work in investment banking in Germany for a well known bank.

And we're supposed to thank you for that...

Jawgap

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And we're supposed to thank you for that...

I think the point is that most people who earn decent salaries have got there by the sweat of their own efforts.

It would seem unfair to limit their earning potential by the application of some arbitrary formula.

I would tend to agree @Aongus Von Bismarck - there seems to be an attitude in Ireland that if you are earning a decent salary you
(a) don't deserve it
(b) you were lucky and / or were gifted the position because of family or school connections.

Usually when I encounter that type of begrudgery I respond that it is dead easy to get my job - first, you get yourself a decent Leaving Cert, then work any job you can get through university - get an entry level job in your chosen area then squeeze every opportunity to learn and profit from other people's experience.....

......oh, and invest in yourself - spend some of your money (and borrow if you have to) on advanced professional qualifications......

.....and be prepared to move - opportunities won't come to you.

.....see? it's dead easy.

Tail Docker

Celly Smunt wrote: »

No.You pay the best to get the best.


The less meddling by governments in the private sector the better.

LOL. That is all.

donegal__road

U.S.A.

Average CEO Compensation$12,259,894

Average Worker Compensation$34,645



LINK

Iwasfrozen

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And we're supposed to thank you for that...

I'd say he couldn't care less if you thanked him or not. At the end of the day he's working for an investment bank in Germany and you're not.

Dan_Solo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'd say he couldn't care less if you thanked him or not. At the end of the day he's working for an investment bank in Germany and you're not.

Why, are you assuming I am poor?
Just because the poor don't agree with inequality doesn't mean only the poor do.

Aongus Von Bismarck

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Why, are you assuming I am poor?
Just because the poor don't agree with inequality doesn't mean only the poor do.

I'm not hugely in favour of inequality myself. My drive to work in the 5-Series wouldn't be made better by the sight of shoeless plebs begging at street corners. Germany is a progressive social democracy, as is Ireland, and most of their respective citizens are happy to contribute via income tax.

I just don't see how inequality can be solved by bringing those who make a very good living into a category where the most they can ever earn is 12 times what the lowest paid employee in the company makes. If such a ludicrous decision was to be made then I'd leave Europe and move to Hong Kong or Singapore.

Iwasfrozen

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Why, are you assuming I am poor?
Just because the poor don't agree with inequality doesn't mean only the poor do.

Nope.

And whether you agree with inequality or not is irrelevant, at the end of the day you won't change anything. Better to work in the system than against it. That's the point I'm making.

Dan_Solo

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

I'm not hugely in favour of inequality myself. My drive to work in the 5-Series wouldn't be made better by the sight of shoeless plebs begging at street corners. Germany is a progressive social democracy, as is Ireland, and most of their respective citizens are happy to contribute via income tax.

I just don't see how inequality can be solved by bringing those who make a very good living into a category where the most they can ever earn is 12 times what the lowest paid employee in the company makes. If such a ludicrous decision was to be made then I'd leave Europe and move to Hong Kong or Singapore.

Yeah, but as expected, this conversation isn't about YOU, it's about society. Excuse me if I don't get too worked up about you getting on the first plane out of Europe if it's made the lot of the vast majority of the population better.

Turtwig

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

I always have to snort when I read about this supposed 1% and how they are keeping the oppressed majority down. Usually by the same chaps who extol the virtues of a hellhole like Cuba, where the 99% are truly oppressed and miserable.

I came from an average middle-class home in rural Ireland. I now work in investment banking in Germany for a well known bank. I didn't get to where I am because I came from some elite club, or because I went to a specific school. I got here because I had drive, determination and a deep desire to succeed. Like almost all my colleagues. I made sacrifices, excelled academically and took setbacks in my stride. I now enjoy an extremely high standard of living.

Some of those most vocal about this supposed glass ceiling would do well to apply their extraordinary skills in criticism and insight at themselves for a while.

Snort is a little OTT.



Make no mistake, Ireland has cultural attitude problems towards unspecified higher salaries that is begrudgery but there is also another side to this too people of higher salaries often have persecution complexes where anything negative towards them is perceived as begrudgery. Just like suggesting taking entitlements from any group is difficult, so is questioning the monetary value of a person's salary. Regardless, of whether it's irrational or rational. Both groups are just bad as the other.

I like to think of a CEO as a Steam Games Library. Do they really really need all those money or games? Likely not, but then is it really any of my business what they do with their personal lives as long as they're not harming others? Not every company is evil and exploitative. 7 figure salaries does seem like an extraordinary silly thing, but meh, my Steam library is incredibly silly too and I barely make use of it.

Dan_Solo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nope.

And whether you agree with inequality or not is irrelevant, at the end of the day you won't change anything. Better to work in the system than against it. That's the point I'm making.

I won't personally, but if enough people agree with me then it's curtains for the status quo. That's how these things have worked throughout history... the rich and powerful seldom share in response to a well written plea.

Dan_Solo

Did everybody miss the bit about countries with greater wealth equality having higher mean income?
That was good that, wasn't it?

Iwasfrozen

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I won't personally, but if enough people agree with me then it's curtains for the status quo. That's how these things have worked throughout history... the rich and powerful seldom share in response to a well written plea.

There has never ever in history been equality. Even in our hunter gatherer stage the men and tribal leaders took the lions share of the kill.

If you want more money work for it. Take some professional exams or enrol in a course in the open university. Stop whining that CEOs make a lot of money and instead make it your life's goal to join their ranks.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Did everybody miss the bit about countries with greater wealth equality having higher mean income?
That was good that, wasn't it?

Cause doesn't equal effect.

Jawgap

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I won't personally, but if enough people agree with me then it's curtains for the status quo. That's how these things have worked throughout history... the rich and powerful seldom share in response to a well written plea.

It won't.

In my own case, my relative salary (relative to peers in my profession) has been eroded by various cuts, the Haddington Road Agreement, and unilateral changes to my contract of employment imposed by the public sector organisation......

.......hence my imminent return to a private sector firm in the UK.

Unless every country (or at least every country in the EU along with the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a few others) imposes such a regime, then people will still have opportunities to move and avoid having such a condition imposed on their salary.

Dan_Solo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There has never ever in history been equality. Even in our hunter gatherer stage the men and tribal leaders took the lions share of the kill.

Lame argument. You could say the same about health care, sanitation or universal suffrage.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If you want more money work for it. Take some professional exams or enrol in a course in the open university. Stop whining that CEOs make a lot of money and instead make it your life's goal to join their ranks.

Or if you think their salary is an unjust construct of a kleptocratic society, then make it your life's goal to knock them down a peg.

Dan_Solo

Jawgap wrote: »

It won't.

In my own case, my relative salary (relative to peers in my profession) has been eroded by various cuts, the Haddington Road Agreement, and unilateral changes to my contract of employment imposed by the public sector organisation......

Things can't be changed? I think you'll find history shows things can be changed. Not always for the better and seldom peacefully, but it does happen.
I guess the private sector advocates will be delighted you're off their tax burden. I don't know if you were worth what you were paid either way TBH.
Doctor?

Tail Docker

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Lame argument. You could say the same about health care, sanitation or universal suffrage.


Or if you think their salary is an unjust construct of a kleptocratic society, then make it your life's goal to knock them down a peg.

Good luck with that. I'd pick another goal tbh, maybe try curing cancer?

jackofalltrades

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Yeah, but as expected, this conversation isn't about YOU, it's about society. Excuse me if I don't get too worked up about you getting on the first plane out of Europe if it's made the lot of the vast majority of the population better.

Yes but this 1:12 wage cap isn't going to increase the wages of the lower paid staff.
It's just going to cap the wages of the higher paid staff.
Any additional wage savings are just going to increase profits.

How does this increase the lot of the vast majority of the population?

Iwasfrozen

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Lame argument. You could say the same about health care, sanitation or universal suffrage.

Well that's test that hypothesis.

"There has never been equality" Yep, that sounds about accurate.

"There has never been healthcare" hmm, no that one doesn't make sense.

"There has never been sanitation" Well I don't know about you but I have a toilet and a shower. Most people do so that's not true either.

"There has never been universal suffrage" Not true either, we've had universal suffrage for decades.

Or if you think their salary is an unjust construct of a kleptocratic society, then make it your life's goal to knock them down a peg.

Or you could realise that companies pay all of their employees what their value is. If they paid too little the company would lose the person to another company, if they paid too much the company would be at a disadvantage against their competitors.

I find it startling that you profess your life's goal to be knocking down successful people instead of trying to be successful yourself.

Dan_Solo

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Yes but this 1:12 wage cap isn't going to increase the wages of the lower paid staff.
It's just going to cap the wages of the higher paid staff.
Any additional wage savings are just going to increase profits.

How does this increase the lot of the vast majority of the population?

If the CEO wants more pay all he has to do is give the lowest paid worker a raise.
Like, duh.

Tail Docker

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well that's test that hypothesis.

"There has never been equality" Yep, that sounds about accurate.

"There has never been healthcare" hmm, no that one doesn't make sense.

"There has never been sanitation" Well I don't know about you but I have a toilet and a shower. Most people do so that's not true either.

"There has never been universal suffrage" Not true either, we've had universal suffrage for decades.



Or you could realise that companies pay all of their employees what their value is. If they paid too little the company would lose the person to another company, if they paid too much the company would be at a disadvantage against their competitors.

I find it startling that you profess your life's goal to be knocking down successful people instead of trying to be successful yourself.

No, no they don't. It's widely accepted that as a trainee, you are vastly overpaid for your contribution, then you become skilled, and are vastly underpaid for years, then you become CEO and are once again vastly overpaid. Many CEOs, and MDs, are muppets.

Turtwig

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If the CEO wants more pay all he has to do is give the lowest paid worker a raise.
Like, duh.

Or fire them and the lowest paid worker will be on a higher a wage and the CEO can give themself the raise. :pac:

Iwasfrozen

Tail Docker wrote: »

No, no they don't. It's widely accepted that as a trainee, you are vastly overpaid for your contribution, then you become skilled, and are vastly underpaid for years, then you become CEO and are once again vastly overpaid. Many CEOs, and MDs, are muppets.

Widely acepted by whom?

Graduates are underpaid relative to their skill level because they are easily replaced. A person's expandability is taken account of in their value.

Dan_Solo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well that's test that hypothesis.

"There has never been equality" Yep, that sounds about accurate.

"There has never been healthcare" hmm, no that one doesn't make sense.

"There has never been sanitation" Well I don't know about you but I have a toilet and a shower. Most people do so that's not true either.

"There has never been universal suffrage" Not true either, we've had universal suffrage for decades.

Point missed in jaw-droppingly spectacular fashion.
Just because something hasn't existed in society before doesn't mean it isn't a good idea and shouldn't be brought in.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I find it startling that you profess your life's goal to be knocking down successful people instead of trying to be successful yourself.

I am successful enough myself thanks all the same. Have you got any other lines, because that one's wearing thing at this stage.
By "successful" you mean rich I suppose? I simply don't believe all rich people are deserving of their riches, any more than I believe that all poor people deserve to be poor.

Jawgap

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Things can't be changed? I think you'll find history shows things can be changed. Not always for the better and seldom peacefully, but it does happen.
I guess the private sector advocates will be delighted you're off their tax burden. I don't know if you were worth what you were paid either way TBH.
Doctor?

Perhaps in the past, but with EU freedom of movement , the internet, cheap air travel etc it's a lot more challenging.

Not a doctor.

.......and my role was revenue generating. I brought in about twice what I cost.

But having started as a 'poacher' - I will returning to be one!

Professionally, it's much more satisfying to work in the public interest and when I joined the PS the salary was comparable to what I was getting working privately (the benefits less so). But while salaries in the Irish PS have stagnated and declined, the money offered by private firms has been increasing.

When I joined the PS my salary was about the median according to the professional body I'm a member of - the salary survey for this year had it in the bottom quartile.

I'd no real desire to move on, but I was 'courted' - then the crowd I'm going to work for made me an offer I couldn't refuse.

On the 'plus' side - the body I'm still employed with, in a fit of petty pique, is making me 'work' out every last day of my notice.......only two more months of twiddling my thumbs to go - hopefully the weather will keep up.

Dan_Solo

Turtwig wrote: »

Or fire them and the lowest paid worker will be on a higher a wage and the CEO can give themself the raise. :pac:

If the company can continue with no employees then why not!

Iwasfrozen

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Point missed in jaw-droppingly spectacular fashion.
Just because something hasn't existed in society before doesn't mean it isn't a good idea and shouldn't be brought in.

This was what you wrote

"That's how these things have worked throughout history... the rich and powerful seldom share in response to a well written plea."

There has never ever been equality in our history. "Equality" isn't even possible.

I am successful enough myself thanks all the same. Have you got any other lines, because that one's wearing thing at this stage.
By "successful" you mean rich I suppose? I simply don't believe all rich people are deserving of their riches, any more than I believe that all poor people deserve to be poor.

Yet you seek to knock all rich people "down a peg" despite believing that some of them do deserve their wealth?

Also there aren't really any poor people in this country. Less well off sure but by global standards they're hardly poor.

Tail Docker

Jawgap wrote: »

Perhaps in the past, but with EU freedom of movement , the internet, cheap air travel etc it's a lot more challenging.

Not a doctor.

.......and my role was revenue generating. I brought in about twice what I cost.

But having started as a 'poacher' - I will returning to be one!

Professionally, it's much more satisfying to work in the public interest and when I joined the PS the salary was comparable to what I was getting working privately (the benefits less so). But while salaries in the Irish PS have stagnated and declined, the money offered by private firms has been increasing.

When I joined the PS my salary was about the median according to the professional body I'm a member of - the salary survey for this year had it in the bottom quartile.

I'd no real desire to move on, but I was 'courted' - then the crowd I'm going to work for made me an offer I couldn't refuse.

On the 'plus' side - the body I'm still employed with, in a fit of petty pique, is making me 'work' out every last day of my notice.......only two more months of twiddling my thumbs to go - hopefully the weather will keep up.

No, no-one can "make" you work out notice. You are working it out voluntarily. I never worked a days notice in my life - "I'm off, good luck". "But you can't??!" "I can, I am Ill, mentally unstable, depressed, pregnant, not owed anything by ye, don't need it if I am, couldn't give a feck, sue me.."