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

Jawgap

Tail Docker wrote: »

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.."

In this case they can, because it's in my contract. I thought we would have just reached an agreement that I'd close off the work I've been doing and that would be it, but no - they're holding me to the full six months that it's in the contract (didn't seem like it'd a big deal when I signed).

Plus, if I was to go sick - I'd be spoiling my perfect attendance record and I'd need to get medical certification.

Finally, despite the twattery of my boss, I'd like to leave things as well as possible for my colleagues - the guy who is taking on my case-load is only three years out of college!!! When I started there was four of us, all with significant professional experience - now there's two, and for both of them there in their first job out of college.........but they are cheaper to employ.

No Pants

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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

I got them from a Google search. "ceo to lowest paid employee ratio" are the exact words I'm using right now. Where did you think I got them from? I can't be arsed referencing them properly, so here are quotes and links from the articles.

"In a new paper the Economic Policy Institute, a think-tank, calculates that chief executives at America's 350 biggest companies were paid 231 times as much as the average private-sector worker in 2011."

"Johnson, 54, got a compensation package worth 1,795 times the average wage and benefits of a U.S. department store worker when he was hired in November 2011, according to data compiled by Bloomberg."

"The ratio of CEO-to-worker pay at companies in the S&P 500 was 354-to-1 last year, according to the AFL-CIO, the umbrella organization for many of America’s unions. That’s up from 281-to-1 in 2002 and 42-to-1 in 1982, the organization found."

There's a nice table here.

Dan_Solo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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.

True equality, no. Better equality than we have now, yes.
TBH this whole x10 or x20 thing should be nationwide, 100% applied. 20 times the dole be the max. and if you want more yourself get on to your mates in FF/FG about increasing the dole...

Turtwig

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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

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

Doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to create it. Sure, there were no lasers or the concept of them in human history either until 200 years ago.

Saying there are no poor in this country is like saying they are no problems with the healthcare in this country because it's far better than in Africa. This isn't Africa, it's Ireland and there are poor people here. Though to be fair Ireland's system is very good and very open towards trying to promote social mobility from lower income backgrounds to higher ones. Biggest negative being attitudes towards sole traders.

Tail Docker

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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.

Expand or expend? There's a big difference..BTW, and off topic, don't become indispensable. I'm pretty close to it for a client, and tomorrow I have to go sit in a meeting to discuss hiring a development manager for a new business stream that I thought of, am perfect for, but fcuked if there's a gimp to replace me in my current role..hence, some other tool will benefit.. be a bit dispensable.

steddyeddy

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.

In other words learned helpless is the key to life.

Turtwig

steddyeddy wrote: »

In other words learned helpless is the key to life.

Totally offtopic but there does need to be awareness drive towards people falling into the trap of learned helpness. It's crippling to individuals!:(

Tail Docker

Turtwig wrote: »

Totally offtopic but there does need to be awareness drive towards people falling into the trap of learned helpness. It's crippling to individuals!:(

It's even more crippling to economies...

jackofalltrades

Dan_Solo wrote: »

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

Like that's ever going to happen, companies pay as little as they can for the staff that they need.
The idea the lowest paid staff are going to get wage increases so that the CEO can be paid more is ridiculous.
No board or shareholders are ever going to agree to that.

No Pants

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

If such a ludicrous decision was to be made then I'd leave Europe and move to Hong Kong or Singapore.

Seriously? Thinking about this for a moment, if you were the CEO of your bank and could only earn twelve times the salary of your lowest paid employee, how much would you be turning down?

Tail Docker

No Pants wrote: »

Seriously? Thinking about this for a moment, if you were the CEO of your bank and could only earn twelve times the salary of your lowest paid employee, how much would you be turning down?

This is why God invented bonuses, pension top-ups and share options. If anyone thinks a salary cap is enforceable, good luck with that.

Iwasfrozen

No Pants wrote: »

I got them from a Google search. "ceo to lowest paid employee ratio" are the exact words I'm using right now. Where did you think I got them from? I can't be arsed referencing them properly, so here are quotes and links from the articles.

"In a new paper the Economic Policy Institute, a think-tank, calculates that chief executives at America's 350 biggest companies were paid 231 times as much as the average private-sector worker in 2011."

"Johnson, 54, got a compensation package worth 1,795 times the average wage and benefits of a U.S. department store worker when he was hired in November 2011, according to data compiled by Bloomberg."

"The ratio of CEO-to-worker pay at companies in the S&P 500 was 354-to-1 last year, according to the AFL-CIO, the umbrella organization for many of America’s unions. That’s up from 281-to-1 in 2002 and 42-to-1 in 1982, the organization found."

There's a nice table here.

Right a compensation package isn't a wage though. If the CEO was making 1,795 times as much as a secretary in Ireland assuming a 40 hour week they would be making at least

8.65*40*52*1,795 = 32,295,640

Not many CEOs are on 32 million a year.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

True equality, no. Better equality than we have now, yes.
TBH this whole x10 or x20 thing should be nationwide, 100% applied. 20 times the dole be the max. and if you want more yourself get on to your mates in FF/FG about increasing the dole...

That wouldn't happen, the vast majority of people earning anything decent would leave. Heck I would be on the first plane to London and I'm not earning a huge amount.

Iwasfrozen

Tail Docker wrote: »

Expand or expend? There's a big difference..BTW, and off topic, don't become indispensable. I'm pretty close to it for a client, and tomorrow I have to go sit in a meeting to discuss hiring a development manager for a new business stream that I thought of, am perfect for, but fcuked if there's a gimp to replace me in my current role..hence, some other tool will benefit.. be a bit dispensable.

Expend, that was a typo on my part but certainly expandability is should be taken into consideration if you're talking about a person's value.

steddyeddy

Turtwig wrote: »

Totally offtopic but there does need to be awareness drive towards people falling into the trap of learned helpness. It's crippling to individuals!:(

I agree 100%. I don't think it's something that's easily recognised at all. Knowledge of it would make life a lot easier.

Turtwig

"Learned helplessness"

Just in case anyone was confused by my typo.

Dan_Solo

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Like that's ever going to happen, companies pay as little as they can for the staff that they need.
The idea the lowest paid staff are going to get wage increases so that the CEO can be paid more is ridiculous.
No board or shareholders are ever going to agree to that.

Obviously not. But I don't think anybody was suggesting they'd just be asked nicely. The proposal was there'd be a law, ya know?

ceadaoin.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

True equality, no. Better equality than we have now, yes.
TBH this whole x10 or x20 thing should be nationwide, 100% applied. 20 times the dole be the max. and if you want more yourself get on to your mates in FF/FG about increasing the dole...

20 times the dole, seriously? And how much tax do you propose these 'high earners' pay on that?

And what do you mean 'get on to your mates'? Are you suggesting that anyone who earns a lot of money has got there because of their connections and not because of, you know, actually working hard?

Turtwig

ceadaoin. wrote: »

20 times the dole, seriously? And how much tax do you propose these 'high earners' pay on that?

And what do you mean 'get on to your mates'? Are you suggesting that anyone who earns a lot of money has got there because of their connections and not because of, you know, actually working hard?

To be fair there are two 'schools' to this.

i)
If everyone's income is capped then finance isn't the motivating factor; autonomy is. A person want's to do something because they have an interest or desire to do so. With finance being the BIG motivator it's far easier for a person chasing money to adopt less ethical means of making money. As the rule goes, you don't just blatantly cross the line. You cross it slowly until gradually you forget where the line was and justify yourself accordingly. (Papers Please! Is actually a brilliant illustration of this with even more moral ambiguity added.) If money is your primary motivation to anything then you'll likely sees ways to optimise your income even if they are ethically grey. If your primary motivation is creativity, or a similar skillset, then it's more likely that unethical outcomes will less favoured

ii)
Conversely, if everyone's income is uncapped. Then people have two big motivations. One is ego driven, some people like to be the cream of the crop. The spotlight. Our current society adorns success. All around you all read you ever mostly read about is the people that 'make ' it. The second is by setting the sky at the limit some people will be willing to take all kinds of risks for higher and higher rewards. This may seem like a bad, and indeed in some cases it will be, but often times ideas that come to fruition are initially high risk. Without the lure of the reward would such ideas have been pursued as vigorously or as passionately? Would we have the technology today. Regardless of the income inequality levels the standard of living for just about everyone on this planet is much better than it was five centuries ago. Even more in the first world countries. Yes, people have getting the drips of a trickle while others have accumulated all the wealth but at the end of it all everyone is more or less significantly better off each century.

It's not as clear cut as saying either idea is stupid. Both have their merits.

Regarding your final point about people earning lots of money. Some merely inherited it. Not that's by itself a bad thing. That caveat needs to emphasised but if it got disproportionate between high earners primarily hailing from middle and upper classes then we got a problem. Social mobility needs to be somewhat proportional to over wealth. In other words, a person born in the ****test place of Ireland should have just as much a chance of setting up the next fortune 500 as someone born into a middle income or above society. If it gets to stage where a successful business can only be created by those above middle income then society has a serious problem.

A second important thing to note is that success isn't the sole factor in a person's career. It's an easy trap for people to fall into i.e those who aren't successful didn't try as hard. When it's usually based on little more than personal experience and intuition. In fact, it even falls into a logical fallacy "The Just World Fallacy" . The reason why it's an easy trap is because in order to be successful one usually, usually, not always, has to try very damn hard. So that's the lens through which a successful person see's the world. The problem is once they make it they rarely see those who tried just as hard or harder that failed. Why? Because they failed. So their everyday experience is biased solely by the people who tried very hard and made it. Not that others didn't try harder. This attitude exists across all income brackets and even in other issues entirely e.g if something bad happens there must be reason why it happened, every misdemeanour requires some justification, even if in reality none exists.
At this point it's worth revisiting the first ideology sketched. The notion that autonomy would be less likely to encourage fraudulent acts than simply the goal of money. What if the autonomy is to see how far into the system one can commit fraud without getting caught? To put it another what if the person's 'creative' goal and enjoyment is at gaming systems and subverting morals. There's no real guarantee that autonomy itself will lead to people being less fraudulent. It's just a belief because financial desires have been removed from the equation.

I obfuscated that post a little, hopefully some of it permeates through to others. Neither idea is inherently stupid, so I don't see why people are so dismissive towards each other. I'd like to think that society's direction should be decided by evidence based reasoning and tbh both groups don't really have evidence to conclusively say their way is best. It's just a belief and my own belief is that best approach is a balance between the two. Being extreme is nearly always a bad idea.

jackofalltrades

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Obviously not. But I don't think anybody was suggesting they'd just be asked nicely. The proposal was there'd be a law, ya know?

My post addressed the fact that even with this law in place, no CEO is going to increase the lowest paid workers salaries in order to give themselves a wage increase.

I think you need to read my posts before replying to them.

Jawgap

If people are so hell bent on making the world a better, more equal place why not insist on equality of opportunity when it comes especially to education.

Why look to put limits on the amount people can earn? It seems to me such a proposal is aimed at limiting the high earners, not uplifting the low earners.

The problem isn't that the CEO earns obscene multiples of the entry level employee in the same firm - the problem is making sure everyone has access to affordable, high quality education......

......and yes you should have to pay at least a nominal amount to access third level - not to cover the cost of your education but to make you value the opportunity so it's not squandered.

No Pants

Tail Docker wrote: »

This is why God invented bonuses, pension top-ups and share options. If anyone thinks a salary cap is enforceable, good luck with that.

I don't think it is either, but I do think that there's got to be a point where enough is enough. I'd call it greed, but I think it's more complex than that and very much down to the individual and their motivations.

folan

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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

outlandish?

not in football, my friend.

See Fabio "I've only won 1 game in 7 world cup matches" Capello.


link to joe.ie

No Pants

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Right a compensation package isn't a wage though. If the CEO was making 1,795 times as much as a secretary in Ireland assuming a 40 hour week they would be making at least

8.65*40*52*1,795 = 32,295,640

Not many CEOs are on 32 million a year.

Well, that chap was. And as the article reports, someone else was in his chair 18 months later.

Tiddlypeeps

People seem to be completely missing the point that we and many other countries have achieved very low levels of income inequality without implementing a salary cap. Nobody has yet stated why this kind of move is in anyway necessary.

shruikan2553

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

People seem to be completely missing the point that we and many other countries have achieved very low levels of income inequality without implementing a salary cap. Nobody has yet stated why this kind of move is in anyway necessary.

Something to do with preventing people getting "too much"* money.

*too much depends from person to person and whether or not they feel someone else " earned" the money to their satisfaction

No Pants

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

People seem to be completely missing the point that we and many other countries have achieved very low levels of income inequality without implementing a salary cap. Nobody has yet stated why this kind of move is in anyway necessary.

Can I not insert an image in here?

Handy table here, taken from here, published 2013.

"Population health tends to be better in societies where income is more equally distributed. Recent evidence suggests that many other socialproblems, including mental illness, violence, imprisonment, lack oftrust, teenage births, obesity, drug abuse, and poor educational performance of schoolchildren, are also more common in more unequalsocieties." Paper published by The Equality Trust, 2009.

Tiddlypeeps

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Something to do with preventing people getting "too much"* money.

*too much depends from person to person and whether or not they feel someone else " earned" the money to their satisfaction

But people getting "too much" money only happens in countries with really high income inequality, like the US. In countries with low income inequality the cap that people are talking about happens organically. In Ireland right now very very few people earn more than 12x the minimum wage.

I'm assuming too much here to mean earning so much you can effectively manipulate government policies.

shruikan2553

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

But people getting "too much" money only happens in countries with really high income inequality, like the US. In countries with low income inequality the cap that people are talking about happens organically. In Ireland right now very very few people earn more than 12x the minimum wage.

I'm assuming too much here to mean earning so much you can effectively manipulate government policies.

Probably. I don't understand it myself and seems like it is cutting off the water to the house to fix a leaky tap instead of looking at the tap and fixing it. It does seem to be an issue in the US but I would focus on making the minimum wage the actual minimum wage first.

As you said, in Ireland it will have very little effect if any.

Tiddlypeeps

No Pants wrote: »

Can I not insert an image in here?

Handy table here, taken from here, published 2013.

"Population health tends to be better in societies where income is more equally distributed. Recent evidence suggests that many other socialproblems, including mental illness, violence, imprisonment, lack oftrust, teenage births, obesity, drug abuse, and poor educational performance of schoolchildren, are also more common in more unequalsocieties." Paper published by The Equality Trust, 2009.

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not.

From the wiki page on income inequality the ratio of the top 10% to the bottom 10% is 9.4:1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

I totally agree that high income inequality is very bad, but it's not an issue we have here in Ireland.

uch

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

Because it's the tax payer that funds their wages!

You seem to forget that Civil/Public servants are Taxpayers also

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dan_Solo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But the outsourcing company will also face the same wage ratio rules.
And the rule could always simply be extended to all outsourced labour utilised by any company.
Including share option/bonus value is equally applicable.

Jawgap

lennyloulou wrote: »

why should this be applied to public/civil service?
what about a highly qualified person who has studied here for 4-6 yrs, studied abroad for 5 yrs and conducted research? They are top of their field and happen to work for public sector??? Are they not entitled to their just wage?
You have got to be joking!!!!!
A ridiculous thread!

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

Because it's the tax payer that funds their wages!

They can contract or they can go abroad. Simple.

I missed these earlier or else I would have responded.

There are certain 'fetters' that come with working in the Public Service, and rightly so because it is tax payers' money. For example, I wouldn't expect the PS to be paying for cars, health insurance, gym memberships etc. I would, however, expect them to pay the going rate for the job and to support ongoing professional education.

If the PS is only going to pay the minimum then you get what is happening now in my little bit of it - churning! Graduates come in, get a few years experience (because it is an excellent place to learn), then clear off to earn some decent money.

Someone asked earlier what is it I do - I work in the field of regulatory affairs. When I finish up at the end of August I'll be working for a UK based consultancy representing their clients to the agency I will have previously worked for.

I have 20 years experience in the industry sector in question, I lecture in the area concerned, I've contributed to text books and I'm a former member of the executive committee of my professional body.......

......the two fine chaps who will be representing the public interest (and on whose shoulders the safety of the public rest) have less than 10 years experience between them........I would never knowingly do anything to endanger anyone, but if, for example, they cocked up the charging model and levvied less fees than they were supposed to, I can't see myself correcting that kind of mistake.

.....in other words applying @Buzz Killington the third's logic leads to the private sector accumulating experience and ability while the public have to rely on what's left - possibly not the best approach when you're dealing with safety critical issues.......

Jawgap

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But the outsourcing company will also face the same wage ratio rules.
And the rule could always simply be extended to all outsourced labour utilised by any company.
Including share option/bonus value is equally applicable.

What if the company incorporates in another jurisdiction and the CEO sets himself up as a contractor (incorporated outside Ireland) and works on a contract for service?

The Irish staff might be subject to those rules but how would you even find out how much the CEO is even paid if the transactions are taking place outside the country?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dan_Solo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't think anybody expects national legislation to be enforced internationally, so no, that isn't a logical extension.

Dan_Solo

Jawgap wrote: »

What if the company incorporates in another jurisdiction and the CEO sets himself up as a contractor (incorporated outside Ireland) and works on a contract for service?

The Irish staff might be subject to those rules but how would you even find out how much the CEO is even paid if the transactions are taking place outside the country?

TBH that's already a problem that needs fixing so not specific to this idea.

jank

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I don't think anybody expects national legislation to be enforced internationally, so no, that isn't a logical extension.

But it is as described to you. That is what outsourcing generally means.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jawgap

Dan_Solo wrote: »

TBH that's already a problem that needs fixing so not specific to this idea.

Why is it a problem and why does it need fixing?

Are you suggesting that when someone goes to work in a country they should be domiciled there (or incorporated if operating as a contractor)?

In other words, if I'm domiciled in Ireland should I only be allowed work in Ireland? Meaning I can't take work on in the UK or Northern Ireland without establishing myself there?

.......kind of flies in the face of certain progressive principles in the EU Treaties.

Seaneh

jank wrote: »

But it is as described to you. That is what outsourcing generally means.

Outsourcing just means outside of the company,not outside of the country.

No Pants

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's already happening. Worse, it has been reported that there are certain companies in the IFSC that are nameplates only as far as Irish employment is concerned.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

seamus

No Pants wrote: »

That's already happening. Worse, it has been reported that there are certain companies in the IFSC that are nameplates only as far as Irish employment is concerned.

They're not really jobs lost though, the vast majority of those companies maintain a presence here for tax purposes and haven't outsourced anything - those jobs were never there to begin with.

The fad of outsourcing to India is largely dead at this point. Most companies who engaged in it have realised that what you save in costs doesn't offset your losses in quality and the majority of companies have either scaled back their outsourcing massively or scrapped it completely.

Outsourcing of low-paid jobs actually turns out for most employers to be a shambles because in the vast majority of cases, your lowest-paid employees are the ones who make the most use of things which aren't really skills - local knowledge, local idioms, local attitudes - i.e. cultural norms. These are next to impossible to train into an Indian callcentre in a convincing fashion, but which you basically get for free when you hire someone locally.

By comparison, highly-skilled jobs like software developers are much easier to outsource because the cultural differences are less important than the technical skills.

This is why there's very little real link between minimum wage and outsourcing; the majority of minimum wage jobs can't be outsourced effectively.

It's a rational response to Irish employment law and to one of the highest minimum wages in Europe.

Research coming out of the United States shows that increasing the minimum wage does not cause a drop in employment.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/07/03/3456393/minimum-wage-state-increase-employment/
That's not to say that you can increase minimum wage endlessly and employment won't leave, of course not, there has to be a balance. But there's a lot scaremongering about the devastation that increased minimum wages will wreak on an economy, yet absolutely zero data illustrating this effect.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Confused. Where does that paper state or imply devastation will occur from minimum wage implementation?

Turtwig

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Poisoning the well.
Care to address the points made?

Namely, states that increased the minimum wage also experienced job growth.

A decent point was made in the comments. Which came first the job growth or the minimum wage increases? Were they able to raise minimum wage because of job growth or were they able to increase job growth from minimum wage. Or is such a question relevant to producing fairness. The argument against minimum wage is that it hampers job growth and productivty, but if this hampering isn't significant then perhaps it's worth the slight impediment?

Capt'n Midnight

It doesn't matter because the CEO's only get some of their income from wages.

Things like company cars, stock options, travel & expenses, preferential loans, pensions, retainers / directorships after they retire, and of course bonuses are usually worth far more than the basic salary.


If you change the law it won't take accountants long to figure out ways around it.

Dan_Solo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And closing these loopholes would an equally rational response to back door avoidance of employment legislation.