Socialist Party's policies

Saipanne · 30-11-2014 1:59am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I know many of them (100k+) and hope some day to join them.
They don't work 80 hour weeks.

Hahaha. We're talking about well above that number here, right? Ceos earn a hell of a lot more than that.

You really are making it up as you go along...

I'm going to stop replying to you, on that basis. No sense to it, if you're talking ****.

Dan_Solo · 30-11-2014 2:02am

Saipanne wrote: »

Hahaha. We're talking about well above that number here, right? Ceos earn a hell of a lot more than that.

You really are making it up as you go along...

I'm going to stop replying to you, on that basis. No sense to it, if you're talking ****.

http://www.payscale.com/research/IE/Job=Chief_Executive_Officer_(CEO)/Salary
Average Irish CEO on 100k. You haven't a clue.

Saipanne · 30-11-2014 2:30am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

http://www.payscale.com/research/IE/Job=Chief_Executive_Officer_(CEO)/Salary
Average Irish CEO on 100k. You haven't a clue.

That's your reference?

L oh L.

Now, that ignore button...

jank · 30-11-2014 2:35am

Zillah wrote: »

Feel free to enlighten us with specific details instead of delivering snide one-liners if you like.

And whatever it is, I strongly suspect it is going to be far more pleasant than serving coffee all day, or packing bags at a checkout, or cleaning your office for you after you've gone home from your laborious day of back-breaking exertions.

I had a cousin of mine quit his senior role at Bloomberg due to the stress of the job. Anyone who has worked in financial services will know what the hours involve. Working 24 hours straight is not unheard off. Being on call and joining conference calls at all hours including weekends is par of the course due to operations around the globe.

Zillah · 30-11-2014 2:46am

jank wrote: »

I had a cousin of mine quit his senior role at Bloomberg due to the stress of the job. Anyone who has worked in financial services will know what the hours involve. Working 24 hours straight is not unheard off. Being on call and joining conference calls at all hours including weekends is par of the course due to operations around the globe.

Ok and what's your point?

jank · 30-11-2014 9:30am

The idea of the exec living the high life drinking whisky and smoking cigars while stroking a cat on his knee is a myth.

Dan_Solo · 30-11-2014 10:52am

Saipanne wrote: »

That's your reference?

L oh L.

Now, that ignore button...

As opposed to your reference? Oh, you weren't even able to find one so your waffle remains pure guesswork.
Hard luck.

garhjw · 30-11-2014 11:15am

The Gresham hotel must be hard up for business letting the commies have their rally in the hotel. Imagine being a guest there and having that lot in your hotel.

Permabear · 30-11-2014 11:37am

This post has been deleted.

AlekSmart · 30-11-2014 2:55pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A very valid point.

Whilst the Joe Higgins/Paul Murphy wing appear to portray Public Representation as only available to those willing to engage with the masses on the ground,the reality is that at Governmental Level,it involves a significant detachment from the individuality of the masses.

This particular element of our Representative System has,IMO,been the main cause of Irelands slow pace of change over the course of our independent history.

Government Ministers,ostensibly in charge of The Country,having to pay constant attention to the time-consuming and resource hogging demands of their constituents,a balancing act not always compatible with good decision making at the top level.

The impact of Social Media is,perhaps,the single greatest difference in how the current campaign has been managed,with various sites/pages allover the Internet carrying the same simple messages....

https://www.facebook.com/EdenmoreSaysNo

https://www.facebook.com/RatoathSaysNO

https://www.facebook.com/CitizensOfIreland

https://www.facebook.com/NorthCountyDublinAAA

One common thread running on these and most others of their type is a pressing need to first find a readily identifiable target,such as Joan Burton,Enbda Kenny or Denis O Brien and then hammer constantly away at some simplistic,cartoonish message to denigrate them personally.

To the initial reading,it's all great stuff and easy to identify with as the simple message allows us all to feel victimized by the big bad Authorities....

After a while it does start to follow a somewhat well travelled path,particularly when folks start looking beyond the immediacy...what about next week/month/year etc.

Bad and all as the State's policies may appear,they do have a grounding in reality,and as such they do allow those who plan their lives to take whatever action is necessary to amend their own lifestyles to take account of the new situations.

The main issue for the State,is that it's mechanisms to engage with the Public have been sadly lacking and as a result the AAA folks are running amok ...:)

Zillah · 30-11-2014 6:16pm

jank wrote: »

The idea of the exec living the high life drinking whisky and smoking cigars while stroking a cat on his knee is a myth.

You do me a disservice to imply that's as nuanced as my argument gets. It's disappointing that such a silly strawman gets so much support.

AlekSmart · 30-11-2014 7:36pm

Zillah wrote: »

You do me a disservice to imply that's as nuanced as my argument gets. It's disappointing that such a silly strawman gets so much support.

Ah come on Zilah...just mutter the name Denis O Brien under your breath at ANY Anti-Water function and you'll see what "Nuanced" really means ás Gaeilge

For Reals · 30-11-2014 9:19pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Sorry, this is a pretty dated view. Not all left leaning people are Marxist, and even Marx claimed he wasn't a Marxist after his beliefs had been so distorted.

If I come from a wealthy family, have my pick of careers, either work in my family company or get a career due to my background contacts and make a pretty good living, does that automatically mean I worked harder than a guy who had to leave school at 16 to support his family, has no third level training and can only get minimum wage positions?
Also, is the current right wing system not proven itself to be broken? I mean everybody taking on the bailouts was pretty communist no?
Companies too big to fail? How ridiculous is that in the face of the right wing system? What happened to the market being the great equaliser?

And it's simple math. If you have a company and have so much work you need to hire staff, are you paying as much as your company can afford to pay or enough to meet legal minimum so as to maximise profit with the exception of bonuses etc.? Salaries are based on competition, wanting to keep staff from going elsewhere too. That's how business works, we know this. That's how profits are made. If some chose to see this as exploitation, you can see their point.
How would we categorise those people, (PO Box companies) who took contracts from government pals and sold them on to other actual companies for a smaller fee, keeping the difference for themselves and the entire bill going to the tax payer? Hard workers?
That's our society, so I wouldn't go so far as to call a wealthy person a thief, but they most certainly are not the champions of society, that's just laughable.

20Cent · 30-11-2014 10:31pm

The chances of the socialists or the AAA becoming the next government or gaining power are extremely slim if non existent. I think the concern should be about what is actually happening which is oligarchy.

ArmaniJeanss · 01-12-2014 1:55am

20Cent wrote: »

The chances of the socialists or the AAA becoming the next government or gaining power are extremely slim if non existent.

A united block of the 6 current seats is perfectly possible (Coppinger, Daly, RBB, Collins, Murphy, Healy) as the devisive Joe Higgins is retiring.

Get two or three more elected and this block could plausibly hold the balance of power in what could be the hungiest of hung Dails. So its reasonable enough to debate their policies (though probably more accurate to debate what their line-in-the-sand demands would be).

Good loser · 01-12-2014 2:26am

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

A united block of the 6 current seats is perfectly possible (Coppinger, Daly, RBB, Collins, Murphy, Healy) as the devisive Joe Higgins is retiring.

Get two or three more elected and this block could plausibly hold the balance of power in what could be the hungiest of hung Dails. So its reasonable enough to debate their policies (though probably more accurate to debate what their line-in-the-sand demands would be).

Not a chance they'd stick together for even a month.

One thing though Independents will do almost anything to avoid a second quick election; but expect them to be caught out by their own rhetoric.

Some of them believe the garbage they parrot.

jank · 01-12-2014 2:50am

Zillah wrote: »

You do me a disservice to imply that's as nuanced as my argument gets. It's disappointing that such a silly strawman gets so much support.

Strawman? Have a look at Communist propaganda that emerged from the Soviet Union. Its a well established theory, at least in Marxist sphere of political thought and theory.

NOTE: How good is that cartoon form an artist point of view. I have always been a fan of this art. Shows you how much talent was available in the Soviet Union only to be wasted and scuppered by the state.

FreudianSlippers · 01-12-2014 10:03am

garhjw wrote: »

Is that a real poster? Very distasteful but to be expected from the communists. What ever about Dennis obrien but Michael oLeary pays a lot of tax in this country and creates a lot of jobs.

He is also not a billionaire, so there's that.

FreudianSlippers · 01-12-2014 10:42am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The state taking over a Dell factory is about as idiotic as a some random company taking over the delivery of an essential service like drinking water... oh hang on.

Not really. UÉ is a semi-state company, owned by the government taking over services that were already nationalised. It's kind of an apples-to-oranges comparison, but I suspect you are aware of that.

Dan_Solo · 01-12-2014 10:45am

Good loser wrote: »

Not a chance they'd stick together for even a month.

One thing though Independents will do almost anything to avoid a second quick election; but expect them to be caught out by their own rhetoric.

Some of them believe the garbage they parrot.

I'm not sure why people think all the independents are communists? A fair few are just gravy train ex-FF chancers who want to keep their noses in the trough.

Dan_Solo · 01-12-2014 10:47am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Not really. UÉ is a semi-state company, owned by the government taking over services that were already nationalised. It's kind of an apples-to-oranges comparison, but I suspect you are aware of that.

Ah yes, a semi-state. That just means they can reap all the profits while having the legislative and economic backing of the state.
I think we all know they'll be flogged off ASAP anyway.

FreudianSlippers · 01-12-2014 10:49am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ah yes, a semi-state. That just means they can reap all the profits while having the legislative and economic backing of the state.
I think we all know they'll be flogged off ASAP anyway.

I would actually welcome that. UÉ should have been a private company from the start with government ownership of the infrastructure. But that doesn't fit the socialist tax-and-spend agenda.

Dan_Solo · 01-12-2014 10:57am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I would actually welcome that. UÉ should have been a private company from the start with government ownership of the infrastructure. But that doesn't fit the socialist tax-and-spend agenda.

Why shouldn't the government run it? I assume they want to make a profit, yes? It's impossible to fail really as the government sets the cost of water and it's not as if people can say no. The state is well able to charge the citizens for just about everything else they want to. Why divert whatever percentage to the private sector on the back of publicly owned resources?

Godge · 01-12-2014 11:02am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

http://www.payscale.com/research/IE/Job=Chief_Executive_Officer_(CEO)/Salary
Average Irish CEO on 100k. You haven't a clue.

You haven't worked closely with many CEOs if you believe that is the average salary. Add another 50% onto that for a better idea, then bonuses, car, health insurance etc. depending on where you work.

Dan_Solo · 01-12-2014 11:04am

Godge wrote: »

You haven't worked closely with many CEOs if you believe that is the average salary. Add another 50% onto that for a better idea, then bonuses, car, health insurance etc. depending on where you work.

Anecdotes v data. Feel free to add something useful if you can find it.

FreudianSlippers · 01-12-2014 11:09am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Why shouldn't the government run it? I assume they want to make a profit, yes? It's impossible to fail really as the government sets the cost of water and it's not as if people can say no. The state is well able to charge the citizens for just about everything else they want to. Why divert whatever percentage to the private sector on the back of publicly owned resources?

Because the government have been awful at running it thus far. As it stands, UÉ is not in the private sector and they will not make a profit at all. In fact, it would be better if they were in the private sector and attempting to make a profit - prices would be set by the CER, so it would force the company to operate in a more cost-effective manner. That means no crazy bonuses, no outlandish consultation fees, etc... all the things that anti-UÉ people complain about!

I suggest you look up examples of these companies around the world where private companies manage and maintain the public resources - they can be highly effective and the state maintains ownership of the resource and infrastructure itself.

Godge wrote: »

You haven't worked closely with many CEOs if you believe that is the average salary. Add another 50% onto that for a better idea, then bonuses, car, health insurance etc. depending on where you work.

I just had a look at the Morgan McKinley salary survey, and (although they don't really recruit CEOs for bigger companies) they're saying €160k is the low level for a CEO in a small/medium business.

Godge · 01-12-2014 11:25am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I just had a look at the Morgan McKinley salary survey, and (although they don't really recruit CEOs for bigger companies) they're saying €160k is the low level for a CEO in a small/medium business.

I wouldn't disagree, it is a while since I worked with data like that. I have the IBEC survey from about six years ago somewhere but it is out of date even if I could find it.

The problem with these surveys is that they don't put them up on the web.

100k is laughably low for CEO salaries.

Dave! · 01-12-2014 11:28am

Do they include startups in those CEO salary surveys? Because I suspect your average startup CEO is on a very low salary or doesn't take one (and is probably working all the time anyway).

Dan_Solo · 01-12-2014 11:30am

Godge wrote: »

I wouldn't disagree, it is a while since I worked with data like that. I have the IBEC survey from about six years ago somewhere but it is out of date even if I could find it.

The problem with these surveys is that they don't put them up on the web.

100k is laughably low for CEO salaries.

Thanks for your unsourced personal opinion. "I said so" is always such a valuable addition to the debate.

Dan_Solo · 01-12-2014 11:30am

Dave! wrote: »

Do they include startups in those CEO salary surveys? Because I suspect your average startup CEO is on a very low salary or doesn't take one (and is probably working all the time anyway).

If you only include CEOs who get paid more than 150k then the minimum CEO salary is 150k. :pac:

Dan_Solo · 01-12-2014 11:36am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Because the government have been awful at running it thus far.

Makes you wonder why people keep voting for them when they can't run anything... if they can't make money out of a critical service monopoly with the Gardai enforcing compliance, you'd wonder how they'd get on negotiating a bail out with the ECB...

20Cent · 01-12-2014 11:40am

If you're a CEO working 16 hour days you should do a course on how to delegate work.

FreudianSlippers · 01-12-2014 11:54am

Dave! wrote: »

Do they include startups in those CEO salary surveys? Because I suspect your average startup CEO is on a very low salary or doesn't take one (and is probably working all the time anyway).

Of course, which (and although Dan doesn't understand this clearly by thanking your post) would actually artificially drag down the average CEO wage in Ireland.

Surely we can agree that we weren't talking about the CEO of a start-up or some other tiny company?

Godge · 01-12-2014 11:54am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Thanks for your unsourced personal opinion. "I said so" is always such a valuable addition to the debate.

As I said I have my sources, they are just not publicly available.

Freudian mentioned the McKinley one as well.

They are available if you are prepared to fork out for them.

Dan_Solo · 01-12-2014 12:07pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Of course, which (and although Dan doesn't understand this clearly by thanking your post) would actually artificially drag down the average CEO wage in Ireland.

Surely we can agree that we weren't talking about the CEO of a start-up or some other tiny company?

Ah, so now you're changing your story. Doing a lot of that today I see.
Why is it artificial? They're either CEOs or they're not. YOU are now adding extra criteria. Like I said, if you want to talk about CEOs who earn above a certain amount it would help if you understood the terms you are using.

Rightwing · 01-12-2014 12:09pm

Dave! wrote: »

Do they include startups in those CEO salary surveys? Because I suspect your average startup CEO is on a very low salary or doesn't take one (and is probably working all the time anyway).

CEO's base salary doesn't give a true indication of their real pay. The bulk of this comes in stock awards, bonuses. This is to link salary with share price performance.

FreudianSlippers · 01-12-2014 12:18pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ah, so now you're changing your story. Doing a lot of that today I see.
Why is it artificial? They're either CEOs or they're not. YOU are now adding extra criteria. Like I said, if you want to talk about CEOs who earn above a certain amount it would help if you understood the terms you are using.

I'm doing no such thing, I just didn't realise you considered anyone who called themselves a CEO to be included in with the actual CEOs in this country.

You claim to know plenty of CEOs on €100k, I suppose you know the value of the companies in which they work?

Keep hoping to earn that much one day; it's a good motivator to work hard and keep in education.

Permabear · 01-12-2014 12:20pm

This post has been deleted.

Dan_Solo · 01-12-2014 12:27pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm doing no such thing, I just didn't realise you considered anyone who called themselves a CEO to be included in with the actual CEOs in this country.

Where did you invent the fantasy that CEOs aren't CEOs if they "call themselves one"? They either are or they aren't.
Look, I said already, you should just admit you made a crap of your original definition and give us your new one "CEOs of major companies who get paid more than 200k" or something. I'm sorry if the word "CEO" isn't the one you need because that's the one you insisted on using yourself.

Dan_Solo · 01-12-2014 12:29pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I've no doubt he is a busy man, and appropriately rewarded.
The myth is that the CEO of Vodafone is in any way the "average" CEO. He clearly isn't.

FreudianSlippers · 01-12-2014 12:39pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Where did you invent the fantasy that CEOs aren't CEOs if they "call themselves one"? They either are or they aren't.
Look, I said already, you should just admit you made a crap of your original definition and give us your new one "CEOs of major companies who get paid more than 200k" or something. I'm sorry if the word "CEO" isn't the one you need because that's the one you insisted on using yourself.

One can call themselves anything, but if a "CEO" isn't reporting to a board of directors then it's not really a CEO position. Your argument seems to be if I start a company tomorrow morning I should be able to call myself the CEO and be considered equally with the CEO of a medium-to-large enterprise.

I think it just echoes the fantasy world that socialists live in.

Dan_Solo · 01-12-2014 12:43pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

One can call themselves anything, but if a "CEO" isn't reporting to a board of directors then it's not really a CEO position. Your argument seems to be if I start a company tomorrow morning I should be able to call myself the CEO and be considered equally with the CEO of a medium-to-large enterprise.

I think it just echoes the fantasy world that socialists live in.

I think your position is reminiscent of that of delusional establishment drones.
(how do you like that for not actually calling you anything personally)
They are either a CEO or they are not. Where did this "not really" come from? "really" being "what I have in my head as a CEO for the purpose of this particular argument"?

Lemming · 01-12-2014 12:49pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I've no doubt he is a busy man, and appropriately rewarded.
The myth is that the CEO of Vodafone is in any way the "average" CEO. He clearly isn't.

Ah, so now it's about "average CEOs", not "CEOs". I c.

Dan_Solo · 01-12-2014 12:52pm

Lemming wrote: »

Ah, so now it's about "average CEOs", not "CEOs". I c.

Do you think the head of Vodafone is the average level CEO?
Do you know what an average even is?
Deliberately taking top ones and stating they are average is the logical fallacy here. I didn't do that.

FreudianSlippers · 01-12-2014 12:54pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I think your position is reminiscent of that of delusional establishment drones.

I'd rather be a well off delusional establishment drone than a broke champion of the working man.

They are either a CEO or they are not. Where did this "not really" come from? "really" being "what I have in my head as a CEO for the purpose of this particular argument"?

By your definition, which seems to be "if they call themselves a CEO they are a CEO", of course, plenty of CEOs make the average industrial wage and some are wearing tinfoil hats and running businesses outside of Area 51 selling tour maps.

My point is that you aren't really a CEO unless you have a company which makes enough money to warrant a CEO.

FreudianSlippers · 01-12-2014 12:55pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Do you think the head of Vodafone is the average level CEO?
Do you know what an average even is?
Deliberately taking top ones and stating they are average is the logical fallacy here. I didn't do that.

No, in fairness what you did is the exact mirror of that and claim that any Joe Public who starts a company is a CEO and, therefore, the average wage is dragged down.

Dan_Solo · 01-12-2014 12:57pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'd rather be a well off delusional establishment drone than a broke champion of the working man.

Me too. Luckily for me I am neither, eh?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

By your definition, which seems to be "if they call themselves a CEO they are a CEO", of course, plenty of CEOs make the average industrial wage and some are wearing tinfoil hats and running businesses outside of Area 51 selling tour maps.

My point is that you aren't really a CEO unless you have a company which makes enough money to warrant a CEO.

So your point is your definition of a CEO is whatever you will decide at any given time is most suited to your argument.
Look, if you are incapable of defining what you think a CEO is today for you, why do you keep using the acronym?

Dan_Solo · 01-12-2014 12:59pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No, in fairness what you did is the exact mirror of that and claim that any Joe Public who starts a company is a CEO and, therefore, the average wage is dragged down.

Again, now a CEO is "whatever I've decided is a CEO".
Now, any chance you'd share this personal arbitrary variable definition with us?

FreudianSlippers · 01-12-2014 1:03pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Me too. Luckily for me I am neither, eh?
So your point is your definition of a CEO is whatever you will decide at any given time is most suited to your argument.
Look, if you are incapable of defining what you think a CEO is today for you, why do you keep using the acronym?

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Again, now a CEO is "whatever I've decided is a CEO".
Now, any chance you'd share this personal arbitrary variable definition with us?

I have a few times, but it's like asking how long is a piece of string. A CEO is only truly a CEO where that company requires a CEO; a condition of this is the job of reporting to the board of directors.

So if you have a company that has a board of directors who need to be updated, then you need a CEO. If you do not, then your company's CEO is that in name only.

01-12-2014 1:04pm

The noise is far greater than the signal here.

While debating the semantics of the definition of the term CEO, please don't forget why it was brought up. It was an example used to explain the gap between different salaries. (and an issue with the Socialist Party politics - the thread title....)

Pressure and hours being two of the more obvious factors.

Socialist Party's policies

Comments