Do companies need to pay CEOs etc. so much?

Beasty

Earthhorse wrote: »

I know a former stastician who says three CEOs is not a valid sample size.

Did I suggest it is?

Oh and I know quite a bit about statistics. It was one of the options I took when getting my degree in mathematics

FTA69

Deleted User wrote: »

Who cares? Companies can do what they like if the shareholders are fine with it.

That's an attitude I see very often in the private sector when workers begin to question their low wages in comparison with the company bosses.

Funnily enough the same people saying that CEOs pay should never be capped etc are usually the ones pushing most strongly for workers' wages to be kept down and who lose their absolute bin if workers initiate collective bargaining.

Walter H Price

Private companies can pay whatever they like , i wouldn't like to see salary caps enforced i think that sends a very negative message.

why begrudge some one a good salary ? we have basically free education in this country , you have the opportunity to get qualified in whatever you like and chase whatever Salary you can get.

I have little or no time for this attitude that some people ear too much / have too much wealth , that concept is nonsense you cannot ever have enough wealth. One of my mates girlfriends goes on with all this anti elite , anti capitalism sh!t , the wealth gap etc ... she got 500 points in her LC and did some wanly course in social work , no surprise then that she earns buttons , in my book she chose to be poor and has no right to b!tch about it.

I don't ever look at a CEO and think oh he ears way more then me that's not fair he should earn less , i look at it like fair play, this guy has achieved basically the pinnacle of his career someday i want that. I want that kind of money , to have that lifestyle and to be able to provide the best for my kids.

swimming in a sea

I'm no expert on this but "the shareholders hold the power" is a bit to simplistic, usually the main shareholders are the pension fund managers and other big companies. Are they going to vote for low CEO salary when their company is probably in the same situation, no they will vote for big salaries to set the precedence to help their own salary negotiations and the circle will go around a around every year and then you wonder why your crappy pension has no chance of paying for you retirement.

Wanderer78

Walter H Price wrote:

why begrudge some one a good salary ? we have basically free education in this country , you have the opportunity to get qualified in whatever you like and chase whatever Salary you can get.

Walter H Price wrote:

I don't ever look at a CEO and think oh he ears way more then me that's not fair he should earn less , i look at it like fair play, this guy has achieved basically the pinnacle of his career someday i want that. I want that kind of money , to have that lifestyle and to be able to provide the best for my kids.

Walter H Price wrote:

I have little or no time for this attitude that some people ear too much / have too much wealth , that concept is nonsense you cannot ever have enough wealth. One of my mates girlfriends goes on with all this anti elite , anti capitalism sh!t , the wealth gap etc ... she got 500 points in her LC and did some wanly course in social work , no surprise then that she earns buttons , in my book she chose to be poor and has no right to b!tch about it.

Strange misconception, we actually don't have a free education system but many do believe it.

We have created what I call 'hyper competitive' systems, which are parasitic, predator and destruction by nature for the whole of humanity.

Your mates girlfriend is spot on, all backed by very well peer reviewed research.

Many people on this planet do not choose to be poor, many are born into it, there's a reason why some call it 'debt peonage'!

Interesting read

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/04/it-income-mobility-that-matters-not-income-inequality.html

steddyeddy

bluewolf wrote: »

Interesting read

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/04/it-income-mobility-that-matters-not-income-inequality.html

From Fox "news"......

Walter H Price

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Strange misconception, we actually don't have a free education system but many do believe it.

We have created what I call 'hyper competitive' systems, which are parasitic, predator and destruction by nature for the whole of humanity.

Your mates girlfriend is spot on, all backed by very well peer reviewed research.

Many people on this planet do not choose to be poor, many are born into it, there's a reason why some call it 'debt peonage'!

Education to third level is virtually free , with grants and one of the most generous social welfare systems in Europe to boot. If you choose to put the effort in here there is very little to stop you reaching your potential. My parents came from Finglas and Ballymum in the 70's born into dirt poor families , both went to college worked their arses off , my Mother is now a Doctor , My Father is an executive (could have been a CEO at this stage but he has no interest personally).

As a result we had a very comfortable solidly middle class life private schools , tutors grinds all the rest. I met my Fiancee in college she was in the same course as me, had gotten more points , came from a dirt poor family her mam is a single parent , worked minimum wage jobs wherever she could get them but money was majorly tight , they lived with her granny and aunts and uncles in a small council house untill she was 15, you get the picture. She got a grant that allowed her go to college putting her on a level playing field with any of us whos parents could afford to send us there. 5 years on at 24 she has a package in excess of 75k a year plus stock options in one of the largest multinationals in Ireland , I've done ok too a comfy 45k , but id acknowledge the reason im not out earning her is that she works far harder then i do.

There will always be poverty around the world , that's not fixable and to be honest far beyond the control or concern of the Irish electorate. The reason i believe my mates girlfriend is full of sh!t, is that it is simply not the case here , yes you can be born poor, into a dysfunctional family with little financhal means, but it is on you weather you remain poor or choose to make something of yourself.

Wanderer78

Walter H Price wrote: »

Education to third level is virtually free , with grants and one of the most generous social welfare systems in Europe to boot. If you choose to put the effort in here there is very little to stop you reaching your potential. My parents came from Finglas and Ballymum in the 70's born into dirt poor families , both went to college worked their arses off , my Mother is now a Doctor , My Father is an executive (could have been a CEO at this stage but he has no interest personally).

As a result we had a very comfortable solidly middle class life private schools , tutors grinds all the rest. I met my Fiancee in college she was in the same course as , me had gotten more points , came from a dirt poor family her mam is a single parent , worked minimum wage jobs wherever she could get them but money was majorly tight , they lived with her granny and aunts and uncles in a small council house, you get the picture. She got a grant that allowed her go to college putting her on a level playing field with any of us whos parents could afford to send us there. 5 years on at 24 she has a package in excess of 75k a year plus stock options in one of the largest multinationals in Ireland , I've done ok too a comfy 45k , but id acknowledge the reason im not out earning her is that she works far harder then i do.

There will always be poverty around the world , that's not fixable and to be honest far beyond the control or concern of the Irish electorate. The reason i believe my mates girlfriend is full of sh!t, is that it is simply not the case here , yes you can be born poor, into a dysfunctional family with little financhal means, but it is on you weather you remain poor or choose to make something of yourself.

almost completely disagree. noam chomsky explains very well in his documentary, 'requiem for an american dream' that the american dream is long dead, this is largely due to debt peonage, amongst other things of course. since our economic and financial systems are largely based on their systems, we re heading down a similar road. its great to hear your family has achieved what it has, but i do suspect this is becoming harder for younger generations due to these issues, as explained very well by people like chomsky.

we actually dont have an equal access educational system. a mate just spent 50k getting his son through college, that not free in my world, and i assume most parents have similar stories. education should be completely free for all, its a long term investment in our society and reduces the potential of inequality and other complex social issues.

always find that argument of 'the most generous welfare system', very boring and very very odd. im just wondering do people think, they and their loved ones are gonna avoid complex issues in life such as serious long term illness, unemployment, old age etc etc. i find it disturbing when people advocate for a reduction in the welfare state. this all comes from that ****eolgy, ''free market economics, and the most amazing economic policy, i.e. 'worker insecurity' from the most amazing of people, i.e. alan greenspan! total crapology!

poverty is fixable, wealth needs to be more evenly distributed and certain debts need to be written off. its commonly believed that 75-80% of the total tax revenue received by the philippine government is used to service their debts to mainly western financial institutions such as the world bank and the imf etc. these issues should be the concern of everybody. noam chomsky's use of the term 'atomisation' comes to mind here! we also need to address the issues of wealth and money creation.

we re in desperate need of addressing these issues or i feel it ll lead to the demise of our planet and ultimately our species.

Dohnjoe

Austria! wrote: »

Yes, equally good candidates for less money. I don't think the burden of proof had been met for the alternative hypothesis i.e. that you have to pay top money to get the best CEO (though obviously you ave to pay a lo of money to get the most in demand one). In fact if you read the links I gave in the OP, you see one study showed the higher paid CEOs underperformed compared to the rest.

Sport is a great contrast, in that you can identify the top talent, with varying but impressive degrees of success. Bolt is the best sprinter, and you have that to decimal places. Baseball is another sport with lots of statistical analysis. Soccer is sometimes hit or miss with the transfer records, but I think it's very good at rewarding the best players.

I don't see how being a CEO can be measured in the same way athletic performance can, there are way too many variables.

I don't think you are grasping the analogy

How can you sign a football player and know they will score? you can't - you pay them based on previous results/performance

Likewise Bolt is signed on his past performance - but no sponsors can know his future results

Likewise high level CEO's are hired and paid according to past performance/experience

It's the same principle

The market largely sets the price (like sport)


Also, what is your assumption "equal skill is available for less" based on?

To me, it's a completely faulty assumption.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

From Fox "news"......

Ok? And? Either it makes good points which are independently verifiable or it doesn't?
Maybe I should have quoted it from reason.com instead?
http://reason.com/archives/2014/06/04/income-mobility-myths
http://economics.harvard.edu/news/new-research-mobility-studies-profs-chetty-hendren-and-katz
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/upshot/why-the-new-research-on-mobility-matters-an-economists-view.html?_r=0
http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/

Walter H Price

Wanderer78 wrote: »

almost completely disagree. noam chomsky explains very well in his documentary, 'requiem for an american dream' that the american dream is long dead, this is largely due to debt peonage, amongst other things of course. since our economic and financial systems are largely based on their systems, we re heading down a similar road. its great to hear your family has achieved what it has, but i do suspect this is becoming harder for younger generations due to these issues, as explained very well by people like chomsky.

we actually dont have an equal access educational system. a mate just spent 50k getting his son through college, that not free in my world, and i assume most parents have similar stories. education should be completely free for all, its a long term investment in our society and reduces the potential of inequality and other complex social issues.

always find that argument of 'the most generous welfare system', very boring and very very odd. im just wondering do people think, they and their loved ones are gonna avoid complex issues in life such as serious long term illness, unemployment, old age etc etc. i find it disturbing when people advocate for a reduction in the welfare state. this all comes from that ****eolgy, ''free market economics, and the most amazing economic policy, i.e. 'worker insecurity' from the most amazing of people, i.e. alan greenspan! total crapology!

poverty is fixable, wealth needs to be more evenly distributed and certain debts need to be written off. its commonly believed that 75-80% of the total tax revenue received by the philippine government is used to service their debts to mainly western financial institutions such as the world bank and the imf etc. these issues should be the concern of everybody. noam chomsky's use of the term 'atomisation' comes to mind here! we also need to address the issues of wealth and money creation.

we re in desperate need of addressing these issues or i feel it ll lead to the demise of our planet and ultimately our species.

Your having a laugh right , our systems are pretty far removed from those in the US , no government grants for colleges , nearly non existent social welfare ner mind Christmas bonus , rent allowance , children s allowance , medical cards , pensions , bus passes for the elderly and disable , carers allowance, i agree Chomsky makes some excellent points a little too socialist for my taste but very well explained as to why the system in the US is failing many people.

That simply does not apply here not even close , i have lived in the states , worked with people who are still working in their late 70's because they have no pension , i lived next door to a guy that was still working on chemo to pay his medical bills he had no option , he had a good job but had had to use his kids college fund to pay for his treatment, here my grand parents have pensions bus passes , medical cards , they don't pay for their hospital visits , prescriptions are a minimal fee , when my grandfather got cancer he was treated for free ... In the states people like my fiancee are born white trash , they die white trash even the bright ones , here she had the same opportunity i had despite or vastly different backgrounds , the government effectively paid for her to go to third level, Trinity and most other university's even have an access programes which lowers the points for entry for kids from disadvantaged backgrounds , Her mother was also supported with lone parents , rent allowance , job seekers when she was out of work, meaning my Oh didnt have to drop out of education to help support her struggling family , not the case in the US ... in the states that simply doesn't happen.

Far from being equivalent to the US in my view this country goes to far in the opposite direction , i don't think you should get dole indefinitely or with a Christmas bonus , grants should be based on performance and course with priority given to the brightest students looking to do the most needed courses. Kids from all backgrounds are given every chance to reach their potential here from the state , if they don't its on their head

Wanderer78

Walter H Price wrote: »

Your having a laugh right , our systems are pretty far removed from those in the US , no government grants for colleges , nearly non existent social welfare ner mind Christmas bonus , rent allowance , children s allowance , medical cards , pensions , bus passes for the elderly and disable , carers allowance, i agree Chomsky makes some excellent points a little too socialist for my taste but very well explained as to why the system in the US is failing many people.

That simply does not apply here not even close , i have lived in the states , worked with people who are still working in their late 70's because they have no pension , i lived next door to a guy that was still working on chemo to pay his medical bills he had no option , he had a good job but had had to use his kids college fund to pay for his treatment, here my grand parents have pensions bus passes , medical cards , they don't pay for their hospital visits , prescriptions are a minimal fee , when my grandfather got cancer he was treated for free ... In the states people like my fiancee are born white trash , they die white trash even the bright ones , here she had the same opportunity i had despite or vastly different backgrounds , the government effectively paid for her to go to third level, Trinity and most other university's even have an access programes which lowers the points for entry for kids from disadvantaged backgrounds , Her mother was also supported with lone parents , rent allowance , job seekers when she was out of work, meaning my Oh didnt have to drop out of education to help support her struggling family , not the case in the US ... in the states that simply doesn't happen.

Far from being equivalent to the US in my view this country goes to far in the opposite direction , i don't think you should get dole indefinitely or with a Christmas bonus , grants should be based on performance and course with priority given to the brightest students looking to do the most needed courses. Kids from all backgrounds are given every chance to reach their potential here from the state , if they don't its on their head

you're not seeing my point at all, and no, im not having a laugh. theres plenty of peer reviewed work backing this.

a good resource:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/

the eu is a largely american designed economic and financial system, we re going down the same road! we aint there yet but we re not far from it. its largely based on fundamentally flawed economic systems and theories such as free market economics, neoliberalism and neoclassical theory etc etc etc.

your views on unemployment and education and fairly disturbing. you're basically advocating for further, 'hyper-competitiveness' and not what we truly need to do, 'co-operation' and the creation of cooperative systems. the root causes of long term unemployment are actually very complex. we also need to stop and think about all this 'productivity'. what are we producing to? are we truly gaining from all this production? as all it seems is, we re wrecking the planet in the process.

Walter H Price

Wanderer78 wrote: »

you're not seeing my point at all, and no, im not having a laugh. theres plenty of peer reviewed work backing this.

a good resource:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/

the eu is a largely american designed economic and financial system, we re going down the same road! we aint there yet but we re not far from it. its largely based on fundamentally flawed economic systems and theories such as free market economics, neoliberalism and neoclassical theory etc etc etc.

your views on unemployment and education and fairly disturbing. you're basically advocating for further, 'hyper-competitiveness' and not what we truly need to do, 'co-operation' and the creation of cooperative systems. the root causes of long term unemployment are actually very complex. we also need to stop and think about all this 'productivity'. what are we producing to? are we truly gaining from all this production? as all it seems is, we re wrecking the planet in the process.

I fully agree with free market economics and a system of competitiveness, we are not all of equal ability , equal intellect etc ... why should i sacrifice my standard of living for other ? you will never get society as a whole to accept this out look its why communism has failed spectacularly everywhere its been tried , the brightest and best immediately want out and everyone ends up poor.

Competition is good its healthy and natural , we have always competed, for fun, for survival and to ensure the best possible lives for ourselves and our family's, i believe if you take away that competition you take away a large part of our instinct you may well see people loose drive and focus , why would i have bothered going to college if i was only going to ear as much as those that didn't , have the same lifestyle , would i have bothered studying , going to lectures , working 50 hour weeks , in honesty probably not.

Competition should not be feared or derided it should be embraced and championed.

witchgirl26

Wanderer78 wrote: »

almost completely disagree. noam chomsky explains very well in his documentary, 'requiem for an american dream' that the american dream is long dead, this is largely due to debt peonage, amongst other things of course. since our economic and financial systems are largely based on their systems, we re heading down a similar road. its great to hear your family has achieved what it has, but i do suspect this is becoming harder for younger generations due to these issues, as explained very well by people like chomsky.

we actually dont have an equal access educational system. a mate just spent 50k getting his son through college, that not free in my world, and i assume most parents have similar stories. education should be completely free for all, its a long term investment in our society and reduces the potential of inequality and other complex social issues.

always find that argument of 'the most generous welfare system', very boring and very very odd. im just wondering do people think, they and their loved ones are gonna avoid complex issues in life such as serious long term illness, unemployment, old age etc etc. i find it disturbing when people advocate for a reduction in the welfare state. this all comes from that ****eolgy, ''free market economics, and the most amazing economic policy, i.e. 'worker insecurity' from the most amazing of people, i.e. alan greenspan! total crapology!

poverty is fixable, wealth needs to be more evenly distributed and certain debts need to be written off. its commonly believed that 75-80% of the total tax revenue received by the philippine government is used to service their debts to mainly western financial institutions such as the world bank and the imf etc. these issues should be the concern of everybody. noam chomsky's use of the term 'atomisation' comes to mind here! we also need to address the issues of wealth and money creation.

we re in desperate need of addressing these issues or i feel it ll lead to the demise of our planet and ultimately our species.

Reading the thread with interest but had to reply to this. I would have a similar background to Walter I'd say in that I grew up in a not great area in Dublin in the 90's in a one income family. We weren't poor but we were in no way well off. All 3 of my siblings and myself went to college - my oldest sibling during the time there were still fees. There was no way my parents could have afforded that, he knew that so worked his ass off to get a scholarship.

As for your friend spending 50k getting their child through college, I'd really question that to be honest. The only help I got from my parents going to college was that I was able to stay at home. The rest was funded through grants (which I was entitled to the smallest amount of) and working myself. I'd estimate that my yearly college attendance cost me about €3k but lets just say €10k for the 3 years. Fair enough I didn't have to live away from home but if I did, the grant would have increased and helped cover some of the cost. And with colleges generally guaranteeing cheaper on campus accomodation to first years. I know from discussions with my friend that she estimates that her 3 years cost in the region of €20k max and she lived away from home.

I agree that the idea of the "American Dream" is not really the same now as it was before. But then the rate of changes in the world has increased massively since the 1950's when the phrase was really used.

I don't think I'm going to avoid hard times that might require the welfare system in the country - in fact I've been through them and couldn't praise some of the aspects of that enough. And I do agree that people need help to get them back on their feet. That said, do I agree that someone who hasn't bothered at all deserves to get hand outs when I've worked damn hard to get where I am and earn my good salary? No.

I do think there are some areas where the pay of CEO's should be examined and that is especially in terms of social sector and charities but private businesses should be free to pay what they like to get who they want for the job. I worked at a large multinational who were going through CEO's like they were going out of fashion as they were trying to find one who could actually make a difference to the fortunes of the business. If there was no change in the bottom line, the board kicked them out. There are checks and balances in a private business for this.

Walter H Price

witchgirl26 wrote: »

I do think there are some areas where the pay of CEO's should be examined and that is especially in terms of social sector and charities but private businesses should be free to pay what they like to get who they want for the job. I worked at a large multinational who were going through CEO's like they were going out of fashion as they were trying to find one who could actually make a difference to the fortunes of the business. If there was no change in the bottom line, the board kicked them out. There are checks and balances in a private business for this.

I think what allot of people miss here with this argument is that most companies operate a pay scale , as a way to incentives people to move up through the organisation. CEO roles are not easy there is allot of extra stress , pressure and time commitment involved in taking that step up even compared to being a Senior Executive, you need a different skill set in many cases you need to be a bit more politically minded , you need to build alliances within the senior Management team and with Board member in order to protect yourself and your position, as a senior exec you may be responsible for 1 or 2 areas of the business strategy and performance as a CEO you would be responsible for maybe 15+ areas , imagine the time involved the pressure of delivering while knowing that if performance dips or profits fall your heads first on the block. who's taking that role without some serious incentive. My father has turned down interviewing for thees type of roles on a number of occasions despite the fact that the pay increase associated with the roles would have been been 80k + , it wouldn't be enough for him to sacrifice so much more time and his job security.

But in all honesty who would take any promotion with out addition financial reward , why take on extra work , responsibility all the rest if you not going to be payed for it.

Earthhorse

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Deserve is a meaningless term. Who is anyone to say someone else does not deserve their wealth which has been accumulated through legal means in the market?

Who is anyone to say anything? Of course I can have an opinion on such things, just because it doesn't influence the outcome doesn't make it meaningless.

Deleted User wrote: »

You've linked to CNN twice by mistake but even then, that article is not about a few CEOs earning millions.

The problems in that article or with income inequality in general don't stem from overpaid CEOs. They aren't the reason poor crime-ridden estates exist. It's all a product of a broken system and you can't pin the blame on a fraction of the "1℅".

Whoops! Here is the article I meant to link to: http://www.tasc.ie/publications/mapping-the-golden-circle/

I never said that inequality in general stemmed from CEO pay, what I did say is that less equal societies are bad news for all of us; CEO pay is one measure of that.

You seem to be focusing a lot on America and applying it to Ireland but their problems with inequality and wealth distribution are far far bigger than ours.

Incorrect. I am focusing on CEO pay and you keep bringing up Ireland. I linked to the above report given that you seemed to want to talk about Ireland.

Beasty wrote: »

Did I suggest it is?

Oh and I know quite a bit about statistics. It was one of the options I took when getting my degree in mathematics

You may not have suggested it but it can be easily inferred from your post so it's worthwhile to explicitly refute that, less the thread present us with a false dichotomy i.e. either all CEOs are overpaid or none of them are.

Wanderer78

Walter H Price wrote: »

I fully agree with free market economics and a system of competitiveness, we are not all of equal ability , equal intellect etc ... why should i sacrifice my standard of living for other ? you will never get society as a whole to accept this out look its why communism has failed spectacularly everywhere its been tried , the brightest and best immediately want out and everyone ends up poor.

Competition is good its healthy and natural , we have always competed, for fun, for survival and to ensure the best possible lives for ourselves and our family's, i believe if you take away that competition you take away a large part of our instinct you may well see people loose drive and focus , why would i have bothered going to college if i was only going to ear as much as those that didn't , have the same lifestyle , would i have bothered studying , going to lectures , working 50 hour weeks , in honesty probably not.

Competition should not be feared or derided it should be embraced and championed.

people shouldnt have to sacrifice their hard earned wealth for anybody, theres plenty of wealth on this planet, and if theres not, just print the money or do whatever it takes to make sure everybody's ok. please be aware, im not advocating for a system based on communism, yes it disasterly failed for various different reasons, and we dont want to repeat that, but we have to start accepting our current form of capitalism,i.e. neoliberalism isnt working either, and it too looks like it ll collapse eventually possibly with the failure of the ability of this planet to sustain life.

some competition is good for society as a whole, we certainly would not be where we are now if it wasnt the case, again, this is why ive termed this type of competitive behaviour as 'hyper-competitiveness'. this type of competitive behaviour is actually very aggressive and destructive for society as a whole and has infiltrated many if not most of our socio-economic, political and environmental systems and is undermining them to the point of total destruction. we truly need to look at these systems as a whole and ask ourselves, are we doing the right thing for the whole of humanity? we need to start cooperating or our planet and species truly is finished.

a wee piece of trivia, we are currently landfilling up to 30% of our food, why??? we are clearly producing too much food, selling too much, buying too much and wasting too much. this is unsustainable and largely due to our 'hyper-competitive' systems, which in turn are largely due to our economic and financial systems and theories. we ve been sold a pup folks, we ve basically outsmarted ourselves and we dont have long to turn this around, some believing we only have single digit years to do so.

steddyeddy

bluewolf wrote: »

Ok? And? Either it makes good points which are independently verifiable or it doesn't?
Maybe I should have quoted it from reason.com instead?
http://reason.com/archives/2014/06/04/income-mobility-myths
http://economics.harvard.edu/news/new-research-mobility-studies-profs-chetty-hendren-and-katz
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/upshot/why-the-new-research-on-mobility-matters-an-economists-view.html?_r=0
http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/

Sorry BW, I see Fox news and judge. I should have dealt with the points.

Reading your latest links gives me cause to agree. Especially with the Harvard study. I long believed that your environment, particularly the school you go to, influences mobility.

Walter H Price

Wanderer78 wrote: »

people shouldnt have to sacrifice their hard earned wealth for anybody, theres plenty of wealth on this planet, and if theres not, just print the money or do whatever it takes to make sure everybody's ok. please be aware, im not advocating for a system based on communism, yes it disasterly failed for various different reasons, and we dont want to repeat that, but we have to start accepting our current form of capitalism,i.e. neoliberalism isnt working either, and it too looks like it ll collapse eventually possibly with the failure of the ability of this planet to sustain life.

some competition is good for society as a whole, we certainly would not be where we are now if it wasnt the case, again, this is why ive termed this type of competitive behaviour as 'hyper-competitiveness'. this type of competitive behaviour is actually very aggressive and destructive for society as a whole and has infiltrated many if not most of our socio-economic, political and environmental systems and is undermining them to the point of total destruction. we truly need to look at these systems as a whole and ask ourselves, are we doing the right thing for the whole of humanity? we need to start cooperating or our planet and species truly is finished.

a wee piece of trivia, we are currently landfilling up to 30% of our food, why??? we are clearly producing too much food, selling too much, buying too much and wasting too much. this is unsustainable and largely due to our 'hyper-competitive' systems, which in turn are largely due to our economic and financial systems and theories. we ve been sold a pup folks, we ve basically outsmarted ourselves and we dont have long to turn this around, some believing we only have single digit years to do so.

You cant just print currency , if you do that it loses value and you end up with hyper inflation. The food argument is hollow , we produce based on anticipated demand its a forecast , most food (well any of the good stuff) is perishable which means there has to be a constant rate of production in order to ensure there is enough fresh food to meet the forecast demand , a shop cannot predict that it will sell exactly 600 potatoes and 400 steaks in one day, they will forecast stock but its not an exact science far from it , the aim only needs to be to have an agreeable amount of waste , i.e maybe 10-15% in outlets like McDonald's with a lean production model it is lower closer to 2%.

I would be almost impossible to get to a point with food waste where we were land filling less than 20% and in order to get there you would have to stem production , provide subsides to farmers (because you're effectively cutting their income) and pricing poorer people out of affording fresh produce, as reduced supply will be met with increased cost. Perishables cant be recycled into anything other then composte , which to be honest may as well be land filled. May super markets are now giving past sell by date foods to food banks in many places that's about the best you can achieve.

FTA69

Walter H Price wrote: »

and chase whatever Salary you can get.
.

I take it then you're a great supporter of trade unions and their efforts to win higher pay for the workers?

Walter H Price

FTA69 wrote: »

I take it then you're a great supporter of trade unions and their efforts to win higher pay for the workers?

i think unions have played an important role in the past , i'm not a member of a union due to personal political differences with the main union we have in work SIPTU. I think people having representation in a workplace is a good thing and negotiating pay increase etc no issue.

However I don't have much time for the wider labor movement

Wanderer78

Walter H Price wrote: »

You cant just print currency , if you do that it loses value and you end up with hyper inflation. The food argument is hollow , we produce based on anticipated demand its a forecast , most food (well any of the good stuff) is perishable which means there has to be a constant rate of production in order to ensure there is enough fresh food to meet the forecast demand , a shop cannot predict that it will sell exactly 600 potatoes and 400 steaks in one day, they will forecast stock but its not an exact science far from it , the aim only needs to be to have an agreeable amount of waste , i.e maybe 10-15% in outlets like McDonald's with a lean production model it is lower closer to 2%.

I would be almost impossible to get to a point with food waste where we were land filling less than 20% and in order to get there you would have to stem production , provide subsides to farmers (because you're effectively cutting their income) and pricing poorer people out of affording fresh produce, as reduced supply will be met with increased cost. Perishables cant be recycled into anything other then composte , which to be honest may as well be land filled. May super markets are now giving past sell by date foods to food banks in many places that's about the best you can achieve.

all this buying and selling is down to wishy washy fundamentally flawed economic theories and principles such as neoclassical theory etc etc. we are being 'told', that will live unfulfilled lives unless we consume! i call bulls*it on this one!

yes we can just print money, banks do it all the time, so why cant we???? we have to start asking ourselves, are these systems controlling us or are we controlling them, and are the majority of society truly benefitting from these systems??? according to ha-joon chang, some managers of derivatives and hedge funds dont truly understand their systems. thats kinna scary if true!

you're using a lot of catch phrases straight from the book of 'free market economics', such as supply and demand etc etc. are these systems actually working? i think not! be aware, many, including myself, believe, 'free trade' actually means, deregulation, increasing 'worker insecurity' etc etc etc

FTA69

Walter H Price wrote: »

i think unions have played an important role in the past , i'm not a member of a union due to personal political differences with the main union we have in work SIPTU. I think people having representation in a workplace is a good thing and negotiating pay increase etc no issue.

However I don't have much time for the wider labor movement

Fair enough. Being honest I was expecting some sort of rabid anti-Union perpesctive but there you go.

That having been said, I don't believe that massive inequality across the developed world is a good thing. Likewise in an era of falling real wages and mass concentration of wealth at the top, the labour movement is the only real vehicle by which workers can address that.

steddyeddy

Walter H Price wrote: »

I fully agree with free market economics and a system of competitiveness, we are not all of equal ability , equal intellect etc ... why should i sacrifice my standard of living for other ? you will never get society as a whole to accept this out look its why communism has failed spectacularly everywhere its been tried , the brightest and best immediately want out and everyone ends up poor.

Competition is good its healthy and natural , we have always competed, for fun, for survival and to ensure the best possible lives for ourselves and our family's, i believe if you take away that competition you take away a large part of our instinct you may well see people loose drive and focus , why would i have bothered going to college if i was only going to ear as much as those that didn't , have the same lifestyle , would i have bothered studying , going to lectures , working 50 hour weeks , in honesty probably not.

Competition should not be feared or derided it should be embraced and championed.

We're not all of equal intellect or ability but that's not always the main factors of success. For instance we know that private schools, such as the one you went to, have a significant effect on grades outside of ability. I.E a dumber privately educated kid will lilely do the same or better as a state educated one. That's been well researched at this stage.

Beasty

There is a bit of history to this that I've observed from within a big business

When I started out with my current employer, around 3 decades ago, your typical FTSE 100 CEO was earning perhaps a couple of hundred grand, when adjusted for bonuses and share option (which were not paid for may years by my employer) top earning CEOs may be grossing something around half a million

What has happened since then is "globalisation" of many businesses, with companies feeling they have to compete with the likes of the US to attract top talent

However it didn't stop there. Every big business had ambitions to be in the top quartile (my employer was and still is just about there). Those in the bottom half had to up their game, and they thought the best way to do that was to pay top whack to attract the best executives

Alas that resulted in a lot of leapfrogging in the salaries game, and the gap between highest and lowest paid escalated rapidly. This was not helped by short termism in many businesses (fortunately although my own company has an eye for the short term, it's always strived for and delivered long term sustainable growth, even if like all businesses mistakes were made along the way). That resulted in some CEOs taking what ultimately became ridiculous risks (hence the credit crunch for example)

There remains far too much short termism in most big businesses, and as a result of that a desire to pay whatever is needed in the hope of delivering the results. In some cases this has worked (my own employer is a very good example where it has). In many others it has not.

In my own view the gap is totally unjustifiable but alas that is the world we live in. I certainly now benefit massively as a result, but equally there will be little incentive for anyone on the inside (including the likes of me) to change things without a completely new and co-ordinated approach pretty much across the globe.

Wanderer78

Beasty wrote: »

There is a bit of history to this that I've observed from within a big business

we may have actually opened pandora's box here, we may not be able to turn this around, but we have to try at least, for future generations. thank you for sharing your story. its always interesting to hear these stories from whats going on in these systems.

Walter H Price

Wanderer78 wrote: »

all this buying and selling is down to wishy washy fundamentally flawed economic theories and principles such as neoclassical theory etc etc. we are being 'told', that will live unfulfilled lives unless we consume! i call bulls*it on this one!

yes we can just print money, banks do it all the time, so why cant we???? we have to start asking ourselves, are these systems controlling us or are we controlling them, and are the majority of society truly benefitting from these systems??? according to ha-joon chang, some managers of derivatives and hedge funds dont truly understand their systems. thats kinna scary if true!

you're using a lot of catch phrases straight from the book of 'free market economics', such as supply and demand etc etc. are these systems actually working? i think not! be aware, many, including myself, believe, 'free trade' actually means, deregulation, increasing 'worker insecurity' etc etc etc

What about if , radical idea we enjoy consuming , what if i enjoy shopping and holidays , spending money on the house , my car , cloths whatever i don't feel I've been sold an idea . i have the money i could save it if i wanted , and i do some of it but, equally i spend it on things i enjoy. You wont ever sell many people on the idea that we can all have nothing and it be great craic. I really don't understand this point at all.

Banks create debt , debt is notional in value but it is not currency a sovereign cannot just print currency without creating a case of hyper inflation because currency like everything else is a commodity its value lies in it rarity. so you just print it and dish it out like Halloween sweets it looses its value , price of goods goes up and you've achieved noting, look at the pre euro Italian Lira 500 of the to buy a can of coke, people earning millions of near valueless currency for sweeping the streets.

Supply and demand is very basic , it is older then the monetary system , go back to bartering , lets say you have a pebble, well great everyone has pebbles, you can literally pick em up of the ground so why would i give you anything for one. If have a gold pebble though that rare people want it , they might offer my livestock weapons whatever in exchange for it. But if all of a sudden someone found loads of gold pebbles , well then mine dosn't look all that special does it.

FTA69 wrote: »

Fair enough. Being honest I was expecting some sort of rabid anti-Union perpesctive but there you go, pleanty of supply

That having been said, I don't believe that massive inequality across the developed world is a good thing. Likewise in an era of falling real wages and mass concentration of wealth at the top, the labor movement is the only real vehicle by which workers can address that.

The labor movement needs to move with the times , i was in SIPTU for a while when i started working it was mandatory to join , i found the phraseology they used very devise between and outdated. I agree with some of the wide principles like a minimum wage but it needs to work for both employees and SME's. I felt because i felt they were totally out of touch with a modern workplace like where i was it still flt like they were talking to the dockers of the 50's and factory workers of the 70's.

KyussBeeshop

I think the problem with these discussions, is that people who are reasonably well off due to the current structure of the economy, don't actually give a shít about the way inequalities in this system harm people on a mass scale - and will just keep on repeating the same mythical claims about the economic system (e.g. that things like CEO pay are meritocratic), in order to justify their own position to themselves (and many people probably aren't even conscious that they do this).

It reminds me of the quote from the physicist Max Planck - except applied to politics/economics rather than science:

"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because it’s opponents simply die off. Science progresses one funeral at a time."

Most of us here have seen the same myths perpetuated and debated/debunked many times over - but many of those who benefit from an unequal economic system and want it to stay in place, will (consciously or not) purposely remain ignorant of the flaws in these myths, and will just keep parroting these myths out - as they stand to gain from this system remaining in place, even if it is at cost to others.

It's not a logical debate, it's not a debate where people aim to find the truth (e.g. it's visible that many people simply don't want to know-about/acknowledge the harm of accelerating inequality), it's where people (consciously or not) try to shape the debate to fit the worldview that benefits/comforts them the most - and any deviation from that is almost like a personal attack on people, on the worldviews/moral-systems that allow people to tell themselves that what they do is just, and that they're still good people.

That's kind of what 'Free Market' economic theory is - an entire framework/system of myths that people tell themselves, to justify the state of the current economic system (which is fúcking light years away from working, in the manner of the economic theory people spout to justify it).

Wanderer78

Walter H Price wrote: »

What about if , radical idea we enjoy consuming , what if i enjoy shopping and holidays , spending money on the house , my car , cloths whatever i don't feel I've been sold an idea . i have the money i could save it if i wanted , and i do some of it but, equally i spend it on things i enjoy. You wont ever sell many people on the idea that we can all have nothing and it be great craic. I really don't understand this point at all.

Banks create debt , debt is notional in value but it is not currency a sovereign cannot just print currency without creating a case of hyper inflation because currency like everything else is a commodity its value lies in it rarity. so you just print it and dish it out like Halloween sweets it looses its value , price of goods goes up and you've achieved noting, look at the pre euro Italian Lira 500 of the to buy a can of coke, people earning millions of near valueless currency for sweeping the streets.

Supply and demand is very basic , it is older then the monetary system , go back to bartering , lets say you have a pebble, well great everyone has pebbles, you can literally pick em up of the ground so why would i give you anything for one. If have a gold pebble though that rare people want it , they might offer my livestock weapons whatever in exchange for it. But if all of a sudden someone found loads of gold pebbles , well then mine dosn't look all that special does it.



The labor movement needs to move with the times , i was in SIPTU for a while when i started working it was mandatory to join , i found the phraseology they used very devise between and outdated. I agree with some of the wide principles like a minimum wage but it needs to work for both employees and SME's. I felt because i felt they were totally out of touch with a modern workplace like where i was it still flt like they were talking to the dockers of the 50's and factory workers of the 70's.

look into 'public banking', i.e. we can print our own money! again, are our current economic systems ruling us or are we ruling them! im not advocating for a return of older systems such as bartery, just systems that share wealth more evenly and systems that work better for all.

consumption creates what i call, 'synthetic happiness'. its self explanatory really. our current economic systems create false demand mainly via large scale manipulation. i.e. marketing.