The labour Leader thread...
- Thread starter easyrider
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2014
- Posts
- 3,929
- Location
- Oxon
I wasn't calling the CEO of McDonald's greedy. The fact that he's agreed to that condition of the job tells me that he's perhaps one of the few executives with an ounce of morality and empathy for the people he manages.
These people however:
Yep, unimaginable greed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2014
- Posts
- 3,929
- Location
- Oxon
Please give one example of where this has actually happened. If anything, we'd attract more actual humans to run our businesses instead of money grabbing devils.
Where are those figures from? Are they basic + bonus or inclusive of share options?
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
What a load of ****
That's not what socialism is all about and you know it (or at least I hope you know it and you're nut just a nut job). Besides, Corbyn isn't even that much of a Socialist - he's firmly in the SOcial Democrat spectrum (albeit a lot close to a Socialist than the Blairites)
Last edited by a moderator:
Genuine question, has any country introduced wage caps for senior level staff before?
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,086
- Location
- Berkland
How would that work though? Is it based on the company you work at, or a minimum wage person doing 37.5 hours a week? What about part timers?
BTW your x20 would put the Max pay at about a quarter of a million if you used minimum wage at 37.5 hours.
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 13,172
What I don't understand is why Jeremy Corbyn thinks that earning a lot of money is a bad thing.
If you're a high earner you're usually a wealth creator. Think of all of McDonalds' employees. They all pay tax, they all provide a service, etc. If they work hard they can earn more money and become a manager, etc.
It stuns me that people honestly think that it is unreasonable for a CEO to earn a vast amount of money. They are steering a company that if it went bust, a huge number of people would be out of work. They deserve the money they get.
If you're a high earner you're usually a wealth creator. Think of all of McDonalds' employees. They all pay tax, they all provide a service, etc. If they work hard they can earn more money and become a manager, etc.
It stuns me that people honestly think that it is unreasonable for a CEO to earn a vast amount of money. They are steering a company that if it went bust, a huge number of people would be out of work. They deserve the money they get.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2014
- Posts
- 3,929
- Location
- Oxon
Google'd "UK top paid CEOs".
How do you do that effectively though in a market where returning value to shareholders and investment eat away at any liquidity? CEOs don't need to be paid millions to do a good job. Many businesses are successful whilst paying their bosses modestly. The very act of doing so introduces a better culture into the business, as well as improving productivity among the rest of the staff.
I'm not sure, but unless you've got your blinkers on, it's pretty obvious that neoliberal capitalism isn't working that well at the moment.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2014
- Posts
- 3,929
- Location
- Oxon
CEOs are not the wealth creator. Firstly, trickle down economics has been proven to be a lie. Secondly, if any wealth is created, it's the company that does it. The CEO can be replaced on a whim with very little impact on anyone else. They're not as integral as you're portraying them to be.
Ok so mostly share options, then.
Should we also be limiting the share options the CEO has? Will that come under this 20X rule?
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2014
- Posts
- 3,929
- Location
- Oxon
Obviously not. Do I look like I'm the regulatory body that would decide these terms?
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 13,172
Doesn't he want to reintroduce Class IV?
If that is the case, he doesn't really want any businesses at all.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2014
- Posts
- 3,929
- Location
- Oxon
No, he doesn't. He said that he wanted to open up the discussion about the nationalisation of certain areas where it makes sense to do so. The media immediately jumped on this and ran away with the reintroduction of class IV nonsense.
No, but you were representing the total compensation as a bad thing. You also seem more clued up on what Corbyn's plans would be so I was curious.
So it would seem that a cap would have very little impact on the total compensation ...
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Most proposals I've seen cap it at hourly rates, so part time/full time is irrelevant.
Did you miss the " (number pulled out of thin air) " bit in my post? But regardless, if it caps it say £1/4 mil based on min wage, then that's a good incentive for CEO's to ensure they don't pay thier staff min wage isn't it ?
But most proposals suggest anywhere between 20x to 40x and some even vary it by industry (i.e. those industries that require significant re-investment to be profitable (manufacturing) have a higher cap and those that don't (i.e. banking, service sectors amd civil service) have a lower cap).
Wait, what?
You're continually slating Corbyn but actually you actually have no idea what he proposes?
Last edited by a moderator:
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2014
- Posts
- 3,929
- Location
- Oxon
I think the awarding of shares for good performance is a good incentive for CEOs. It's also a matter for shareholders and the boards of companies to decide. I would support any policies that provide shareholders with more control over their investments, in general.
If it looks like Clause IV, sounds like Clause IV...................