ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Not according to the Tories. No such thing as society is what people have voted for, and continue to vote for.It's a societies duty to care for it's elderly. FREE.
Not according to the Tories. No such thing as society is what people have voted for, and continue to vote for.It's a societies duty to care for it's elderly. FREE.
A new party to further divide the opposition vote, just what is needed...
By taking some of the wealth of the richer people, in taxes for example, which is exactly what I said: "deprive some people of their property in order to give to others"
Or "I'm alright Jack I got mine screw you"
No you’re not. However, I suspect you’re in a minority. But the virtues of the market have taken on an all pervasive level of modern politics that infects every narrative on the economy and on social failures. The faith market economy is explicitly based on the philosophy of selfish individualism. It goes back to the liberalism of Adam Smith who thought that the market works best when left up to the natural self interest of buyers and sellers. Smith believed the state should stay out of the market, but even he believed that the role of the state was to provide such things as schools.Am I the only one to see the obvious link between market economy and selfish individualism? And this environmental traedy that we are facing?
No you’re not. However, I suspect you’re in a minority. But the virtues of the market have taken on an all pervasive level of modern politics that infects every narrative on the economy and on social failures. The faith market economy is explicitly based on the philosophy of selfish individualism. It goes back to the liberalism of Adam Smith who thought that the market works best when left up to the natural self interest of buyers and sellers. Smith believed the state should stay out of the market, but even he believed that the role of the state was to provide such things as schools.
Anything that cannot be turned into a commodity has no place.
Modern Neoliberalism raises the market to new heights and ignores the call for social or environmental provision. It takes Smith’s invisible hand and turns it into the hand of God. It takes the traditional liberal view of the market and turns everything, including human agency and saving the planet into a commodity that rises and falls according to the virtues of competition.
If the market doesn’t work for you, you have no one else to blame but yourself. If you do well, you have no one else to thank but yourself.
The market is natural, unemployment is natural, poor people are natural, climate disaster is natural, it’s just the way it is. There is no room for humanitarianism or environmentalism unless you can commodify them
It’s bollocks of course, it so obviously leads to authoritarianism, populism and the movement of wealth from poor to rich, but it is bollocks that an awful lot of people believe in.
All rights can be overridden. The right to life is overridden whenever a legal abortion takes place, for example.
I'm not for one minute saying "CEO as hero" so your suggestion that I am is frankly offensive. I've known a few CEO s and business founders and a good few are arseholes. However they generate jobs. What I'm saying is that someone who contributes more and risks more should be rewarded more than someone who just finds a job, turns up, does what he's told and risks nothing more than this week's pay because of it all goes South he can be doing something else on the same money next week.Except that the great driver of inequality over the last 50 years has been how all the benefits of productivity gains have gone to the MD at the expense of the yard sweeper. To a great extent this has been supported and enabled by this 'CEO as Hero' type thinking.
Certainly true. Some are rewarded less than their worth, some more. Twas ever thus. However some companies do to our of their way to reward the nasty jobs. My current client, a very large UK food manufacturer with a number of sites, is working towards grading the lavatory cleaners better than the packers, simply because cleaning lavatories is more unpleasant than chucking cakes in a box.I don’t think anybody is arguing that everything is of equal value. I’m arguing, rather, that many things which deserve to be of higher value, are not rewarded in proportion to their value to society (measured in terms of how they contribute to the functioning of that society, perhaps); and others are rewarded well beyond their value, measured by the same yardstick. And by and large, the people who get to set those values do so because they have access to power and influence.
Good to hear. You could argue that being the sort of person who is prepared to tackle the sort of jobs most would refuse, because it needs doing, is something that deserves reward in and of itself. Why don’t carers, who spend their working lives cleaning old people who have soiled themselves, helping them to wash and feed themselves, or generally doing the unpalatable personal care that needs doing, get rewarded more than bankers, who spend much of their time working out how to benefit from others’ misfortune?Certainly true. Some are rewarded less than their worth, some more. Twas ever thus. However some companies do to our of their way to reward the nasty jobs. My current client, a very large UK food manufacturer with a number of sites, is working towards grading the lavatory cleaners better than the packers, simply because cleaning lavatories is more unpleasant than chucking cakes in a box.
What I'm saying is that someone who contributes more and risks more should be rewarded more than someone who just finds a job, turns up, does what he's told and risks nothing more than this week's pay because of it all goes South he can be doing something else on the same money next week.
Why don’t carers, who spend their working lives cleaning old people who have soiled themselves, helping them to wash and feed themselves, or generally doing the unpalatable personal care that needs doing, get rewarded more than bankers, who spend much of their time working out how to benefit from others’ misfortune?
because of the cost of restitution. If someone at work can't sort out the lavatories, they can go back on box packing or get fired. I'll get someone else to clean tbe loos. However I'd someone screws up my pension, I'm going to hunt him down and exact a brutal and horrible retribution. Shortly after that, a solicitor is going to sue the sh*t out of his company, its shareholders and its underwriters. This is going to involve an awful lot of pain and loss. There's a risk here, and people pay a lot of money to minimise risk. That's why you and I pay insurance. So at least part of the premium is about hiring people who won't foul it up.Good to hear. You could argue that being the sort of person who is prepared to tackle the sort of jobs most would refuse, because it needs doing, is something that deserves reward in and of itself. Why don’t carers, who spend their working lives cleaning old people who have soiled themselves, helping them to wash and feed themselves, or generally doing the unpalatable personal care that needs doing, get rewarded more than bankers, who spend much of their time working out how to benefit from others’ misfortune?
It's true that the current premium for those of power and influence is too high. However the risks are substantial. I did some work for a company that went down. My losses were modest, but still in excess of £10,000. The investors took a bath for a lot more. Nobody's crying for me, or for them. Nor should they, I do all right. But I don't imagine that you'd like to do a substantial amount of work, incur hotel and travel costs, and get reimbursed at 2p in the pound. Those of us that do accept that risk need to be rewarded when times are good, otherwise why would you bother?And nobody disputes that. Indeed it’s quite a banal fact.
My point is that the CEO doesn’t deserve an order of magnitude more than they used to get paid a generation ago for doing the same job, especially as it comes at the expense of their employees who have in the same time frame seen they pay, conditions and employment security Go down. And the cult of the CEO has played a big part in that.
Why did the company fail? Any culpability on the part of the doubtless well-remunerated board? What happened to the salaried staff? Did they get well paid in case the company folded owing them pay and benefits too?It's true that the current premium for those of power and influence is too high. However the risks are substantial. I did some work for a company that went down. My losses were modest, but still in excess of £10,000. The investors took a bath for a lot more. Nobody's crying for me, or for them. Nor should they, I do all right. But I don't imagine that you'd like to do a substantial amount of work, incur hotel and travel costs, and get reimbursed at 2p in the pound. Those of us that do accept that risk need to be rewarded when times are good, otherwise why would you bother?
But that assumes not screwing up your pension is a difficult job. Looking at the morons who are described in, say Liar’s Poker or The Big Short, I’d say that’s a bit of a stretch.
I wonder then whether people susceptible to moral hazard ought to be paid at all, still less paid better than morons?In my experience City problems are rarely a problem caused by morons but rather by risk and moral hazard.
It's true that the current premium for those of power and influence is too high. However the risks are substantial. I did some work for a company that went down. My losses were modest, but still in excess of £10,000. The investors took a bath for a lot more. Nobody's crying for me, or for them. Nor should they, I do all right. But I don't imagine that you'd like to do a substantial amount of work, incur hotel and travel costs, and get reimbursed at 2p in the pound. Those of us that do accept that risk need to be rewarded when times are good, otherwise why would you bother?