advertisement


Why Conservative?

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?
If it's easy to run a successful company, go ahead and start one. Yours will ensure that the salaried staff are well paid just in case the company folds, obviously.
You will of course be aware that when a company folds the salaried staff and hourly paid staff are the first to be paid after the taxman, and generally get paid at 100p in the £, as they should. Unsecured creditors, such as man in a van who services the boilers, less so. Are you bothered about him?
 
But, again, the issue is not that you are paid for your work but that such people (generally) are now paid an order of magnitude more than they used to be for doing essentially the same job a generation or two ago. And this pay has siphoned off the benefits of the productivity gains and driven inequality.
I've just said that the difference is too great. My point that the risk takers should re ceive some reward is also sufficiently evident to be described as "banal" . So the only debate remaining is "how much?"
 
I wonder then whether people susceptible to moral hazard ought to be paid at all, still less paid better than morons?

Because the moral hazard is systemic in all sorts of financial industries and you can take as read that such places will attract the worst as well as the best. The point is that these people are generally not stupid and the failings are invariably in my experience ones of regulation, risk and oversight.

Although your point is a good one and modern financial organisations organise their risk and compliance functions on the basis of earning and maintaining a right to participate rather than simply being in compliance
 
I've just said that the difference is too great. My point that the risk takers should re ceive some reward is also sufficiently evident to be described as "banal" . So the only debate remaining is "how much?"

I can only suggest you re read my previous post.
 
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?

My point is that you’re basing your arguments on a pile of assumptions about what is right and proper, which have their roots in the neoliberal ideology ks has criticised upthread. I’m just not taking these assumptions on trust any more.
am I hell as like basing my arguments on assumption s about what's right and proper. I'm giving you a real life example tbat I understand fine well at first hand, and suddenly I'm basing it on assumption s and you know it better than I do? Yeah, right. Bollocks.
 
Yes, I have. Can I suggest that you read my reply?

my point was not that it was just about how much people are paid. But the morality of using the improvements in productivity produced by our collective efforts to make a small section of the population very rich at the expense of a much larger section of the population. This is, to my mind, the original sin of the modern conservative view of capitalism and, more broadly, work.
 
If it's easy to run a successful company, go ahead and start one. Yours will ensure that the salaried staff are well paid just in case the company folds, obviously.
You will of course be aware that when a company folds the salaried staff and hourly paid staff are the first to be paid after the taxman, and generally get paid at 100p in the £, as they should. Unsecured creditors, such as man in a van who services the boilers, less so. Are you bothered about him?

Not all CEOs are entrepreneurs. Most are just some guy with an MBA and some connections.
 
my point was not that it was just about how much people are paid. But the morality of using the improvements in productivity produced by our collective efforts to make a small section of the population very rich at the expense of a much larger section of the population. This is, to my mind, the original sin of the modern conservative view of capitalism and, more broadly, work.
There's a lot in this post, it's getting late and there a few bits to unpack.
Second sentence - I'm not convinced that improvement s in performance are reserved to a small section of the population.
As for modern conservatives, well, I can only say "you knew can well I was a snake, before you took me in" .
 
3c25c48241edae90012ac4e94b55b6fb529a9d71.jpeg
 
Not all CEOs are entrepreneurs. Most are just some guy with an MBA and some connections.
Most? Yeah, right. I've got £1M in director's loan and another half a mil on my mortgage and I put some guy from the golf club in charge because he's got an MBA? No thanks, not with my one and a half mill, thanks very much.
 
There's a lot in this post, it's getting late and there a few bits to unpack.
Second sentence - I'm not convinced that improvement s in performance are reserved to a small section of the population.
As for modern conservatives, well, I can only say "you knew can well I was a snake, before you took me in" .
 
am I hell as like basing my arguments on assumption s about what's right and proper. I'm giving you a real life example tbat I understand fine well at first hand, and suddenly I'm basing it on assumption s and you know it better than I do? Yeah, right. Bollocks.
You’re not getting it. It is irrelevant that it’s a real world example. The assumptions behind your argument about relative remuneration are rooted in neoliberal policy and, as Matthew reminds, the premise of that great right wing bible, Atlas Shrugged.

There’s also a counter argument that rewarding risk taking encourages more reckless risk taking. Look at what happened in 2008.

And you’re still ignoring that I’m not arguing that everybody should be paid equally. I’m arguing that the neoliberal approach undervalues some capabilities and jobs below their true value to society, and inflates others beyond their true value to society.
 
An advanced, fair, communitarian society should set income ceilings and be inclusive of race and creed.
 


advertisement


Back
Top