|
serious gaylord posted:If you feel this strongly about it why don't you give everything more than the junior grade nurses salary away to the nurses charity then? Why aren't you giving all your money to the poor underpaid CEOs?
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Why aren't you giving all your money to the poor underpaid CEOs? Because I believe they earn what they deserve. You're the one saying you personally earn far more than you should, and that nurses should earn more than you do based on their level of work dedication. You say you fundamentally believe that you don't deserve to be paid more than those junior nurses. So what are you doing to fix it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:
Vote em out, rabble rouse at party meetings, push left wing candidates on a local level and eventually enact a political shift of the power base. They're likely to be the next ones in power and for as little influence any individual has they'll listen to me a hell of a lot more then as someone shouting in. edit: which is to say, the referendum gave me a clear reason the left in this country is marginalized: they spend all their time splitting (splitters!  ) away from centrist policies while centrist moderates wind up holding the reigns of the leftist parties. This is nonsense! There are obviously a great number of voters who vote Labour even though they don't feel it perfectly aligns with their political views: the brand is worth something. Old guard politicians like Tony Benn thought it was worth something, old people I speak to here think it means something. We'll never exorcise the neoliberal dickheads completely, but the Labour party can correct it's specter of New course change. I hope. We spend all our time rallying and voting against Labour and act outraged when Labour fails to represent us well shock and loving awe CoolCab fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Sep 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Because I believe they earn what they deserve. You're the one saying you personally earn far more than you should, No, he isn't. He's saying wage disparity is wrong. There is a huge difference.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
While he himself is earning a wage...
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:While he himself is earning a wage... No you see if Occupy didnt buy Starbucks coffee they'd have collapsed immediately. It's not like corporations have breakage indicating that they're doing ok for product vs profit. By not shopping at Sainsy's I'm totally going to bring down the system; the fact they can afford to throw away shitloads of food is unrelated to their economic muscle. (The real answer is sabotage)
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:I can't speak for anyone else, but the result of the election as a Carlisle resident is a firm beleif that Scottish Labour are the sensible, electable future of the left in this country. Please tell me you're joking. Scottish Labour are so incompetent they make loving UKIP look electable by comparison.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Spooky Hyena posted:Meritocracy doesn't exist and even if it did it'd be a horrible policy, if you need help figuring this out please tell an adult. Would you mind explaining the problems you foresee in leadership by the competent?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Would you mind explaining the problems you foresee in leadership by the competent? That's technocracy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Because I believe they earn what they deserve. You're the one saying you personally earn far more than you should, and that nurses should earn more than you do based on their level of work dedication. You say you fundamentally believe that you don't deserve to be paid more than those junior nurses. So what are you doing to fix it? If a comfortably well-off gent feels there's no issue with wealth disparity then it must be true! And if someone feels there's unjust wealth inequality, that's clearly their problem! Come on goddamnedtwisto, it's up to you to bootstrap your way to getting those nurses better pay! So what about other people who don't earn what you believe they deserve, do you give any money to them? Do YOU give to nurses charities? We all know you don't, but I'm dying to hear you justify someone earning vastly more than people who save lives on a daily basis then demanding to know why someone on far less pay than you hasn't done anything about it, because asking that implies either that you should also have done something about it (which you haven't) or that it's only a problem if you think it is, conveniently allowing you to pass off societal problems to other people and not have to consider giving up any more money than you currently do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Doctor_Fruitbat posted:If a comfortably well-off gent feels there's no issue with wealth disparity then it must be true! And if someone feels there's unjust wealth inequality, that's clearly their problem! Come on goddamnedtwisto, it's up to you to bootstrap your way to getting those nurses better pay! I don't earn more money than most Doctors, which the poster I was replying to says he does. He earns more money than me. He is the one that believes he doesn't deserve to earn more than doctors, and magnitudes more than nurses so I was asking why, if he felt so strongly about this, he wasn't doing anything about it? He hasn't answered this with anything other than a flippant remark. Leads me to believe that its empty words. Also why are you so quick to say I don't donate to charity? Seems a bit presumptuous there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I don't earn more money than most Doctors, which the poster I was replying to says he does. He earns more money than me. He is the one that believes he doesn't deserve to earn more than doctors, and magnitudes more than nurses so I was asking why, if he felt so strongly about this, he wasn't doing anything about it? He hasn't answered this with anything other than a flippant remark. Leads me to believe that its empty words. Perhaps he is doing something about it, namely political activism with the objective of increasing the amount they are being paid. That is an option too you know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Zohar posted:Perhaps he is doing something about it, namely political activism with the objective of increasing the amount they are being paid. That is an option too you know. Writing letters from his ivory tower while wondering what he can do to help out the serfs toiling in the mud below. I just find it a bit rich that he is railing against such wage disparity while benefiting massively from it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Writing letters from his ivory tower while wondering what he can do to help out the serfs toiling in the mud below. I see what you did there, m'lord.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Writing letters from his ivory tower while wondering what he can do to help out the serfs toiling in the mud below. Yes, he should be more like you, a smug poo poo all about praising the real wealth creators, CEOs. I'd rather the wealthy were in favour of income equality than against it & see little hypocrisy in those people. But then I'm also not the sort who whines about champagne socialists either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Writing letters from his ivory tower while wondering what he can do to help out the serfs toiling in the mud below. Yeah if only he went to a hospital and handed out money it would fix everything! Your idea is excellent and I can't believe anyone would be flippant about it
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Writing letters from his ivory tower while wondering what he can do to help out the serfs toiling in the mud below. Yeah, maybe it is rich, but so what? We all probably agree that children starving in foreign countries is a bad thing, but I doubt any of us has given away all our savings to prevent it even though it would probably be of objectively greater aggregate benefit to mankind if we did so instead of spending it on video games or movie tickets or a night out at a restaurant. We still admire people who do that kind of thing, and that in itself is pretty much an admission of the original point: it's a Bad Thing that those children are starving. It would be good if goddamnedtwisto gave away all his savings to nurses, but you can still make a meaningful difference and hold a sincere and correct belief without being a saint. I think this kind of argument is basically a weird form of perfectionism coming from someone like yourself who I imagine thinks of themselves as a political realist. Maybe I'm wrong though and you were a utopian all along. (e: It also seems totalitarian, the idea that anyone who supports a cause has to give up all aspects of their lives in total and unerring mechanical service of it, or else their support is meaningless.) Zohar fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Sep 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Zohar posted:Yeah, maybe it is rich, but so what? We all probably agree that children starving in foreign countries is a bad thing, but I doubt any of us has given away all our savings to prevent it even though it would probably be of objectively greater aggregate benefit to mankind if we did so instead of spending it on video games or movie tickets or a night out at a restaurant. We still admire people who do that kind of thing, and that in itself is pretty much an admission of the original point: it's a Bad Thing that those children are starving. It would be good if goddamnedtwisto gave away all his savings to nurses, but you can still make a meaningful difference and hold a sincere and correct belief without being a saint. It was mainly that I didn't take kindly to his 'woe is me, i hate earning so much more than these people that deserve it far more than me' posting. I would truly wonder if he would feel so strongly about it were he earning such 'fair' wage. Its easy to make such sweeping statements from a position of plenty. People are inherently selfish.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
It's not perfectionism, it's a just world argument where everything's fine as it is and if anyone feels differently, they're automatically a hypocrite unless they make some futile personal gesture. And if they do that they're sneered at because it's done nothing to affect the situation but only put them in a worse position. Same thing when Warren Buffet (a very rich man so clearly one of the smartest and hardest working people) pointed out that his secretary paid a higher rate of tax than he did, and that this was a problem that should be addressed. Cue all his peers saying 'if you don't think you're paying enough tax why don't you send a cheque to the IRS?!?' Hmmm where have I heard a similar argument hmmmmmm
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
I feel like goddamnedtwisto giving away his excess salary and doubling the pay of three nurses doesn't completely address the issue of wage disparity. Do you have any other suggestions about how we might address the wider problem, serious gaylord?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
You won't ever get rid of wage disparity. People will always want more money for more responsibility, and companies will pay more for better staff. Any company trying to institute some sort of top down wage squeeze would find their top and middle range staff deserting them. Further, raising the minimum wage will just raise wages further up the chain to compensate. Capitalism. If this is about what could you do to raise the wages of nurses, well that's a whole other kettle of fish.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:You won't ever get rid of wage disparity. People will always want more money for more responsibility, and companies will pay more for better staff. Any company trying to institute some sort of top down wage squeeze would find their top and middle range staff deserting them. Further, raising the minimum wage will just raise wages further up the chain to compensate. Capitalism. Yeah wage disparity didn't explode thanks to Thatcherism and certainly couldn't be addressed ever again, such is life serious gaylord posted:
charity is definitely not a fig leaf over the vile phallus of neoliberalism nope nope nope
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Well OK, so it's a characteristic of capitalism in general. But the UK still has much higher wage inequality than most other countries within the EU. So clearly it is possible to reduce it, because Germany and France and Spain and Switzerland (not in the EU I know but still comparable) and Finland don't have it to the same extent we do. Or do you feel that actually it's a desirable state of affairs?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Reducing the share of income that goes to the top 1% to Dutch or Danish levels could be redistributed to give £2,500 to the other 99% of households in the UK.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Praseodymi posted:Reducing the share of income that goes to the top 1% to Dutch or Danish levels could be redistributed to give £2,500 to the other 99% of households in the UK. No it's definitely twistos fault.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:People are inherently selfish. hmmmmmm
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
You know, if only we had some mechanism that selectively overtakes, say, on a progressive tier scale, based on your income: one that understands that people who earn more then a few hundred thousand dollars can afford a higher rate, I'd eyeball a rough eyeball would be to take 75% after that? Sensible number. I mean how many loving Porches do you need a year right? edit: oh god the conservative manifesto includes a photo-realistic photograph of me and my family dead help CoolCab fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Sep 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:hmmmmmm Its evolution pal. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
this is a very strange discussion. The alleged neoliberals are not advancing an explanation consistent with the standard micro usually alleged to underpin neoliberalism. The alleged Marxist anti-capitalists are not advancing explanations obviously consistent with Marxist ideas on how bureaucratic management of the means of production should instead be carried out. do CEOs work hard for their compensation? Maybe, but that's utterly irrelevant for W/P=MPL. If doctors are rare, doctors might golf a lot and still earn a high equilibrium wage. Are boards of directors massively captured by upper management? Maybe, but if so then increases in upper management pay would stem from changes in corporate governance practices and laws, and your proposals should focus on enforcing practices from other countries or from earlier decades, not taking those as given.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
I dunno if I'm one of the 'alleged Marxist anti-capitalists' but my understanding of this particular issue (executive pay) is rooted in institutional economics, not Marxism. Wages above a certain point "equilibrate" upwards indefinitely (and the same in reverse below a certain point), and so W/P=MPL doesn't necessarily make sense in those non-classical regions of the labour supply curve. At these levels you can comfortably impose strong taxation without diminishing the quantity of labour supplied. I'm not sure I get your point with respect to corporate governance, though in general I agree that corporate governance would need to be reformed to impose meaningful limits on executive pay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
ronya posted:The alleged Marxist anti-capitalists are not advancing explanations obviously consistent with Marxist ideas on how bureaucratic management of the means of production should instead be carried out. The only time I even alluded to a serious point was to nod at corporate governance pre-Thatcher and several other people have referenced other nations so I'm not really sure where this complaint comes from I mean yeah Bhyos points are crap but that's because he's being about as serious as GC but with none of the charm e; do we even have anti ideological Marxist anti-capitalists here apart from GC? Zohar posted:I'm not sure I get your point with respect to corporate governance, though in general I agree that corporate governance would need to be reformed to impose meaningful limits on executive pay. Wage disparity at current levels would have been unfathomable to the Corporate Libertarian bloc of the 50s, it's a very recent phenominon. Returning to pre-neoliberal regulation would address it, and very few people would argue that a corporate CEO earning 4x more than floor workers is an injustice demanding blood. Spangly A fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Sep 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:You know, if only we had some mechanism that selectively overtakes, say, on a progressive tier scale, based on your income: one that understands that people who earn more then a few hundred thousand dollars can afford a higher rate, I'd eyeball a rough eyeball would be to take 75% after that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbQiVQuiu04 FWIW, the Nordic countries are often held up as good examples of more equal societies with strong welfare states and their top marginal rates are in the high 50s or low 60s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Well OK, so it's a characteristic of capitalism in general. But the UK still has much higher wage inequality than most other countries within the EU. So clearly it is possible to reduce it, because Germany and France and Spain and Switzerland (not in the EU I know but still comparable) Is it really true that France has better income equality? Don't they have something like twice as many millionaires as the UK?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 09:47
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:I used to work for a little ISP called Dircon on the rising curve of the Dotcom boom that got bought out by a company called Netscalibur. You've probably never heard of them, and this story will explain why. Holy poo poo. We might know each other. I worked in tech support at Dircon and was there for the whole netscalibur shambles. Mr Cuddles fucked around with this message at 10:10 on Sep 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 10:06
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:
Do such people even exist? I include GC in that, BTW, he always comes across to me as the Four Yorkshiremen of socialism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 10:35
|
|
|
Mr Cuddles posted:Holy poo poo. We might know each other. I worked in tech support at Dircon and was there for the whole netscalibur shambles. And once again my belief that there are only about a thousand actual people on Earth is reinforced. As you don't have PMs, drop me an email - username at cluebyfour.co.uk - and we'll sort out how much you should hate me...
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 10:35
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Do such people even exist? I include GC in that, BTW, he always comes across to me as the Four Yorkshiremen of socialism. I think that capitalism is incompatible with long-term human existence on this planet, and I agree with a lot of Marx's critiques. Do I count?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
Well, the referendum is over, so you know what that means. It means it's time for Sean Connery to go back to weighing in on a country he doesn't live in and has no intention of ever living in again http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/sir-sean-in-warning-to-uk-party-leaders.25448483
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:People are inherently selfish. Tell me, what is your opinion on A and its relation to A
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 11:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
Undead Hippo posted:Is it really true that France has better income equality? Don't they have something like twice as many millionaires as the UK? IIRC France has a Gini coefficient of 0.32 whereas the UK's is 0.34, so the UK is a marginally less equal society than France. The difference isn't particularly significant, however.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 11:29
|
|