• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

BBC: Corbyn suggests max limit to what people can earn, "somewhat higher than £138K"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pfffttt......there are thousands of key workers who's skills and services are invaluable to society who earn a pittance, while industry fatcats drag in more in a month than they make in a year.

Rewards are rarely related to hard work.

False statement IMO.

Yes, the big wigs make more than necessary a lot of the times, that much is true. If this person is invaluable then the person will be paid accordingly. Engineers to high skilled plumbers get what they deserve, if they are well versed in their profession.

Networks, cities, sponsors and owners make a shit ton of money off of football, baseball and basketball players here in America. Why shouldn't they be paid according to their skill set that they have worked hard to craft? Just because you are fast, doesn't mean you can be a running back. You have to work very hard to earn a chance to play professional sports. I see no reason they shouldn't be paid what they are currently making. You leave the NFL with a 50 - 60 year old body and you are just 36 or so.
 

empyrean

Member
Always makes me chuckle when this idea comes up. People who have no hope in hell of ever making anywhere near enough money to be effected seem to be the most outraged.

In principle I agree that the boss of a company should have their wage / financial package limited to x times that of the lowest financially rewarded full time employee of a company. What x is I don't know.

I think people are taking what Jeremy said a bit too literally around the 138k figure, someone asked him if it would be that figure as that's his salary and he said it would obviously have to be higher, it's not like he is saying that that figure is a hard cap.
 

mlclmtckr

Banned
The study you are probably citing actually says that people are happier about life in terms of life satisfaction the more they make, but it will not make you have a happy attitude on a day to day basis:
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2019628,00.html

Well, sure. But to quote the first paragraph of that article

People say money doesn't buy happiness. Except, according to a new study from Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School, it sort of does — up to about $75,000 a year. The lower a person's annual income falls below that benchmark, the unhappier he or she feels. But no matter how much more than $75,000 people make, they don't report any greater degree of happiness.

Of course people are going to see themselves as more successful the more money they make. But that's just validation in a consumer society. Above 75k your actual emotional well-being isn't going up.
 
Always makes me chuckle when this idea comes up. People who have no hope in hell of ever making anywhere near enough money to be effected seem to be the most outraged.

In principle I agree that the boss of a company should have their wage / financial package limited to x times that of the lowest financially rewarded full time employee of a company. What x is I don't know.

I think people are taking what Jeremy said a bit too literally around the 138k figure, someone asked him if it would be that figure as that's his salary and he said it would obviously have to be higher, it's not like he is saying that that figure is a hard cap.
Cool, now you all work part time, freelance or through a holding company. How are you going to solve that?

And how would you enforce this on investors, actors, singers, football players, etc, that are not regular employees?
 

Biske

Member
Lol.

Interesting idea.

Can't imagine a planet earth where that could happen even for a second.

Why not limit how much the people on the top can make in comparison to people on the bottom.

Do something to tie it together.

Like people on the top can't make such and such a number times the bottom of the company.

So if there is money to go around and people at the top what that hundreds of millions of dollars extra, they'd have to raise the people on the bottom first.


I mean if you have a company where the people on the top are making tens of millions of dollars. Every employee in the company should be able at the very least, to live a comfortable decent life, without worrying how they gonna get by til the next paycheck.
 

liquidtmd

Banned
Jesus talk about an over reaction to an off-the-cuff remark. Also it's not a bad idea in theory but perhaps would be better implemented through higher taxation brackets.

Income inequality is one of the biggest issues facing modern society. Wages of the highest earners has ballooned since the 80's whilst the middle and low earners has barely budged, just about matching inflation. He also mentioned increasing minimum wage to £10 per hour which would fantastic and give people a living wage.

I think Corbyn has great ideas but how he delivers them is often terrible. He needs to think before he speaks, especially when everything he says will be scrutinised and jumped upon by the right wing press.

I've got great ideas but I deliver them terribly. Plz can I be the Leader of The Labour Party?

Throwing around ideas 'in theory'? At this point - he's the leader. It's his job to deliver well thought out proposals in a professional manner. At this point he's no better than the man in the pub or political high schooler and absolutely he deserves the criticism he's getting
 

numble

Member
Well, sure. But to quote the first paragraph of that article



Of course people are going to see themselves as more successful the more money they make. But that's just validation in a consumer society. Above 75k your actual emotional well-being isn't going up.
Satisfaction with how your life is going is related to emotional well-being.
Day-to-day happiness is more effected at lower incomes because you have immediate money issues, while someone doing okay can be generally dissatisfied with where their life is going but not unhappy day-to-day because your life goals isn't something that you think about on a day-to-day basis.
 
500k-1mil sounds like a good limit to me. After that just take more time off.

Yeah man, CEOs can just not show up five weeks a year.

To take on the responsibility of running an entire company- especially a publicly traded corporation- I'm going to need some good pay. That job often requires a lot of travel. It requires 7 days of my week, meetings into the night, responsibility for the company's financial performance, for the headcount of the whole company. And if people are making that sort of money just trading on the market, or being a doctor in a ritzy town; then why would I want to be the CEO?

Companies actually are engaged in a game of trying to attract talent from their competitors- but how can I get an experienced CEO to come to my company from his executive position at, say, Ford if he's already making the wage cap? It's the same reason NFL salaries are so high - competition. Personally I'm all in favor of a high *salary*, but hold the golden parachutes.
 

Jackpot

Banned
I think Corbyn has great ideas but how he delivers them is often terrible. He needs to think before he speaks, especially when everything he says will be scrutinised and jumped upon by the right wing press.

Which is why he should be a policy wonk instead of a leader.
 

Osiris

I permanently banned my 6 year old daughter from using the PS4 for mistakenly sending grief reports as it's too hard to watch or talk to her
Income disparity isn't a problem because of some earning too much, it's others earning (or being provided with) too little, what a fucking moron.

I can't even see what he's thinking here, in what way did he think this was a good thing to say or think, who does it benefit?
 

tuxfool

Banned
Which is why he should be a policy wonk instead of a leader.

To be a policy wonk, requires you to make your ideas work in the real world, to be able to do the legwork to turn vague ideas into implementable solutions. I've not seen any evidence that he can do such a thing.
 

Phased

Member
Labour is so fucked, the UK is so fucked

10 years of Tory rule

Liberalism in general is fucked in a lot of places worldwide. Part of it is because of people swinging way too far to the left and leaving everyone but the people with the most extreme views behind.

It's created an avenue for conservatives to gain a foothold by picking up moderates that are turned off by how far left liberals are going.
 
Why not limit how much the people on the top can make in comparison to people on the bottom.

The simple answer to that is because companies are already unwilling to hire people to take low-wage roles, and are instead turning to agencies to provide them with a supply of warm bodies to do the grunt work. If you make it so hiring low-wage employees affects the pay at the top, then these companies will simply outsource absolutely everything below a certain pay grade.

The even simpler answer is that the tax system is already way too complicated as it is, and the rich are already effectively hiding their earnings and assets from the taxman. Adding more complexity is just going to provide their accountants with yet more avenues of tax avoidance to exploit.
 
Brexit+Earning Cap = bye bye finance sector

Im sure GB will do alright with its robust manufacturing sector.
Income disparity isn't a problem because of some earning too much, it's others earning (or being provided with) too little, what a fucking moron.

I can't even see what he's thinking here, in what way did he think this was a good thing to say or think, who does it benefit?

It benefits those that already have millions of millions of cash, assets, shares, interesr etc.
 

Lagamorph

Member
20x the lowest earner for any government contract.

Look forward to no big/reputable company ever bidding on a government contract ever again if you get that Comrade.
 

Xe4

Banned
Please also be one of the people who gets mad when neoliberalism gets brought up.
And if he is? "Neoliberalism" is a phrase that deserves to be ridiculed because it's a bunch of hot air. It exists solely as a talking point to attack people that aren't liked, or seen as "left" enough.

It was my most hated word/phrase of 2016, even beating out "economic anxiety", which is a pretty big accomplishment.
 

-COOLIO-

The Everyman
Yeah man, CEOs can just not show up five weeks a year.

To take on the responsibility of running an entire company- especially a publicly traded corporation- I'm going to need some good pay. That job often requires a lot of travel. It requires 7 days of my week, meetings into the night, responsibility for the company's financial performance, for the headcount of the whole company. And if people are making that sort of money just trading on the market, or being a doctor in a ritzy town; then why would I want to be the CEO?

Companies actually are engaged in a game of trying to attract talent from their competitors- but how can I get an experienced CEO to come to my company from his executive position at, say, Ford if he's already making the wage cap? It's the same reason NFL salaries are so high - competition. Personally I'm all in favor of a high *salary*, but hold the golden parachutes.

this is hypothetical because logistically i'm not sure how it would happen, but if salaries were capped across the globe and CEOS had the only jobs that paid 1 million bucks a year, the current CEOS would continue doing the job at that salary. basically, i don't think many CEOs really care about making 150 million as opposed to 1 million, they just want to be making more than everyone else.
 
Hopefully we will be able to cap incomes. It's urgent and necessary as individual redistribution doesn't work and the gap is getting wider and wider.

Income inequality is the biggest problem of modern societies and, although capping isn't necessarily the best way to handle it, it's a good first step.
 

Lagamorph

Member
Missed opportunity.

He should have suggested that the CEO's salary should not allowed higher than a certain multiple of the average of his employees salary.
As I understand that's exactly what he is suggesting, but the ratio is about a sixth of the current average, way too low really to be workable in any way.
 

mlclmtckr

Banned
And if he is? "Neoliberalism" is a phrase that deserves to be ridiculed because it's a bunch of hot air. It exists solely as a talking point to attack people that aren't liked, or seen as "left" enough.

What? It has a definition. It's not some new 2016 buzzword.
 
20x the lowest earner for any government contract.

Look forward to no big/reputable company ever bidding on a government contract ever again if you get that Comrade.

Well then they can piss off and allow a company who actually doesn't mind paying employees a fair wage to come in.
 

Xe4

Banned
What? It has a definition. It's not some new 2016 buzzword.
Crab put it better than I could.

Except none of this is true. I have a master's degree in economics, I can assure you that nobody talks about neoliberalism and it is not a branch of economics. Nor was it invented in America. The term first appears in Germany in 1938; where it was used to describe a political ideology and not an economic school. Nor was it a pro-free market term, originally neoliberalism was used to describe "third way" politics that melded free markets and state interventionism, because it recognised that classical liberalism didn't actually tend to lead to greater freedoms. This use of the terminology persists through to the 1960s and even early 1970s, the main neoliberal (against as a political term) theorists are Röpke and Rüstow; the latter being well-remembered for writing a series of rather scorching articles against free market failings.

After the 1970s, the phrase became subject to a backlash because leftists felt that the movement was being co-opted from trying to synthesize socialist and capitalist principles to being a disguise for free-market reforms without upsetting socialists (see Barbara Castle and Denis Healey being tarred with the label). After this point, the word becomes somewhat meaningless. By the 1980s, neoliberal encompasses everything from Thatcher to Peters (see Peters' 1983 article A Neoliberal's Manifesto, where the third part is dedicated to attacking the very corporatocracy you ascribe to neoliberalism). The term is now essentially just a generic pejorative for "any idea I don't approve of", and largely died out in academic use in the early 1990s at the latest. You will look far and wide to find anyone who self-describes as a neoliberal; the term is just hot air.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=209080048

Edit: lol wrong Crab post.
 

numble

Member
Well then they can piss off and allow a company who actually doesn't mind paying employees a fair wage to come in.
A fair wage isn't a ratio tied to what the highest employee makes. For example, in the law firm I work at, the partners charge clients $1200-$1300 per hour for their time. Clients are willing to pay this because they value the skill provided. Does that mean it is an unfair wage if the secretaries and janitors do not make $60-$65 per hour?
 
Does he want a brain drain? Cause that's a really good way to get rid of your educated and highly skilled workers. So that's workers like your doctors, engineers, etc. Cause it's not going to be just the billionaire CEOs and the actors and the professional sports players who will be affected.
 

Jezbollah

Member
Does he want a brain drain? Cause that's a really good way to get rid of your educated and highly skilled workers. So that's workers like your doctors, engineers, etc. Cause it's not going to be just the billionaire CEOs and the actors and the professional sports players who will be affected.

Yep. And those companies would be happy to relocate to another country to keep their competitiveness in attracting such skilled workers.

People who come close to thinking that this is a good idea must think that tax revenue grows on trees.
 
Does he want a brain drain? Cause that's a really good way to get rid of your educated and highly skilled workers. So that's workers like your doctors, engineers, etc. Cause it's not going to be just the billionaire CEOs and the actors and the professional sports players who will be affected.

they should all move to Ireland. Stay in the EU, operate in English but not inside the UK LOL
 

FoxSpirit

Junior Member
A fair wage isn't a ratio tied to what the highest employee makes. For example, in the law firm I work at, the partners charge clients $1200-$1300 per hour for their time. Clients are willing to pay this because they value the skill provided. Does that mean it is an unfair wage if the secretaries and janitors do not make $60-$65 per hour?
If your company has that kind of money to go around, paying your janitor 6 bucks an hour should get you a kick in the nuts. And rich clients are insane and pay stupid prices for goods and services. Why not let the janitor have some of it.

I mean, google cook was great in my book. When the same stuff years later happened with... Zynga, I think... they basically forced the sale of stock citing "we don't want another google cook scenario".

Like the CEO of Toyota said, "Noone can work ten times as much and hard."
 
the term is misused by Far-Lefties about 99% of the time.

the definition of the term is about Free Market Capitalism not Social Liberalism

Well a part of the problem is that neoliberalism means different things to different studies like neoliberal international relations theory has very little to do with neoliberalism when referring to economics.
 

Stop It

Perfectly able to grasp the inherent value of the fishing game.
Liberalism in general is fucked in a lot of places worldwide. Part of it is because of people swinging way too far to the left and leaving everyone but the people with the most extreme views behind.

It's created an avenue for conservatives to gain a foothold by picking up moderates that are turned off by how far left liberals are going.
No it isn't.

Stop using the term liberalism for something it isn't. Corbyn is a socialist, not a liberal. I'm a (mostly) Lib Dem voting classical liberal and I found US commentary on the left a bit weird.

At least start using the right terms!

Anyway, no, wage caps are bad, a higher minimum wage and better progressive taxation is not.
 
How stupid is he? How will this win votes and advance a liberal cause? Why would he say this? Does he not have common sense?

This won't advance the cause of liberalism because Corbyn is not a liberal. He's a out-of-touch old school socialist who believes in the ultimate power of a socialist economy to create a more equal society.

If you want modern centre-left progressive liberalism in government, then make sure you turn out on voting day and vote Lib Dem.
 

Sulik2

Member
Capping wages is pretty much impossible. Though I would love to see maximum ratios on salary instituted. Ceos aren't 1000 times more valuable then a cashier to a business. But then real way to adresss is a 90% top tax bracket on your high income earners.
 

BajiBoxer

Banned
Capping wages is pretty much impossible. Though I would love to see maximum ratios on salary instituted. Ceos aren't 1000 times more valuable then a cashier to a business. But then real way to adresss is a 90% top tax bracket on your high income earners.

I thought some countries already do this.
 

Cagey

Banned
Capping wages is pretty much impossible. Though I would love to see maximum ratios on salary instituted. Ceos aren't 1000 times more valuable then a cashier to a business. But then real way to adresss is a 90% top tax bracket on your high income earners.
Given a cashier job can be fully automated and given that the ratio of people who can competently be CEO v. competently cashier is greater than 1:1000? Yea. They are.
 

numble

Member
If your company has that kind of money to go around, paying your janitor 6 bucks an hour should get you a kick in the nuts. And rich clients are insane and pay stupid prices for goods and services. Why not let the janitor have some of it.

I mean, google cook was great in my book. When the same stuff years later happened with... Zynga, I think... they basically forced the sale of stock citing "we don't want another google cook scenario".

Like the CEO of Toyota said, "Noone can work ten times as much and hard."
No, clients are not insane and their employees get fired if they overspend on legal services. If you can win a $100 million judgment for a client (or successfully defend against such a judgment) while charging $1 million, nobody, especially not the client, will think that was a stupid price to pay for legal services.

Bringing up stock awards is not appropriate because the actual cost of awarding stock is not much to a company--that is asking the market to pay the employee, not the company. And not all companies are publicly listed companies that can issue shares like monopoly money.

I don't see where you think the fact that a partner charges $1200/hour means that there is a lot of money to go around. Many big law firms have gone bankrupt. For instance, they need to pay salaries of lawyers that do the work that may be unprofitable in terms of their earnings. Many of the profits per partner of the big law firms are public information, and I think for many of them, they would go bankrupt if you enforced a 10-20x ratio going down to the janitor level.
 

TimmmV

Member
False statement IMO.

Yes, the big wigs make more than necessary a lot of the times, that much is true. If this person is invaluable then the person will be paid accordingly. Engineers to high skilled plumbers get what they deserve, if they are well versed in their profession.

Networks, cities, sponsors and owners make a shit ton of money off of football, baseball and basketball players here in America. Why shouldn't they be paid according to their skill set that they have worked hard to craft? Just because you are fast, doesn't mean you can be a running back. You have to work very hard to earn a chance to play professional sports. I see no reason they shouldn't be paid what they are currently making. You leave the NFL with a 50 - 60 year old body and you are just 36 or so.

I agree with you about athletes, and in fact would suggest its one of the best examples of a person directly earning their worth (and is why I don't begrudge footballers their salaries and would be against a salary cap in football, despite being fairly left wing). Inhereted wealth/class is a much bigger problem in the UK than footballers being paid too much

I very much disagree with the bolded though, plenty of people don't get paid what they are worth/have earned, for the majority of normal salaried employees, I don't think thats remotely true. There was a good point of view on that in the Wire
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom