To think we can feel for poor people without bashing on those who have more ?

[bereal7]

I've just been reading a thread where the OP is going through a very hard time and everyone, ofcourse, sympathises. Then , like is usual, someone brings up the fact that CEOs are earning millions plus and we should be angry about this. This isn't a TAAT; it happens too many times where people divert the thread to attacking people who are earning more than average (I.e lawyers, bankers, CEOs etc). I just think this doesn't help the OP , or anyone for that matter, and just contributes to a divide amongst the well - paid and average/below - average earners. So AIBU to think we can all (or most) feel sympathy for poor people whilst celebrating other people's success?

Yy Werks.

Couldn't agree more.

(sorry for the delay in replying)

Issy but why does that mean we should be angry that a consultant (for e.g.) is earning £150k?

No, and I didn't say we should be. A consultant earning 150K is earning about 10 times the annual wages of a f/t employee at the bottom of his or her organisation. I think that is fair enough. If however the consultant was using tax dodges to avoid paying his or her fair share of tax (ulikely as they are probably on PAYE), then I would be angry. However the question is more should a top rated paramedic be only worth half or less what a registrar is worth?

I'll admit I'm getting out of my depth with the complexities of NHS pay scales, but surely if there are problems filling skilled and highly emotionally demanding posts, then pay must be part of the issue and recruiting from abroad is only a temporary fix.

Morning all.

sparechange great post, but while I agree many of your points, remuneration committees generally operate by benchmarking pay, and then, ime, targeting 'top quartile' for their people, "in order to attract and retain the best talent". It's not rocket science that if you're on £80k, deja is on £90k and buggerlumps is on £100k, and we're all peers, it creates an ever upward spiral, which is what has been happening now for decades! As for a shareholder vote on pay, well, it's actually a vote on remuneration policy, which is slightly different. If I say my policy is to pay top dollar to attract top talent, you would probably agree it's reasonable, but when you hear that my idea of top dollar is £10m pa for a performance that is mediocre, you might take a different view. Just a shame you don't have a vote on that, hey? Sure, you can refuse to accept the remuneration report at the agm but that makes sod all difference to practice. In reality, most votes are from fund managers anyway, who are appointed by... Boards usually, to manage their pension funds etc.

To werksallhourz, yes CEO of tesco IS a big job, a HUGE job in fact (and I could not do it myself either), but firstly, the CEO is not paid £1.25 million, he's paid £1.25 million, plus 25% contribution for a pension, up to 250% of salary for one year performance, plus a three year performance bonus too, that's potentially over £4 million without taking into account longer term performance bonuses, car, healthcare, anything else at all. Secondly, he is not actually running tesco in isolation! He will have, what, perhaps 30 direct reports in all? Yes, he takes overall responsibility, but not so much that he will actually lose his job because distribution fucked up in one city for example. And you would have to have a catastrophic failure in distribution globally to be unable to stock food in any of your stores. Leaving entirely aside of course, that supermarkets are not a niche market, and few people in this country would generally be more than inconvenienced if their local tesco couldn't open for one week. Look what Fred Goodwin had to actually do to lose his job, for example, fuck over practically an entire system!

The remuneration committees will also look at any costs involved in getting people to relocate to work which also pushes salaries up - look at the whinging from Mark Carney's wife about his salary (including housing allowance) not being enough to live on in London www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/mark-carney/10152826/Tube-travelling-BoE-Governor-Mark-Carney-to-spend-250000-housing-allowance-in-West-Hampstead.html.

Very few execs currently earning shed loads and settled would be prepared to compromise their quality of life by moving so won't unless the package is enough to mean they can live in a house they think they deserve which continues to distort the housing market.

House prices in my town have increased by 25% over the last two years after a fast train to London was put in. The people living here now can't afford to work in London so commute in (people like junior solicitors/ accountants etc). Noone working locally earns anything like that salary, even when they're well paid for the town so the NHS staff, council staff, university staff etc all end up having to commute into town for hours, while the people living there commute to London. This isn't pay, this is a failure of infrastructure and housing.

Notabear
Yes to a point, but there have been many, many examples of shareholders rejecting Rem reports in recent years. Aviva, Burberry, FirstGroup - all big listed companies who had to go back and look at their exec pay structures.
And that will have been the final straw, after months and months of negotiations with management. Don't forget also that if you are an institutional manager with a good chunk of the company, you'll have one-on-one meetings with the CEO, CFO and whoever else you want to meet, several times a year.
There will be countless times to raise concerns about pay before it gets as far as the AGM, and because shareholder registers are public, Pension fund X, who owns a few % of Company Y, can look up who the other major shareholders are, and meet with them to gain support for a pay review...

The Tesco example you give is precisely a response to the need by shareholders for greater accountability by execs for pay and bonuses. Performance related bonuses make up a very significant part of the annual package, and should do. And a big proportion will be paid in shares, that have to be held for 3 years.
The same applies for the layer of management underneath the main board - they will be on a performance-related bonus of at least 150% their basic.

But back to my earlier point... Their performance doesn't have a huge bearing on the performance of those at the bottom of the ladder. Therefore a suggestion that the cleaners pay should be linked to the CEO, or head of marketing, or head of HR or any other senior layer, is nonsensical to me.
Paying them a fair wage for their work, benchmarked to similar jobs, is fair.

Fidelia, if you had engaged yourself before typing your response and read my posts properly, I have absolutely no issue with your type of situation - your situation is exactly what benefits are there for, those that find themselves in need through no fault of their own. You didn't financially plan your family based on what handouts were available. Planning to have a child based on what benefits are available is what I have an issue with.

SheGotAllDaMoves I am baffled as to what point you're making. Besides, anyone with any sense knows that being a 'creator' in the creative industries is not the way to go if you want dinner on the table regularly - far more profitable to be a middleman.

But sure, you go ahead and accuse me of being a raving Trot.

Because other posters were proposing caps.

And I was wondering how that might possibly work for the self employed dystopian fiction writer. Of whom many make a good deal of cash BTW.

Ah I see. Not me guv! I just take issue with the 'don't have 'em if you can't afford them' stance - I think in reality very few people have children for that sweet, sweet child tax credit money.

Perhaps I ought to look into self-employed dystopian fiction writing. Beats still being at work doing legislative analysis

There has always been inequality but the gap is getting wider and the poverty worse. I grew up in a very wealthy 'old money' town tho not wealthy myself and now work for, the 'new money' wealthy. What I find hard is their 'money bubble' mentality. I think if you put any of them on a sink estate for a week with current benefits to manage on they'd a) sink like a stone b) sing a different tune. (their indifference/lack of knowledge sometimes is jaw dropping to me).

And no the odd 'charidee' ball they throw doesnt to me say they have a genuine social conscience. Its all about the socialising for them, the charity aspect is a minor thing tagged on/for the aristocracy, a historic thing thats gone on since the Victorians started to implement welfare reform late on in that century.

Is no-one going to have a pop at the obscene amounts footballers are paid in the top clubs? Do they deserve so very much?

Fidelia, if you had engaged yourself before typing your response and read my posts properly I have absolutely no issue with your type of situation -
Batman, are you sure that you fully engaged yourself before writing your response? If you had you would have seen that she went on to say the following;

And now imagine that you have not had the same advantages (that I did) when growing up. Can you imagine what it is like to feel trapped in poverty? To have people like you, saying that we should not have children, as if we are somehow deficient, or less capable parents? What you're arguing for is a form of social cleansing...

Meaning that Fidelia's issue was not just with what your perception would be of someone in her situation, but that she took exception to you deeming people who didn't start out with the same advantages and opportunities that she had to be irresponsible by making the choice to have children if they would need any state top-ups. I completely agree with everything she said and I've been fully engaged with the entire thread.

Apricot - Fidelia has absolutely no idea what advantages I did or did not have growing up. I've never confirmed that either way.Perhaps you need to read my posts and engage before you respond too.

Or maybe just not assume?

I wasn't making assumptions about you in any way and had indeed read all your posts before commenting. I was referring to the fact that Fidelia was saying that she came from a position of relative advantage but her issue was not solely with what your perception of her might be (which I know you have addressed) but moreover that you were referring to people that started off with less opportunity than Fidelia had in rather condemnatory terms for their inability to bring up children without the need for tax credits etc.

At no point did I refer to your own background in my post.

Sorry Apricot but I'm sticking with ny opinion. If you can't afford to plan for children without benefits, then you shouldn't have them. How entitled and selfish do you have to be to think that that state should fund a lifestyle choice? But if you want to crack on then do so but don't piss and moan if those benefits (which are supposed to be a back up and safety net in times of hardship, not part of initial family planning finances) should change or lessen.

As many people have stated previously, if someone is going out to work full time and earning a wage but the economic situation is such that their income is not sufficient that they are able to manage without top ups surely that is an issue of low wages, high rents, house prices, energy bills etc and living costs being out of sync with average earnings.
Yes different jobs command different salaries but if pay for so many is not in sync with the cost of living this is not the fault of the employee and they should not be condemned to a life without children because of this. This would mean only a certain strata of society had children and I just can't agree with that.
As Fidelia states advocating such a position would be social engineering/cleansing.
I'm never going to come around to your way of thinking and neither will you to mine so I guess should just agree to disagree.

which are supposed to be a back up and safety net in times of hardship, not part of initial family planning finances

You're still getting this wrong. In-work benefits aren't intended as a back-up or safety net. They are a massive corporate subsidy that enables business to procure one of its major inputs at below cost.

And those selfsame benefits have done much to prop up the cost of living (benefiting businesses), making it increasingly difficult to survive without them on minimum wage.

Which is the doing of the state.