The Politics Thread

[Worthy4England]

Seems Theresa May has gone to war on private sector execs. Wanting them to cut the 'excesses they earn'.

Fair play to her. Be interesting to see what the staunch Tory voters on here make of it.

Well I'm not and I think they should.

I guess we'll need to see the details - just getting them to publish a ratio of their earnings to the "average worker" in the company, will achieve precisely fck all, as will shareholder voting on exec remuneration packages - it might hit a few individuals but it isn't going to resolve disparity between all the non-Execs and the average worker...

If we were to take an average global company, they will have a small number of execs highly remunerated - they will also almost certainly have low cost locations and the like, which won't give any meaningful comparison of any nature as far as I can see...They will undoubtedly have different Op Co's and could easily hive off the lower paid into a separate but related (or unrelated Services) Companies and the like

I can't see this constituting a minor trip, let alone "war" - I'd be surprised if it was anything better than populist bollocks - reality is that the institutional shareholders hold the power already - they could just shift their cash out. We've seen a fair amount of this with activist investors a couple of times recently - reality is they're more interested in cutting the costs of the wider workforce than the actual CEO, so best of luck with that one then Theresa.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Seems Theresa May has gone to war on private sector execs. Wanting them to cut the 'excesses they earn'.

Fair play to her. Be interesting to see what the staunch Tory voters on here make of it.

Well I'm not and I think they should.

I guess we'll need to see the details - just getting them to publish a ratio of their earnings to the "average worker" in the company, will achieve precisely fck all, as will shareholder voting on exec remuneration packages - it might hit a few individuals but it isn't going to resolve disparity between all the non-Execs and the average worker...

If we were to take an average global company, they will have a small number of execs highly remunerated - they will also almost certainly have low cost locations and the like, which won't give any meaningful comparison of any nature as far as I can see...They will undoubtedly have different Op Co's and could easily hive off the lower paid into a separate but related (or unrelated Services) Companies and the like

I can't see this constituting a minor trip, let alone "war" - I'd be surprised if it was anything better than populist bollocks - reality is that the institutional shareholders hold the power already - they could just shift their cash out. We've seen a fair amount of this with activist investors a couple of times recently - reality is they're more interested in cutting the costs of the wider workforce than the actual CEO, so best of luck with that one then Theresa.

Exactly. They aren't interested in meddling in and running companies. They are only interested in the share price increasing. The fact that those fund managers are extremely well paid doesn't really put them on a different side of the fence to the CEOs.

[boltonboris]

Why aren't people allowed to earn lots of money, without people getting pissed off? I think it's ridiculous. They'd soon stop that viewpoint if they all went "Ta'ra" and fvcked off overseas with their wealth.

What a business chooses to pay their top floor is nobodies business except for the business and its shareholders

[Beefheart]

Why aren't people allowed to earn lots of money, without people getting pissed off? I think it's ridiculous. They'd soon stop that viewpoint if they all went "Ta'ra" and fvcked off overseas with their wealth.

What a business chooses to pay their top floor is nobodies business except for the business and its shareholders

Not sure anyone has suggested that people aren't allowed to earn lots of money.

[boltonboris]

Why aren't people allowed to earn lots of money, without people getting pissed off? I think it's ridiculous. They'd soon stop that viewpoint if they all went "Ta'ra" and fvcked off overseas with their wealth.

What a business chooses to pay their top floor is nobodies business except for the business and its shareholders

Not sure anyone has suggested that people aren't allowed to earn lots of money.

Trying to cut peoples salary because they earn a lot of money suggests that to me.

Public sector I could understand, but not private sector

[bedwetter2]

Seems Theresa May has gone to war on private sector execs. Wanting them to cut the 'excesses they earn'.

Fair play to her. Be interesting to see what the staunch Tory voters on here make of it.

I'm all for it, provided it can also be applied to public sector salaries and pension pots. The difficult one to rein-in will be privately owned companies, the owners of which can take very large dividend payments (Branson, Green?). I can foresee some PLCs being taken private through leveraged management buyouts.

The disparity between the lowest paid and the CEO of large PLCs has been growing since the 1970s probably as a result of American multi-nationals influence. The danger is that social order may break down specifically due to such a gap. No one wants to see that but many execs seem blind to the potential consequences of their actions.

I am not against people earning as much as they can, legally. But I believe there should be some sort of flexible multiplier which provides guidance to socially responsible management boards on remuneration in general.

[Worthy4England]

Seems Theresa May has gone to war on private sector execs. Wanting them to cut the 'excesses they earn'.

Fair play to her. Be interesting to see what the staunch Tory voters on here make of it.

I'm all for it, provided it can also be applied to public sector salaries and pension pots. The difficult one to rein-in will be privately owned companies, the owners of which can take very large dividend payments (Branson, Green?). I can foresee some PLCs being taken private through leveraged management buyouts.

The disparity between the lowest paid and the CEO of large PLCs has been growing since the 1970s probably as a result of American multi-nationals influence. The danger is that social order may break down specifically due to such a gap. No one wants to see that but many execs seem blind to the potential consequences of their actions.

I am not against people earning as much as they can, legally. But I believe there should be some sort of flexible multiplier which provides guidance to socially responsible management boards on remuneration in general.

It's just that sort of leftie thinking that'll have this country voting for Sharia Law. I'll stick to my current paycheck, thanks.

[bedwetter2]

Seems Theresa May has gone to war on private sector execs. Wanting them to cut the 'excesses they earn'.

Fair play to her. Be interesting to see what the staunch Tory voters on here make of it.

I'm all for it, provided it can also be applied to public sector salaries and pension pots. The difficult one to rein-in will be privately owned companies, the owners of which can take very large dividend payments (Branson, Green?). I can foresee some PLCs being taken private through leveraged management buyouts.

The disparity between the lowest paid and the CEO of large PLCs has been growing since the 1970s probably as a result of American multi-nationals influence. The danger is that social order may break down specifically due to such a gap. No one wants to see that but many execs seem blind to the potential consequences of their actions.

I am not against people earning as much as they can, legally. But I believe there should be some sort of flexible multiplier which provides guidance to socially responsible management boards on remuneration in general.

It's just that sort of leftie thinking that'll have this country voting for Sharia Law. I'll stick to my current paycheck, thanks.

Ahh, it seems only yesterday that I was being called a fascist. Now I'm a leftie. Life is so complicated.

[Worthy4England]

Innit just.

[BWFC_Insane]

Why aren't people allowed to earn lots of money, without people getting pissed off? I think it's ridiculous. They'd soon stop that viewpoint if they all went "Ta'ra" and fvcked off overseas with their wealth.

What a business chooses to pay their top floor is nobodies business except for the business and its shareholders

Why? Because we have growing inequality in society, a huge impending social care bill, an NHS creaking at the seams and a rise in the number of homeless people.

Primarily you could ask the same question and say "why should a business have to pay a minimum wage". We've all suffered the effects of an unregulated, unfettered banking system doing what it wants, exploiting quick but risky profits and paying executives hugely excessive salaries. That in a nutshell is why.

When the banks were bailed out, that wasn't just the public purse saving the skins of those banking institutions, it also saved vast swathes of the "private sector". Who then went on to conveniently blame public sector pay, for an issue that bore no relation.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I'd be asking some of these CEOs of large companies earning megabucks why we (the taxpayer) are subsidising his staff wage bill whilst he's earning ever larger pay rises and bonuses.

[Lord Kangana]

Bingo.

[Worthy4England]

Why aren't people allowed to earn lots of money, without people getting pissed off? I think it's ridiculous. They'd soon stop that viewpoint if they all went "Ta'ra" and fvcked off overseas with their wealth.

What a business chooses to pay their top floor is nobodies business except for the business and its shareholders

Why? Because we have growing inequality in society, a huge impending social care bill, an NHS creaking at the seams and a rise in the number of homeless people.

Primarily you could ask the same question and say "why should a business have to pay a minimum wage". We've all suffered the effects of an unregulated, unfettered banking system doing what it wants, exploiting quick but risky profits and paying executives hugely excessive salaries. That in a nutshell is why.

When the banks were bailed out, that wasn't just the public purse saving the skins of those banking institutions, it also saved vast swathes of the "private sector". Who then went on to conveniently blame public sector pay, for an issue that bore no relation.

That's a bit of a bollocks answer to be fair.

Private company wants to pay CEO, £14m. (Let's use Bob Dudley from BP as he was in the news recently). So we introduce a cap. Bob can only get £2m. BP therefore don't pay Bob £12m they were going to.

How the juddering feck does that help paying for NHS welfare, a shortage of homes or any of the other "welfare" things you mentioned. They aren't going to put it in a pot to give BP's low paid workers a 10% wage increase. They'll just save themselves £12 Million against a Revenue of $146 Billion. It's not whole number % against either their Revenue nor their operating cost...

The executive pay thing is just a diversion.

[boltonboris]

I'd be asking some of these CEOs of large companies earning megabucks why we (the taxpayer) are subsidising his staff wage bill whilst he's earning ever larger pay rises and bonuses.

for sure, if we're only talking about bailed out banks, but we won't be, will we?

[boltonboris]

I'd be asking some of these CEOs of large companies earning megabucks why we (the taxpayer) are subsidising his staff wage bill whilst he's earning ever larger pay rises and bonuses.

for sure, if we're only talking about bailed out banks, but we won't be, will we?

The poorer people aren't going to become richer, because the richer people are becoming poorer

[Worthy4England]

I'd be asking some of these CEOs of large companies earning megabucks why we (the taxpayer) are subsidising his staff wage bill whilst he's earning ever larger pay rises and bonuses.

for sure, if we're only talking about bailed out banks, but we won't be, will we?

The poorer people aren't going to become richer, because the richer people are becoming poorer

Have you just dropped the Euromillions or something?

I agree, the CEO's of large companies are allowing the tax payer to subsidise the wage bill, because our laws make it so. The CEO's of large companies use shit like zero hour Contracts, because the law says they can. Much easier way of dealing with it would be to pitch the national minimum wage at a level that didn't require state subsidy and remove zero hours contracts and the like.

Can't see the Government (of any persuasion) doing that any time soon, can you? No. So they blame the CEO's for using the framework they've put in place....easy peasy.

[boltonboris]

I'd be asking some of these CEOs of large companies earning megabucks why we (the taxpayer) are subsidising his staff wage bill whilst he's earning ever larger pay rises and bonuses.

for sure, if we're only talking about bailed out banks, but we won't be, will we?

The poorer people aren't going to become richer, because the richer people are becoming poorer

Have you just dropped the Euromillions or something?

I agree, the CEO's of large companies are allowing the tax payer to subsidise the wage bill, because our laws make it so. The CEO's of large companies use shit like zero hour Contracts, because the law says they can. Much easier way of dealing with it would be to pitch the national minimum wage at a level that didn't require state subsidy and remove zero hours contracts and the like.

Can't see the Government (of any persuasion) doing that any time soon, can you? No. So they blame the CEO's for using the framework they've put in place....easy peasy.

I may, or may not have become the CEO of a large company

[Worthy4England]

You've always been my bezzie. (No lose gamble)

[Prufrock]

I give it two weeks before you're having to apologise and resign in a Twitter storm!

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I'd be asking some of these CEOs of large companies earning megabucks why we (the taxpayer) are subsidising his staff wage bill whilst he's earning ever larger pay rises and bonuses.

for sure, if we're only talking about bailed out banks, but we won't be, will we?

The poorer people aren't going to become richer, because the richer people are becoming poorer

Rich people are getting richer at a faster pace than they have for a very long time. Poor people are getting poorer at an alarmingly fast rate. Trickle down economics is bullshit.

Worthy is right that our politicians have created the environment for this to happen and show little desire to change it. The problem is going to get a lot worse with the advances in technology as more and more jobs are automated. I have little faith that our politicians will forsee this and create training and education programs to prepare the population for it. I'm not even sure who they'll have to blame either as we'll be rid of the EU and foreigners by then.