The Rich get richer, much richer1

[Staunton]

I wouldn't know which party to join. The Conservative Party have entirely transformed themselves in the last forty years. I'm sure that Margaret Thatcher was a genuine Conservative during the 1970s, but with power came a profound change. She swore to destroy socialism, and she succeeded! But she wrecked Conservatism in the process, embracing neoliberalism, which is far, far removed from anything a traditional tory would care to espouse.

 

Meanwhile Tony Blair took the fragments of the Labour heritage and shaped them into New Labour, a neoconservative (a more subtle and pragmatic cousin of neoliberalism) outfit that simply extended the tories' neoliberal agenda and turned its energies against the poor in the most brutal and disgusting fashion. UKIP, no thank you. The Liberal Democrats - remind me, who are they? The Greens - interesting but by no means sufficient in numbers to formulate an effective challenge.

 

Essentially what I am saying is that ordinary people have been entirely abandoned, cynically betrayed by the political class that has aligned itself entirely and brutally with the interests of big business.

 

And until ordinary people become restless, until they demand change in overwhelming numbers, then the likes of G4S, Asda Wal-Mart, Barclays, PriceWaterhouse Cooper, Lockheed Martin and Philip Green's Arcadia are here to stay, leeching billions form the tax-payer, destroying communities, exploiting front-line staff, bulldozing small and medium enterprises and leaving us poorer whilst their executives buy bigger and shinier yachts to grace the marinas of Long Island and Monaco.

[L00b]

I find this a really odd reply. How are employers bound by the "going rate"? John Lewis pay over the going rate for retail yet their staff do the same as staff in other shops. How is this possible if the going rate dictates the wage?

Employers are not "bound", I don't understand how you got that from my post

 

That is why John Lewis pay over market rate...though, in that respect, the fact that they are employee-owned (with strings and caveats) and pretty much the exception that confirms the rule (for retail jobs) might have escaped you - and goes a long way to answer your last question.

 

If I were you, I'd also check some professional-oriented press like the FT before holding JL as a beacon again: all is not as well as it used to be at Mr Lewis'.

Edited May 13, 2016 by L00b

[spilldig]

Mini? Luxury. When I was a lad we had to make do wi a rusty pram!

 

I left school at 15 and went straight down the pit to help with family coffers, as did about 99% of my contemporaries. Do you whinge about it ?

Not if you're smart. You get out there and you better yourself. Whingeing will get you precisely nowhere.

[Staunton]

Is that a touch of Jealously i spot there ?

 

Welcome Penistone999, though I must acknowledge that I'm not quite sure what there is to envy in twenty or thirty thousand care workers facing employment uncertainty, forty thousand or more frail and vulnerable care home residents and their families fearing an impending crisis.

[RonJeremy]

Welcome Penistone999, though I must acknowledge that I'm not quite sure what there is to envy in twenty or thirty thousand care workers facing employment uncertainty, forty thousand or more frail and vulnerable care home residents and their families fearing an impending crisis.

 

So you CAN answer a question when you want to. Albeit a totally irrelevant answer

[Bob Arctor]

Employers are not "bound", I don't understand how you got that from my post

 

The way you said

But if the market rate according to the industry, position, tasks, qualifications <etc.> is £20k pa for each of the 10 employee, then that's what is paid

makes it sound like it's some neutral mechanism that decides pay, not employers. I know that's not what you actually think but it's how it reads.

 

The reality, as we both know, is that when a business is profitable then the wages of the employees are decided by the employer (and shareholders if there are any), not by the 'going rate' (which in this case is shorthand for 'the lowest the employer can get away with').

 

In many cases employers decide to pay themselves a lot more than what we agree is a perfectly good £35k or similar (in much of the country anyway) with the result that employees don't earn a liveable wage. That's the answer to Ron's question of how much is too much. I don't think most Sheffielders would care what their employer pays themselves if they are paying employees a decent wage in the £25k - £30k region. People really aren't that bothered when they have enough to live on themselves. What really riles people is when the employer pays themself loads and leaves employees dependent on state top-ups to survive. It's not always a trade-off in those terms but sometimes it is. That's unwarranted, that's what people object to, and that's why pay differentials can matter.

[RonJeremy]

The way you said makes it sound like it's some neutral mechanism that decides pay, not employers. I know that's not what you actually think but it's how it reads.

 

The reality, as we both know, is that when a business is profitable then the wages of the employees are decided by the employer (and shareholders if there are any), not by the 'going rate' (which in this case is shorthand for 'the lowest the employer can get away with').

 

In many cases employers decide to pay themselves a lot more than what we agree is a perfectly good £35k or similar (in much of the country anyway) with the result that employees don't earn a liveable wage. That's the answer to Ron's question of how much is too much. I don't think most Sheffielders would care what their employer pays themselves if they are paying employees a decent wage in the £25k - £30k region. People really aren't that bothered when they have enough to live on themselves. What really riles people is when the employer pays themself loads and leaves employees dependent on state top-ups to survive. It's not always a trade-off in those terms but sometimes it is. That's unwarranted, that's what people object to, and that's why pay differentials can matter.

 

How much does Martin Sorrell pay his staff?

[the_bloke]

How much does Martin Sorrell pay his staff?

 

Apparently the average salary at WPP (excluding Sorrell) is £38k pa.

[Bob Arctor]

How much does Martin Sorrell pay his staff?

 

I don't know, but to me that is the key issue, not how much he pays himself in isolation. I don't really care if he pays himself £70m, he can do that to himself if he wants, my experience is that it's unlikely to make him happy. I am much more interested in whether he pays his staff a decent wage. If not then I think his salary is a real problem. If he pays them well then I don't give much of a toss what he gets.

 

---------- Post added 13-05-2016 at 21:14 ----------

 

Apparently the average salary at WPP (excluding Sorrell) is £38k pa.

 

Let's hope that's median average, a mean average would be right-skewed by other top earners.

[Staunton]

So you CAN answer a question when you want to. Albeit a totally irrelevant answer

 

Sorry RonJeremy. You'll have to forgive me. I didn't realise that 5,000 care homes facing a funding crisis was so totally irrelevant.