Rincewind Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 Fair enough. But there have been head of companies that have quietly moved on and given a pay off. You cannot deny that. I am not referring to the ones Matt mentions PR. He mentions businesses that have been built up. What about the enegy companies? Britash Gas and the like they are not family concerns.
Jon the Hat Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 Fair enough. But there have been head of companies that have quietly moved on and given a pay off. You cannot deny that. I am not referring to the ones Matt mentions PR. He mentions businesses that have been built up. What about the enegy companies? Britash Gas and the like they are not family concerns. The question is Ken, do you have the slightest idea why those people have moved on, and their record or tenure at that point? No you don't you read the lurid headlines and get irate. You are smarter than that! Yes some execs get big payoffs, but generally this is off the back of decisions which they made with the full support of the board, and which they then take the blame for.
Rincewind Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 The ordinary working man does not have the backing of the management if he makes a blunder costing the company money. That is my only point.
Benji Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 In reality, Ken, you're talking about NEDs of plcs, and the reason they only pop in a few days a year is because they sit on a remuneration, risk or audit committee etc. and they are therefore not required for day-to-day decision-making. They usually get handsomely rewarded (if you were to do a simlpe calculation of number of meetings / lump sum) for a number of reasons and not just for their "face time" in committee meetings; amongst other things NEDs have an important role within corporate governance as independents and within the market itself institutional investors care significantly about who sits on the board as an NED/their relevant experience in that industry etc. As with all walks of life you'll get a couple of merchants but on the whole these guys have 30+ years of experience in that field or in corporate governance within a plc. Pick any LSE main market company, go on their website and look at the CV of the NEDs, there are not many silver spooners. For main market plcs, I can't remember how many exactly but there is a general acceptance that you hold no more than three or four of these such roles - I think in the banking industry it may even be less following recent FCA consultation. Exec' directors definitely do not work a couple of days a year and those are the guys running the business and who take the fall when it goes tits up. Shareholders can remove poorly performing directors from office, but that doesn't prejudice that individual's rights under employment law - and we all know how difficult it is to sack someone (just look at the Baby P case). It's always much easier to settle and go your separate ways, muich in the same way if Billy at B&Q is not the best employee but hasn't been negligent/killed someone it's very difficult to get rid of him. The old "if they worked for a private business they'd be sacked" adage is a bit of a fallacy.
Darkon84 Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 The ordinary working man does not have the backing of the management if he makes a blunder costing the company money. That is my only point. Who is the 'ordinary working man'? Trust me, mistakes at work happen, and the majority of the time, providing you've not been a complete nob and actually been decent at your job, you'll have the backing of your manager. Would one of my colleagues count as an 'ordinary working man' because he's not a super rich banker? He shut down the whole of Charnwood bakery once while doing an electrical survey of the place, and still kept his job
Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 Who is the 'ordinary working man'? Trust me, mistakes at work happen, and the majority of the time, providing you've not been a complete nob and actually been decent at your job, you'll have the backing of your manager. Would one of my colleagues count as an 'ordinary working man' because he's not a super rich banker? He shut down the whole of Charnwood bakery once while doing an electrical survey of the place, and still kept his job The "ordinary working man" means anyone employed in a job without any sort of responsibility, earns below the national average or is unemployed for whatever reason. They are all noble people who are shafted every single day by the government Anyone outside of this group is an overpaid tax-dodging spoilt scumbag who earns in a week what the ordinary working man earns in a life-time of hard-graft and/or dole-dossing. They are all guilty of terrible crimes also Life is pretty black and white, get with the program
MPH Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 I got a couple of thousand back on my tax returns this year..... Won't be long before im on this list....
Darkon84 Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 The "ordinary working man" means anyone employed in a job without any sort of responsibility, earns below the national average or is unemployed for whatever reason. They are all noble people who are shafted every single day by the government Anyone outside of this group is an overpaid tax-dodging spoilt scumbag who earns in a week what the ordinary working man earns in a life-time of hard-graft and/or dole-dossing. They are all guilty of terrible crimes also Life is pretty black and white, get with the program Ahhhh right, ok, I see now. So what you're saying is, it's all just one or the other? Successful people don't deserve it and only got there by trampling all over the 'ordinary working man', to get there, causing pain and suffering to them along the way. And then on the other hand, people who don't want to work hard to earn the nicer things in life, and just expect it given to them for free, are absolute saints and deserve all of the money, the nice houses and things of that nature? Who knew it was a crime and frowned upon to be educated, or hold a decent job.
Benguin Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 Problem for me is not a capitalist country but instead a capitalist world. If you tore down this countries capitalism the society we know would collapse, our children would have no idea what to do without commodity fetishism, our motivations, aspirations and all that makes us who we are would seize to be. To the person who replied to my last comment in this thread, you are right. I myself would hate for the capitalism to end as the vast majority of my aspirations are founded on trying to be successful. My problem is that the world is capitalist itself, the whole first world and third world thing. My whole life, we have acknowledged that people in other countries are destitute, starving and dying and we do little about it. I give the odd £5 to a charity but I choose to ignore it, I switch the channel when the adverts come on like 90% of others. People in this country are driven to scream, protest, read the daily mail and vote BNP or UKIP to stop people from these countries trying to gain a better life in our country.
Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo Posted 28 April 2015 Posted 28 April 2015 Ahhhh right, ok, I see now. So what you're saying is, it's all just one or the other? Successful people don't deserve it and only got there by trampling all over the 'ordinary working man', to get there, causing pain and suffering to them along the way. And then on the other hand, people who don't want to work hard to earn the nicer things in life, and just expect it given to them for free, are absolute saints and deserve all of the money, the nice houses and things of that nature? Who knew it was a crime and frowned upon to be educated, or hold a decent job. Bingo. It's the way the world works!
Itsthejoeker Posted 28 April 2015 Posted 28 April 2015 Gotta love berating rich people because they've achieved more in life than the rest of us.
Guest MattP Posted 28 April 2015 Posted 28 April 2015 Gotta love berating rich people because they've achieved more in life than the rest of us. Hang the rich, hang the bankers, burn down the boardrooms. Light up the projects by burning their money.
leicsmac Posted 28 April 2015 Posted 28 April 2015 Gotta love berating rich people because they've achieved more in life than the rest of us. Since when was material gain the sole measurement of achievement in this life? And since when has everyone who is rich earned the entirety of it themselves and without help? The first of those questions is a lot more important than the second, though.
Guest MattP Posted 28 April 2015 Posted 28 April 2015 Since when was material gain the sole measurement of achievement in this life? And since when has everyone who is rich earned the entirety of it themselves and without help? The first of those questions is a lot more important than the second, though. Where has he said anything of the sort that material gain is the sole measurement of achievement in this life or that anyone who does has achieved it without any help? He simply hasn't. You want to be careful, it seems like you are turning into Rincewind at times lately.
Vicki Vixen Posted 28 April 2015 Posted 28 April 2015 1. Len Blavatnik - £13.17bn 2. Sri and Gopi Hinduja - £13bn 3. Galen and George Weston and family - £11bn 4. Alisher Usmanov - £9.8bn 5. David and Simon Reuben - £9.7bn 6. Ernesto and Kirsty Bertarelli - £9.45bn 7. Lakshmi Mittal and family - £9.2bn 8. Kirsten and Jorn Rausing - £8.7bn 9. The Duke of Westminster - £8.56bn 10. Roman Abramovich - £7.29bn It reads like a list of who's who in the non-dom community.
leicsmac Posted 28 April 2015 Posted 28 April 2015 Where has he said anything of the sort that material gain is the sole measurement of achievement in this life or that anyone who does has achieved it without any help? He simply hasn't. You want to be careful, it seems like you are turning into Rincewind at times lately. I think that 'Gotta love berating rich people because they've achieved more in life than the rest of us' gives an implication that's pretty clear, Matt. He thinks that rich people have acheived more than poor people, hence he draws a line between material gain and life achievement. The fact that it was the only thing that was said (without a qualifier) suggests the 'sole' part, though that is just speculation on my part. Haha, not yet. I long for the days where I could write long and detailed rebuttals ala Alf, but I'm way too busy prepping to come back to the UK these days. So I have to stick to one or two paragraph stuff where it's difficult sometimes to get the point across. I guess I just take issue with those who think we shouldn't question (or indeed berate) the rich given the lack of ethics many of them show - smacks way too much of aristocratic forelock-tugging rubbish to me. At the very least, it persuades them to keep at least a little honest.
Carl the Llama Posted 28 April 2015 Posted 28 April 2015 I think that 'Gotta love berating rich people because they've achieved more in life than the rest of us' gives an implication that's pretty clear, Matt. He thinks that rich people have acheived more than poor people, hence he draws a line between material gain and life achievement. The fact that it was the only thing that was said (without a qualifier) suggests the 'sole' part, though that is just speculation on my part. Haha, not yet. I long for the days where I could write long and detailed rebuttals ala Alf, but I'm way too busy prepping to come back to the UK these days. So I have to stick to one or two paragraph stuff where it's difficult sometimes to get the point across. I guess I just take issue with those who think we shouldn't question (or indeed berate) the rich given the lack of ethics many of them show - smacks way too much of aristocratic forelock-tugging rubbish to me. At the very least, it persuades them to keep at least a little honest. I'm genuinely interested in the motivation to defend unscrupulous behaviour in the market. Is the thought process along the lines of the naive: "I'm the sort of person who aspires to wealth and I'm not a bad guy who would abuse others for their own gain, so I don't believe that these 'wealth creators' are or would either because it's not within my frame of human experience"? Or is it the more sinister: "I hope one day I'll be able to profit off this broken system so let's not fix it just yet"? Lots of rich guys are great people (even ones in the banking sector), but they aren't the ones being discussed so I don't see why they keep being used as rebuttals to veto discussion on the matter. I hope the same posters think we should stop giving players bookings in football just because the other guys on the pitch are honest footballers who didn't commit a foul.
Rincewind Posted 28 April 2015 Posted 28 April 2015 Where have I said tham against people that have worked hard to build up their fortune or business? I have repeated over and over that I am not. The ordinary working man in my opinion is anyone from a street cleaner to higher managemen trying to raise a family.t. Maybe above that even. Those that do anything up to 60 hours a week for an average wage. Then there are those who have gained their money because of heritage. They contribute little, have never known hardship and probably never will. Why should an acccident of birth make you more admired than others like a shift worker on 12 hour shifts who comes home knackered and has little social life. The only thing to look forward to is a ten day holiday once a year and a trip to a football match if his working schedule does not clash. Don't think I am envious or jealous of the rich because I am not as long as they have worked for it.
Webbo Posted 28 April 2015 Posted 28 April 2015 I'm genuinely interested in the motivation to defend unscrupulous behaviour in the market. Is the thought process along the lines of the naive: "I'm the sort of person who aspires to wealth and I'm not a bad guy who would abuse others for their own gain, so I don't believe that these 'wealth creators' are or would either because it's not within my frame of human experience"? Or is it the more sinister: "I hope one day I'll be able to profit off this broken system so let's not fix it just yet"? Lots of rich guys are great people (even ones in the banking sector), but they aren't the ones being discussed so I don't see why they keep being used as rebuttals to veto discussion on the matter. I hope the same posters think we should stop giving players bookings in football just because the other guys on the pitch are honest footballers who didn't commit a foul. Who's defending unscrupulous behaviour?
Guest MattP Posted 28 April 2015 Posted 28 April 2015 I think that 'Gotta love berating rich people because they've achieved more in life than the rest of us' gives an implication that's pretty clear, Matt. He thinks that rich people have acheived more than poor people, hence he draws a line between material gain and life achievement. The fact that it was the only thing that was said (without a qualifier) suggests the 'sole' part, though that is just speculation on my part. Haha, not yet. I long for the days where I could write long and detailed rebuttals ala Alf, but I'm way too busy prepping to come back to the UK these days. So I have to stick to one or two paragraph stuff where it's difficult sometimes to get the point across. I guess I just take issue with those who think we shouldn't question (or indeed berate) the rich given the lack of ethics many of them show - smacks way too much of aristocratic forelock-tugging rubbish to me. At the very least, it persuades them to keep at least a little honest. I don't think it's pretty clear at all, I think it's pretty clear he's raising a little laugh at the amount of envy ridden comments he's seeing on here, I certainly don't take just from that comment he's saying that wealth is the sole achievement life should be judged on.
Strokes Posted 28 April 2015 Posted 28 April 2015 You are basically racist if you critisise that list IMO.
Darkon84 Posted 28 April 2015 Posted 28 April 2015 Where have I said tham against people that have worked hard to build up their fortune or business? I have repeated over and over that I am not. The ordinary working man in my opinion is anyone from a street cleaner to higher managemen trying to raise a family.t. Maybe above that even. Those that do anything up to 60 hours a week for an average wage. Then there are those who have gained their money because of heritage. They contribute little, have never known hardship and probably never will. Why should an acccident of birth make you more admired than others like a shift worker on 12 hour shifts who comes home knackered and has little social life. The only thing to look forward to is a ten day holiday once a year and a trip to a football match if his working schedule does not clash. Don't think I am envious or jealous of the rich because I am not as long as they have worked for it. Sweeping generalisations are fantastic aren't they? Who are you to say if people have suffered hardships etc. Just because people have money, it doesn't necessarily make life great. It's this whole generalising thing about the 'working man' is good, and rich people are bad which is nonsense and has been commented on before. It sounds very much as if you are envious, no matter what you say. And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that. It would be lovely to be born in to a family and never have to worry (about money) for your entire life. Who WOULDN'T be envious of that? Let's flip things over a little here shall we, just to play devil's advocate. If someone earns their money, that's fine, but you don't want it to just be given to rich people, or don't want them to be born in to it, right? How can you take that stance, and then defend people who don't turn up to a Jobseekers meeting, or don't adhere to the rules set out to claim benefits but still want the money? The same goes for making money, as collecting it FOR FREE....Where there is a will, there is a way, so if people want it, they have to find a way to get it. EDIT: Nothing personal by the way, I'm just being picky and getting a little tired by some arguments.
leicsmac Posted 28 April 2015 Posted 28 April 2015 I don't think it's pretty clear at all, I think it's pretty clear he's raising a little laugh at the amount of envy ridden comments he's seeing on here, I certainly don't take just from that comment he's saying that wealth is the sole achievement life should be judged on. Fair enough, Matt. But if that's banter, perhaps you should stop taking the Grauniad (and other assorted columnists) seriously when they engage in ridiculous hyperbole too. After all, they're just raising a little laugh, right? In any case, you interpret what was said one way, I do another. As another point, it is actually possible to want to criticise the rich without envy automatically being the case. As has been said, some people don't buy into the idea of continual material gain as an objective in life and so aren't envious of those who have it, but criticise them instead for the lack of morality and empathy some (and I did say some) of those rich people possess. Especially when (again, sometimes) they and those that support them then attempt to turn around and deride those who dislike and don't play by the same system as 'envious' and give themselves an aura of social superiority. Accumulating material wealth is fine if that's what floats your boat, but there's honestly no need to express derision for others who think that there might be other decent ways to live.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.