Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
Keith
with the gap between richest and poorest at its widest you are right to point out that many people are happy if they can just get by.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
The failed bank chiefs are not in post, their successors are those on whom we depend to turn the banks around into a profit so the shares can be sold and the bail-out repaid. If we want that successful outcome then the market rate has to be paid for the right talent at the top to do the job. It is the market that determines the pay they receive and so it should be. Endless spite and envy cannot get the bail-out cash repaid.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
mark robson
sadly we dont all recognise the divide
far from all in it together
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
Barry
it would be interesting to see where those failed bank chiefs are now and how they are feeling the consequences of their actions.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I do not disagree with you there Mark - the same though can also be said about a certain Gordon Brown.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
Oh, dear! I don't disagree with you either Barry
I am all for accountability which politicians foist on the public being used on them - and more than the ballot box too.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Quite right Mark.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
mark r /barryw
agree with your last posts
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,706
Whilst there may be a broader moral and ethical argument around remuneration levels across the whole of the working population, the sad fact is that in a capitalist system pay levels are dictated by 2 things only
1. the market norms for that position in that industry
2, the appetite of the shareholders as represented by the remuneration committee to meet those norms in the context of individual and corporate performance
All other considerations are frankly irrelevant.
Oh and I think the system sucks...
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 30. Agree................It most definitely`Sucks`..............It also means we are not all in this together.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
im sure it will be explained soon by leaderless dave how he comes to think we are all in it together'
iv yet to see it
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
I found this in an article about wealth gaps:
"During periods when the very rich took home a larger proportion — as between 1918 and 1933, and in the Great Regression from 1981 to the present day — growth slowed, median wages stagnated and we suffered giant downturns. It's no mere coincidence that over the last century the top earners' share of the nation's total income peaked in 1928 and 2007 — the two years just preceding the biggest downturns".
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,888
Sadly we will never be all in it together, there will always be the haves and the have nots, the gap might narrow but it will never close.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
jan'
thank you for those comments
sadly the gap has got wider rather smaller.
im afraid not many people can justify whats going on at the moment
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
good point keith, the gap between the haves and have nots is now wider than it has been since the war.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Yes, indeed it is after 13 years of Labour mismanagement. Does anyone else not see the irony of all this...
It just shows how counter-productive high government spending and high taxing policies are.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
that period includes 13 years of blue misrule(harold wilson) and another 18 years later with thatcher and major.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Howard - but you would have though that after 13 continuous years of Labour misrule they would have had some kind of socio-economic success to show!! Well they would if their methods actually achieved what they claim but no, all they do achieve is the opposite and economic ruin instead.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
I think the point is being missed here,
i don't givre a fig who's fault it is
and yep labour should have looked after its own (like maggie did for her own)
it has always been the case of the divide for so long, and it was hoped thsat with mr camerons words of we are all in it together
that a fresh apprach was to be taken
but we see its much of the same
the have's gap will widen
the have nots will suffer more
all in it together ???
i dont think so
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
