"The unacceptable face of capitalism"

[Mad Cyril]

I would imagine that Bob Diamond and Wayne Rooney have annual incomes that are certainly within an order of magnitude of eachother.

Both have reached the top of extremely competitive industries.

One is responsible for 145000 employees and god know however many shareholders.

One kicks a football.

 

[osymandus]

I would imagine that Bob Diamond and Wayne Rooney have annual incomes that are certainly within an order of magnitude of eachother.

Both have reached the top of extremely competitive industries.

One is responsible for 145000 employees and god know however many shareholders.

One kicks a football.

While i agree Rooney just kicks a ball. Bob isnt actually responsible for all those people . Shareholders are gamblers . His employers are maintained and cared for 1) Themselves 2) All the other departments that make up the global corporation that is Barclayes .

bob's in a similar position where he will does his "90 minutes on pitch" backed up by a group highly skilled over people (fro mPA's to IT people to comm's enginners drivers etc ).

Both are replaceable, neither are not worth their salaries

 

[steveo]

Both are replaceable, neither are not worth their salaries

Following you post about a fellow posters poor use of the language, can you clarify if you mean

a) Bob and Rooney are not worth their salaries
b) Bob and Rooney are worth their salaries.

I’m guessing you don’t think they are worth it but your sentence says none of them are not worth their salaries which in fact means they are

 

[osymandus]

Following you post about a fellow posters poor use of the language, can you clarify if you mean

a) Bob and Rooney are not worth their salaries
b) Bob and Rooney are worth their salaries.

I’m guessing you don’t think they are worth it but your sentence says none of them are not worth their salaries which in fact means they are

Actually my prior post was the readers understanding COULD be questioned , not their usage of poor language.
Their not worth their salaries . That would be a typo by the way not intentional misuse of language.

 

[EastStandBlue]

Surely somebody's salary is a case of supply and demand, though? If you were one of a small collection of people in the country/world skilled enough to carry out your job with a great degree of success, and your employer could afford the equivalent wage, then I dare say you'd have no qualms in taking it. If another employer then headhunted you, offering you an even larger wage for the same position, then I highly doubt you'd turn them down hand over fist on moral grounds.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Their not worth their salaries . That would be a typo by the way not intentional misuse of language.

Correct. It should be "they're not worth their salaries".

I hold a dangerously Communist attitude towards all this: let the workers share in the fruits of their labour. Karl Marx will be turning in his Highgate Cemetry grave at all you lefties who want Wayne Rooney and Bob Diamond to be paid the minimum wage, leaving the shareholders of Man Utd and Barclays to receive an even bigger return for their capital.

 

[steveo]

Actually my prior post was the readers understanding COULD be questioned , not their usage of poor language.
Their not worth their salaries . That would be a typo by the way not intentional misuse of language.

But surely Osy that's just your opinion. Anyone is worth what someone else will pay, so therefore they MUST be worth it to someone. If Rooney loses a leg in a car crash whilst cruising a red light district, he wont be worth any salary at all so you cant blame the bloke for taking what someone else is happy to give him while he can.

 

[osymandus]

But surely Osy that's just your opinion. Anyone is worth what someone else will pay, so therefore they MUST be worth it to someone. If Rooney loses a leg in a car crash whilst cruising a red light district, he wont be worth any salary at all so you cant blame the bloke for taking what someone else is happy to give him while he can.

You see i do actually agree with all of you (EB & YB). The problem we have is as alwasy imposing limits . The Bosman ruling did give footballers teh capacity to earn wage for their very short intense careers . The fights Jimmy Hill had to get footballs a decent wage when he was (was it the PFA then ?) we're legendary . People like Jimmy Greaves still running businesses even now .

Which then leads into our payment to "captains" of industry and commerce . Do we believe these people are worth salaries of £1 Million a year ? If So so why do which think those who in some cases buy and sell good's are of a greater monetary worth then those who save life's , produce the technologies to keep our sewers running , device idea's that inspire and teach future generations ?

WHY does it appear we have a higher regard for acquisition, then the ideas that help make these acquisitions ?
(And not even getting into the argument of value on intellectual property )

 

[steveo]

I suppose its driven by what is conceived as most people want.

Seems to work the same in the courts – sentencing involving theft of large amounts of money are often more severe than those regarding violence and often viewed as if you steal from someone you are a bad man but if you hurt someone there must be something wrong so you need help.

I saw a documentary about the bloke who built the London sewerage system, possibly one of the greatest inventions of all time.

 

[osymandus]

I suppose its driven by what is conceived as most people want.

Seems to work the same in the courts – sentencing involving theft of large amounts of money are often more severe than those regarding violence and often viewed as if you steal from someone you are a bad man but if you hurt someone there must be something wrong so you need help.

I saw a documentary about the bloke who built the London sewerage system, possibly one of the greatest inventions of all time.

Absolutely spot on , the sign at Bodmin jail shows the offenses for which you were hung and easily 70% of them we're financial.
Though violence for instance is always motivated by a reason , and its the intent that should partly form the sentencing.

I have a theroy its probably a left over of feudalism and the accumulation and display of wealth (as also why this country has an obsession with having wealth in its bricks and mortar as well ) .

Yes even more so as Old man Thames and the Typhoid epidemic in teh mid 1850's cam from such poor sanitation . Do we celebrate these great engineers !

Thats probably how it can be changed by where people maybe look against what is needed what has a value to them and to everyone else and maybe not so much on what is solely driving them . A Major difference in East and West philosophy is the Western world (i.e us for smart pants who say wait i live in the North pole) is geared to start and finish. The East can value more the journey getting there.