Rayvin

I'm actually having to resist apologising presently... I'll finish it this week, I promise.

I'm close to finished I'm just not a fast book reader. Plus I keep reading things then going off to research around them further and so on. I'm not well versed on finance so it requires a bit of effort.

It was my dad who got me it but the sentiment was likely the same.

I got that for Christmas, but I'm finishing the one you suggested first. I'll look forward to it then!

Which book?

Absolutely spot on. Why they're even bothering to pretend otherwise escapes me entirely. It's clear as day.

Fair enough.

No that's totally understandable. I checked Corbyn's statement on the matter and he hasn't actually said how it would benefit anyone.

I would actually welcome your thoughts on the last post on executive pay. I don't think we can push any further on Corbyn - you don't like him and think he's utterly hopeless, but his positions in my view do make a certain amount of sense.

I assume you wanted more than just my response? I did reply...

We've done this bit of the conversation already.

Base pay, no. Bonuses quite possibly, if tied to profit. If it is in the CEO's interests to pay people as little as possible, they will. It makes the company more profitable and makes them look more successful. My company does it, I'm sure 99.9% of companies elsewhere do it too. If the CEO is motivated to ensure that employees are paid fairly relative to the performance of the company, then they will ensure that this is done. Since the economic slowdown, wages have been squeezed and executive pay has risen. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/08/uks-top-bosses-earned-10-pay-rise-2015-average-salary-hit-55m - Executive pay https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/jul/27/uk-joins-greece-at-bottom-of-wage-growth-league-tuc-oecd - Wages in general As such, we need to align executives interests with those of the people who work for them. This would be a way of achieving that. I really don't understand what the issue you have with this is, especially as, and I've now said this three times, there wouldn't necessarily be any impact on their salaries depending on the levels set and how fairly they pay their staff.

I'm just putting over what his views are. I support the sentiment behind them and accept that, realistically, he has to make some manner of attempt at a political solution rather than an idealistic one. But with that said, I don't want to see any of my foreign friends or colleagues deported, and would prefer for us to have full single market access with no caveats. So no, on this I am not fully aligned with Corbyn. I am capable of understanding the position he is in, however.

Well, now they'd have to prove themselves with the added challenge of stakeholder management rather than a shareholder only approach, wouldn't they? If they really are the best, they'll be fine. More to the point, they'd actually be doing some good to people's lives.

Hey, you said he should be targeting it, I demonstrated that he did. Whether anyone paid attention to it is beside the point presently as you're trying to discredit his stance, not comment on his overall effectiveness. We all know he's not effective. Now you and I know that his views make more sense than you thought they did half an hour ago.

It would certainly sound that way if these were my views we were debating and not Corbyn's.

Can you name a couple? Like, a couple of really really good CEOs that we couldn't do without? I can't. Can think of plenty of shit ones though. If the best ones leave they'll be replaced, and there are plenty of capable people in the ranks of directors around the country. CEOs are just the ones at the top at the minute. Aside from this of course, I'm not even proposing that their pay is decreased or capped necessarily - I'm proposing that it's tied to the average earnings of their employees. So that if they (the CEO) want higher pay, they have to achieve this for everyone who works for them. What might happen that could be detrimental, would be that certain industries end up attracting far better CEOs than others - for instance, banking would still be subject to high rates of pay as I suspect their average pay level is a lot higher than, say, supermarkets. But it could even be tailored per industry, and used as an incentivising factor to support any industry which is ailing - for instance you could be more liberal with the cap in the steel industry, and attract better CEOs. Ultimately, the effect of this would be to hopefully increase company performance by motivating employees to achieve the best possible results in the same form as CEOs are, and in turn ensuring that companies pay their staff fairly.

Speaking as someone who employs low wage immigrants, I can safely confirm to you that European people of generally higher competence and educational standard are available much more cheaply than the same standard in British people. So that is perhaps what is meant. On Zero Hours contracts, you're right. Good thing he has targeted those... http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-vows-ban-zero-8535174

That's quite an assumption. I reckon it isn't as difficult as I'm suggesting. I think it needs experience of course, but I've seen some very good ones and some very poor ones so far, and I'm only 8 years into my career. Look, I can see the point you're making but I just don't think it'll actually hit home. For one thing, moving to Europe will be more difficult post-Brexit anyway. For another thing, where would all of these CEOs go? It's not like they'd necessarily be able to walk into better paying jobs elsewhere. And they'd be leaving behind their lives, their homes, their families, all in pursuit of a bit more money? Because they didn't believe in paying their workers fairly? Not a good look, really.

An upper earnings cap doesn't solve much at all - it's just a political gambit to appeal to the 'masses'. I suppose he could make the point that it combats income inequality to a degree, but I prefer my solution

His points appears to be that the damage being done by immigration is occurring at a working class level - i.e. low paid jobs are going to immigrants rather than the working classes. If this can be stopped, the majority's reason for supporting an exit from the EU is terminated; however, we do rely on immigrants for higher skilled work that we can't source within the UK as it stands, so he has identified that the influx of these people would need to be maintained.

You can't be serious. Are you just arguing for the sake of it or do you really think that it is sustainable to have earning gaps as high as what we're seeing? What I've suggested here doesn't even cap anyone's earnings, it just ensures that pay is more equitably distributed through the company. Also, most CEOs, the vast majority I would suggest, aren't great. If they up sticks it's no great loss, they can be replaced. They get replaced all the time anyway in the merry-go-round of directorships. Lose our best business leaders to other countries Like fuck would we, that's the same sort of nonsense as 'the banks will all leave if we hold them accountable!!!' Bollocks.

Which is what I said tbf. The only difference is that with his plans for low paid workers, his version might actually have legs. If he can make hiring British people simply more appealing than hiring immigrants, then the market will reject the aspects of freedom of movement that people are actually concerned about - low paid workers. No, I don't know how he would do this - but I don't think the Brexit Tories have come up with anything approaching that as an explanation of how the same goal might be achieved. His position seems to be that we need freedom of movement at a middle class level to ensure that vital public services (the NHS) are maintained, but that it needs to be stopped at a working class level. He didn't use those terms but I'm just calling it for what it is.

It was just a hypothetical figure The main point still stands - I think it'd be a good way of ensuring everyone benefits from the company's success.

I'm conflicted about this policy depending on where they set the line The problem I suppose is that it stifles innovation and entrepreneurship. People might simply look at the maximum cap and decide that it isn't worth it and take some manner of easier route through life (The Gemmill way). That said, I can see the need for something. I'd suggest that the cap is relative based on the average earnings of employees throughout the company. CEO pay can't be more than 50% (for instance) higher than the average salary level within the organisation. Thus, they're incentivised to pay people well and make the company work for all employees.