|
Post by jamo on Nov 10, 2010 17:52:17 GMT 1
The FTSE 100 Index stands at 19% lower than it did at the turn of the century, but the average FTSE 100 executive is now collecting 160% more.
FTSE executive pay rose by 55% last year.
Damn those horrible public services for dragging this country of ours to the point of bankrupcy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2010 22:57:05 GMT 1
I'm not disagreeing with you Alan, but how have upper tier public sector salaries moved in the same period?
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Nov 10, 2010 23:18:12 GMT 1
Well I work for the council and my pay hasn't gone up by 55% this year! Pay for Senior roles at the council has gone up above inflation since 1997, but not by those levels either. In the current round of cuts all council pay is frozen for 3 years and some senior roles have had more significant pay cuts.
The trouble with local authority and public sector bodies is that they employ a lot of people, but the majority of staff are on relatively low wages, so to make savings the government has to make big cuts to the numbers of employees.
Knocking 20k off the senior pay scales is good PR, but the 25% overall savings needed only come from getting rid of a lot of staff in schools, hospitals and social services which makes economic sense but won't be popular with the public, especially if the banking sector is seen to be "untouched" by the government
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2010 23:38:30 GMT 1
Playing Devil's advocate here, but just remember the FTSE100 isn't a great benchmark for the performance of the uk economy.
e.g. between 4Q of 2008 and Q3 2009, uk economy contracted 3%, the ftse rose 18%.
Also remember that the FTSE is now composite of several large global firms that do not drive revenues in the uk.
All I'm trying to say is that this 'us vs. them' relating to the average uk employee's pay vs. ftse 100 director's pay isn't quite as black and white as it may seem.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2010 23:43:17 GMT 1
This is also an interesting article from the Guardian website: Link------> Director's pay rises by 2.5%, IOD reports Extract: He added: "When politicians and other individuals attack the private sector for excessive pay they ignore the fact that the majority of private sector directors earn about the same as a head teacher or a GP." Guess it depends on whose statistics you believe most.
|
|
|
Post by Minor on Nov 11, 2010 10:40:01 GMT 1
Well I work for the council and my pay hasn't gone up by 55% this year! Pay for Senior roles at the council has gone up above inflation since 1997, but not by those levels either. In the current round of cuts all council pay is frozen for 3 years and some senior roles have had more significant pay cuts. The trouble with local authority and public sector bodies is that they employ a lot of people, but the majority of staff are on relatively low wages, so to make savings the government has to make big cuts to the numbers of employees. Knocking 20k off the senior pay scales is good PR, but the 25% overall savings needed only come from getting rid of a lot of staff in schools, hospitals and social services which makes economic sense but won't be popular with the public, especially if the banking sector is seen to be "untouched" by the government A question I have thought about for quite a while, that I would appreciate a factual answer to: How many council employees at any level in any job directly employed are actually receiving the minimum wage ??
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Nov 11, 2010 12:00:16 GMT 1
This is also an interesting article from the Guardian website: Link------> Director's pay rises by 2.5%, IOD reports Extract: He added: "When politicians and other individuals attack the private sector for excessive pay they ignore the fact that the majority of private sector directors earn about the same as a head teacher or a GP." Guess it depends on whose statistics you believe most. Would like to see the information broken down a little more than that: Alan is referring to people who are the directors of very big companies. I suggest the IOD figures show the that smaller businesses - i.e. the wider economy - is struggling. I would also like to see the extent of pay rises for the wider workforce in those companies that the IOD based their survey on. With respect to private sector vs public sector and top salaries it is the private sector that sets the pace. One aspect Alan probably needs to take into account is the total return on the FTSE 100 - i.e. reinvested dividends. Although that doesn't damage his comments. The directors of these companies also have significant shareholdings - so get bonuses for performance and dividends too. For the record my pay has increased 37% over the last 8 years. Who knows - over the next decade I may be able to hold on to that level of income - although not in real terms.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Nov 11, 2010 12:45:51 GMT 1
Playing Devil's advocate here, but just remember the FTSE100 isn't a great benchmark for the performance of the uk economy. e.g. between 4Q of 2008 and Q3 2009, uk economy contracted 3%, the ftse rose 18%. Also remember that the FTSE is now composite of several large global firms that do not drive revenues in the uk. All I'm trying to say is that this 'us vs. them' relating to the average uk employee's pay vs. ftse 100 director's pay isn't quite as black and white as it may seem. Average - that's one of the problems, people talk in terms of average - it's the dispersion around the average that is important. Here one way of thinking about it: www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/09/the-height-of-inequality/5089/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2010 13:43:48 GMT 1
Some useful info as ever Sean One thing I don't get though, is how can anyone make a reasonable comparison between public and private sector pay. Private is a profit-making business, public is to fulfil a budget, is it not like comparing apples with pears?
|
|
|
Post by MarkRowley on Nov 11, 2010 13:49:17 GMT 1
A number of things to mention on this. Firstly, the FTSE 100 is an ever moving feast of different companies, some will join as their performance grows, others depart as theirs falls, then you have changes due to insolvency, de-merger, acquisition etc. The link below shows that from the start of 2000 to the end of 2008 there were almost 150 changes to the constituent members of the FTSE100, some joining/leaving several times www.ftse.com/Media_Centre/Downloads/FTSE_100_Constituent_History.pdf So in this regard, it is not as simple as it first appears, businesses dropping in value down the years would have had a significant disproportionate effect. Alan's mention of the rise in salaries in 2009 was against a rise in the FTSE100 of 22% in 2009, not exactly matching how the salaries rose but it wasn't as though the FTSE stood still. The link that loyalshrew posted also makes it clear that the 55% average rise figure was skewed by several highly successful businesses rewarding accordingly; the median rise of 23% matched the rise in the index itself. Secondly, the top leaders in the public sector are always justifying their salaries as to what they could possibly earn in the private sector, but there are fundamental differences in that in private industry they are directly answerable to shareholders, public sector leaders have little by way of such a stringent check or balance. Thirdly, FTSE100 businesses are in theory supposed to generate wealth for the nation as well as for themselves & their shareholders and also invest which going forward is the key to our recovery. Public sector leaders in simple terms are in charge of a significant cost centre and their task is to run that to deliver on their targets/requirements as efficiently as possible - the level of waste & inefficiency that exists in the public sector as a result of mismanagement by these leaders is now being looked at.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Nov 11, 2010 19:16:53 GMT 1
Some useful info as ever Sean One thing I don't get though, is how can anyone make a reasonable comparison between public and private sector pay. Private is a profit-making business, public is to fulfil a budget, is it not like comparing apples with pears? No. Public produced goods - sometimes outsourced to private companies - are an input to production - most particularly in advanced economies. The process of producing profit involves periodic destruction of productive capacity of economies as well as the value of shares in companies. i.e. there is waste. The ideology is that this is "good waste". But that is only ideology. The level of waste that exists in the financial sector globally as a result of mismanagement is now being bailed out. The waste has a human element: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9085533.stmAdditionally the economic and political elites that have run the rest of us into the ground quite effectively for a number of years rub shoulders and swap places with each other on a frequent basis. They will expect to be remunerated to the same level to enable this to continue...
|
|
|
Post by Minor on Nov 12, 2010 8:06:18 GMT 1
Well I work for the council and my pay hasn't gone up by 55% this year! Pay for Senior roles at the council has gone up above inflation since 1997, but not by those levels either. In the current round of cuts all council pay is frozen for 3 years and some senior roles have had more significant pay cuts. The trouble with local authority and public sector bodies is that they employ a lot of people, but the majority of staff are on relatively low wages, so to make savings the government has to make big cuts to the numbers of employees. Knocking 20k off the senior pay scales is good PR, but the 25% overall savings needed only come from getting rid of a lot of staff in schools, hospitals and social services which makes economic sense but won't be popular with the public, especially if the banking sector is seen to be "untouched" by the government A question I have thought about for quite a while, that I would appreciate a factual answer to: How many council employees at any level in any job directly employed are actually receiving the minimum wage ?? And the answer is
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2010 9:07:52 GMT 1
Did anyone watch this last night: Link------> Britain's Trillion Pound Horror Story Very interesting. Highlighted how large areas of the country have become totally dependent on public services. In short (and this is very short) it concluded that for the private sector to truely flourish and create more jobs, taxes should be decreased so that companies had more captial to expand their businesses. However, taxes are so high purely to fund the overgrown public sector. Also, out of roughly 7.5 million public sector jobs, only about 2 million were 'front-line' (e.g. doctors, teachers, fireman, nurses etc..) What do the other 5.5 million do?
|
|
|
Post by ratcliffesghost on Nov 12, 2010 9:11:10 GMT 1
Lets put it on another level then. Sine the Austerity measures started to be drip fed by the government 3 months ago - the FTSE has gone up 400 points. The worse the financial outlook has become for most individuals the more the leading financial instituTions have benefited on the stock market. "We are all in this together" MY ARSE
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Nov 12, 2010 13:40:49 GMT 1
Did anyone watch this last night: Link------> Britain's Trillion Pound Horror Story Very interesting. Highlighted how large areas of the country have become totally dependent on public services. In short (and this is very short) it concluded that for the private sector to truely flourish and create more jobs, taxes should be decreased so that companies had more captial to expand their businesses. However, taxes are so high purely to fund the overgrown public sector. Also, out of roughly 7.5 million public sector jobs, only about 2 million were 'front-line' (e.g. doctors, teachers, fireman, nurses etc..) What do the other 5.5 million do? The problem with Martin Durkin is that he sees the "national debt" as the problem. It isn't. The problem is the inexorably climbing amount of debt in financial companies to 2008. A process a quarter of a century long in this country and nearly half a century long in the USA. I wonder what private sector jobs there were a quarter of a century ago in those blackspot areas. Drive down the price of something (a good, a raw material someones labour) then at some point (where ever that point is) someone may buy it. The reverse side of the coin is the sucking in of jobs (with attendant pressures on infrastructure) into the South East. Sucking in of jobs into the South East..... Debt burden on financial companies..... Hold on...
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Nov 12, 2010 14:00:36 GMT 1
Lets put it on another level then. Sine the Austerity measures started to be drip fed by the government 3 months ago - the FTSE has gone up 400 points. The worse the financial outlook has become for most individuals the more the leading financial instituTions have benefited on the stock market. "We are all in this together" MY ARSE It's not hard to understand is it? real wages and employment are held or reduced and so the rate of profit increases. Except, there's 1) Private sector deleveraging 2) public expenditure cutbacks 3) continued threats of dislocation to the financial system.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Nov 12, 2010 14:01:56 GMT 1
If you do a little research into the documentaries Durkin has produced on global warming and GM foods then you'll probably arrive at the conclusion that his word isn't to be taken as gospel, to put it mildly.
Right wing libertarian decides public sector is a waste of money and we need to free business with more tax cuts.
Quelle Surprise.
|
|
|
Post by ratcliffesghost on Nov 12, 2010 16:57:57 GMT 1
Lets put it on another level then. Sine the Austerity measures started to be drip fed by the government 3 months ago - the FTSE has gone up 400 points. The worse the financial outlook has become for most individuals the more the leading financial instituTions have benefited on the stock market. "We are all in this together" MY ARSE It's not hard to understand is it? real wages and employment are held or reduced and so the rate of profit increases. Except, there's 1) Private sector deleveraging 2) public expenditure cutbacks 3) continued threats of dislocation to the financial system. No its not hard to understand at all, and if anyone thinks we are all in this together
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Nov 12, 2010 18:45:39 GMT 1
A question I have thought about for quite a while, that I would appreciate a factual answer to: How many council employees at any level in any job directly employed are actually receiving the minimum wage ?? Union rep at work suggested that approximately 6 million people work in the public sector and about 600,000 to 800,000 of these earn annual wages of £12,000 or less (which for a 38 hour week is minimum wage level) so that's about 10% of public sector workers are at minimum wage level based on this estimate As an alternative figure the tax Payers allowance recently claimed 9000 public sector workers earn £160,000 or more a year which is more than the pm, and the average pay in the public sector was £22,500 a year Statistics show pretty much what you want them too but with millions employed in the various public sector jobs it's likely the wages paid vary considerably To complicate things further many aspects of local government are contracted out to the private sector, but paid for by the state ie bin collections, road repairs etc - I'm not totally sure if these workers are classed as public or private sector
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Nov 12, 2010 19:05:28 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by RBA on Nov 12, 2010 19:14:03 GMT 1
Did anyone watch this last night: Link------> Britain's Trillion Pound Horror Story Very interesting. Highlighted how large areas of the country have become totally dependent on public services. In short (and this is very short) it concluded that for the private sector to truely flourish and create more jobs, taxes should be decreased so that companies had more captial to expand their businesses. However, taxes are so high purely to fund the overgrown public sector. Also, out of roughly 7.5 million public sector jobs, only about 2 million were 'front-line' (e.g. doctors, teachers, fireman, nurses etc..) What do the other 5.5 million do? Enjoyed this very much for much the same reasons as I enjoy Seans post- not because I agree with it all but because it makes me think and challenges preconceptions I think his section on the NHS was especially thought provoking there has to be room for all voices to be heard in the media
|
|
|
Post by eclipsechaser on Nov 12, 2010 19:18:35 GMT 1
All are overpaid and underworked .
They wouldn't know what a hard days work is !
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Nov 12, 2010 19:32:11 GMT 1
Did anyone watch this last night: Link------> Britain's Trillion Pound Horror Story Very interesting. Highlighted how large areas of the country have become totally dependent on public services. In short (and this is very short) it concluded that for the private sector to truely flourish and create more jobs, taxes should be decreased so that companies had more captial to expand their businesses. However, taxes are so high purely to fund the overgrown public sector. Also, out of roughly 7.5 million public sector jobs, only about 2 million were 'front-line' (e.g. doctors, teachers, fireman, nurses etc..) What do the other 5.5 million do? Enjoyed this very much for much the same reasons as I enjoy Seans post- not because I agree with it all but because it makes me think and challenges preconceptions I think his section on the NHS was especially thought provoking there has to be room for all voices to be heard in the media And what a 'voice' he is In October 1998 a television producer named Martin Durkin a proposal to the BBC’s science series, Horizon. Silicone breast implants, he claimed, far from harming women, were in fact beneficial, reducing the risk of breast cancer. Horizon commissioned a researcher to find out whether or not his assertion was true. After a thorough review, the researcher reported that Mr Durkin had ignored a powerful body of evidence contradicting his claims. Martin Durkin withdrew his proposal. Instead of dropping it, however, he it to Channel 4 and, astonishingly, sold it to their science series, Equinox. To help him make the programme, Durkin hired Najma Kazi, a highly respected TV researcher and producer who was previously a research biochemist. After two weeks she walked out. “It’s not a joke to walk away from four or five month’s work,” she told me, “but my research was being ignored. The published research had been construed to give an impression that’s not the case. I don’t know how that programme got passed. The only consolation for me was that I’m really glad I didn’t put my name to it.” More at www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/03/16/modified-truth/
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Nov 12, 2010 19:38:34 GMT 1
Well I work for the council and my pay hasn't gone up by 55% this year! Pay for Senior roles at the council has gone up above inflation since 1997, but not by those levels either. In the current round of cuts all council pay is frozen for 3 years and some senior roles have had more significant pay cuts. The trouble with local authority and public sector bodies is that they employ a lot of people, but the majority of staff are on relatively low wages, so to make savings the government has to make big cuts to the numbers of employees. Knocking 20k off the senior pay scales is good PR, but the 25% overall savings needed only come from getting rid of a lot of staff in schools, hospitals and social services which makes economic sense but won't be popular with the public, especially if the banking sector is seen to be "untouched" by the government A question I have thought about for quite a while, that I would appreciate a factual answer to: How many council employees at any level in any job directly employed are actually receiving the minimum wage ?? Christ, does it pain you that much to think that some people in the public sector might be getting paid more than £5.93 an hour?
|
|
|
Post by RBA on Nov 12, 2010 19:57:14 GMT 1
Enjoyed this very much for much the same reasons as I enjoy Seans post- not because I agree with it all but because it makes me think and challenges preconceptions I think his section on the NHS was especially thought provoking there has to be room for all voices to be heard in the media And what a 'voice' he is In October 1998 a television producer named Martin Durkin a proposal to the BBC’s science series, Horizon. Silicone breast implants, he claimed, far from harming women, were in fact beneficial, reducing the risk of breast cancer. Horizon commissioned a researcher to find out whether or not his assertion was true. After a thorough review, the researcher reported that Mr Durkin had ignored a powerful body of evidence contradicting his claims. Martin Durkin withdrew his proposal. Instead of dropping it, however, he it to Channel 4 and, astonishingly, sold it to their science series, Equinox. To help him make the programme, Durkin hired Najma Kazi, a highly respected TV researcher and producer who was previously a research biochemist. After two weeks she walked out. “It’s not a joke to walk away from four or five month’s work,” she told me, “but my research was being ignored. The published research had been construed to give an impression that’s not the case. I don’t know how that programme got passed. The only consolation for me was that I’m really glad I didn’t put my name to it.” More at www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/03/16/modified-truth/shrewsace thanks for that but the key is to listen to the argument and if you wish refute it not to attack the man If you reread my post I didnt say I agreed with him but that he made me think -something Daily Mail leader writers or Polly Toynbee for that matter almost never do
|
|
|
Post by RBA on Nov 12, 2010 19:59:20 GMT 1
By the way liked this quote from Monbiots site Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new and they will hate you for it.
|
|
|
Post by creature on Nov 12, 2010 22:47:03 GMT 1
As Shrewsace says Martin Durkin should be taken with an enormous dose of salt. Frankly I can't believe he still gets the air time such is his total disregard for the facts. I'm all for thought provoking debate but sadly nowadays too many media outlets think putting across all sides of the argument means giving airtime to the crazies
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Nov 13, 2010 12:23:42 GMT 1
And what a 'voice' he is In October 1998 a television producer named Martin Durkin a proposal to the BBC’s science series, Horizon. Silicone breast implants, he claimed, far from harming women, were in fact beneficial, reducing the risk of breast cancer. Horizon commissioned a researcher to find out whether or not his assertion was true. After a thorough review, the researcher reported that Mr Durkin had ignored a powerful body of evidence contradicting his claims. Martin Durkin withdrew his proposal. Instead of dropping it, however, he it to Channel 4 and, astonishingly, sold it to their science series, Equinox. To help him make the programme, Durkin hired Najma Kazi, a highly respected TV researcher and producer who was previously a research biochemist. After two weeks she walked out. “It’s not a joke to walk away from four or five month’s work,” she told me, “but my research was being ignored. The published research had been construed to give an impression that’s not the case. I don’t know how that programme got passed. The only consolation for me was that I’m really glad I didn’t put my name to it.” More at www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/03/16/modified-truth/shrewsace thanks for that but the key is to listen to the argument and if you wish refute it not to attack the man If you reread my post I didnt say I agreed with him but that he made me think -something Daily Mail leader writers or Polly Toynbee for that matter almost never do I think there's a difference between 'attacking the man' and raising valid concerns over the credibility of a source. Evaluation of sources is quite important, I believe.
|
|
|
Post by RBA on Nov 13, 2010 16:31:01 GMT 1
But thr trouble is with google we can all play this game ie here is an attack on Monbiots credibility www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/jul/29/richard-north-response-george-monbiotHowever the key question for me is- Is it true for example that there are people dying earlier than they would in other EU countries because the NHS is not as efficient as for example the German health system, I honestly dont know the answer to that question Thats why I say the programme made me think and want to read more not because I necessarily agreed with it -The guy made me think which as I said tribal voices like the Mail and Toynbee never do they just toe the party line
|
|
|
Post by MarkRowley on Nov 13, 2010 17:13:08 GMT 1
The Channel 4 programme did make some interesting points in places and I suppose you are never going to get hard supporting facts & figures behind some of the statements as a raft of figures wouldn't make interesting TV !
I don't know whether the comment is correct that the NHS is the largest state monopoly outside of China, nor whether the NHS is the least effective health service in the advanced world (the latter point either side could debate to death), nor indeed whether the public sector in the UK now accounts for almost double the percentage of total spending as it does in China. As with any stats, I'm sure you can interpret a set of figures in various ways.
One interesting point is always the view the Government tries to stop monopolies existing in all parts of the economy save for the state operated monopolies in health and education. Another was the statement that the UK welfare budget is greater than the funds generated by income tax.
On the whole the show was a little sensationalist, made Darling and Mr Barber from the TUC squirm a bit around admitting that all public sector spending has to come out of monies raised from the private sector
|
|