BW may refuse to licence boats

[sociable_hermit]

The real solution is a happy medium - the socialist dream of equality will never be realised because it must also result in a suppression of talent, skill and enterprise - the result would be a very boring society or one with high levels of illegal activity.

 

True enough.

 

But capitalism also needs a strong system of checks and balances in place to prevent exploitation, because it is very easy for those in charge to rig the deck in favour of those in charge..

 

As an easy example, take the normal % pay rise that companies award.

 

For an office cleaner on £8k a year, a 2% rise = £160 extra.

For a senior manager on £80k a year, 2% = £1600 extra.

 

The following year, £8160 + 2% = £8323.

£81,600 + 2% = £83,232.

 

In other words the pay differential which was originally £72k is now £74,909. Obviously the longer you continue this, the bigger the gap becomes.

 

The manager is becoming relatively better off, and the cleaner is increasingly worse off, relatively speaking. The poorest employees are usually discriminated against.

 

In my view, if a company is in profit and wishes to award a pay rise, it should take the sum available and divide it by the number of employees, so that everyone gets the same rise. That way the differentials will always remain the same.

[magpie patrick]

True enough.

 

But capitalism also needs a strong system of checks and balances in place to prevent exploitation, because it is very easy for those in charge to rig the deck in favour of those in charge..

 

As an easy example, take the normal % pay rise that companies award.

 

For an office cleaner on £8k a year, a 2% rise = £160 extra.

For a senior manager on £80k a year, 2% = £1600 extra.

 

The following year, £8160 + 2% = £8323.

£81,600 + 2% = £83,232.

 

In other words the pay differential which was originally £72k is now £74,909. Obviously the longer you continue this, the bigger the gap becomes.

 

The manager is becoming relatively better off, and the cleaner is increasingly worse off, relatively speaking. The poorest employees are usually discriminated against.

 

In my view, if a company is in profit and wishes to award a pay rise, it should take the sum available and divide it by the number of employees, so that everyone gets the same rise. That way the differentials will always remain the same.

 

 

I think I can see a flaw in this though...

 

year 1900, town clerk has an annual salary of twenty pounds, the office cleaner of £5

 

110 years later the Clerk of a council erans approx £70,000, the cleaner earns £69,995...

 

It saddens me that in my career there was a time when even large companies had a fixed differential between the highest and lowest paid, with directors getting 80% of what the CEO earned, down to graduates getting 20%, such that if the CEO got a big pay rise so did everybody else. Such an idea now gets laughed at

[David Schweizer]

I didn't say the system was better or worse than ours or even similar.

 

I merely stated that, if you take Marx and Engels definition of various political or philosophical systems, the Soviet regime was Imperial which is a long long way from Communist.

Yes, having re-read your post, I realise it can be interpreted in two ways. I read it the other way, so we actually agree.

[mayalld]

True enough.

 

But capitalism also needs a strong system of checks and balances in place to prevent exploitation, because it is very easy for those in charge to rig the deck in favour of those in charge..

 

As an easy example, take the normal % pay rise that companies award.

 

For an office cleaner on £8k a year, a 2% rise = £160 extra.

For a senior manager on £80k a year, 2% = £1600 extra.

 

The following year, £8160 + 2% = £8323.

£81,600 + 2% = £83,232.

 

In other words the pay differential which was originally £72k is now £74,909. Obviously the longer you continue this, the bigger the gap becomes.

 

The manager is becoming relatively better off, and the cleaner is increasingly worse off, relatively speaking. The poorest employees are usually discriminated against.

 

In my view, if a company is in profit and wishes to award a pay rise, it should take the sum available and divide it by the number of employees, so that everyone gets the same rise. That way the differentials will always remain the same.

 

And thus you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you can prove anything you like if you put the figures over in a certain way.

 

Percentage increases help maintain pay differentials, because if you don't have pay differentials, who would do the more demanding job that currently pays more?

 

In the example that you gave, the manager earns 10 times what the cleaner earns, and after 2 pay rises, STILL earns 10 times what the cleaner earns.

 

If we take flat rate increases across the salary scale, then over time the difference in pay becomes relatively insignificant;

 

Assume an organisation consisting of 21 employees;

 

1 is paid 25,000 to manage the team, 20 are paid 20000 as team members. £5000 extra when you are earning £20,000 is worth having.

 

We move to your utopia of across the board increases, and set a pay rise that is the same for all amounting to 2% of the paybill.

 

In year, there is a pay rise of £404.76 for all.

 

But let us move forward 100 years...

 

The manager now gets 32,520

The boss now gets 151,379

The staff get 146,379

 

The extra £5k isn't worth so much now.

[carlt]

Percentage increases help maintain pay differentials, because if you don't have pay differentials, who would do the more demanding job that currently pays more?

Would you go and clean, if the cleaner job paid more?

 

When I worked as a Materials Research Engineer I could have made more, if I'd switched to working on the production line.

 

A colleague switched from advanced materials research, in the aerospace sector, to developing crunchier honeycomb centres for Maltesers, and doubled his wage.

 

He was back working with me, within a year.

[Naughty Cal]

Would you go and clean, if the cleaner job paid more?

 

When I worked as a Materials Research Engineer I could have made more, if I'd switched to working on the production line.

 

A colleague switched from advanced materials research, in the aerospace sector, to developing crunchier honeycomb centres for Maltesers, and doubled his wage.

 

He was back working with me, within a year.

 

Was he putting on too much weight?

[Grace and Favour]

True enough.

 

, , , , , That way the differentials will always remain the same.

Only if you consider that the £cash sum is the correct way to measure the differential

one could, of course, measure the differentials as a %percentage, or indeed even allocate pay as a percentage (ie of the total profit cleaners get 1%, the Chairman gets 10%)

[carlt]

Was he putting on too much weight?

No he was bored.

[sociable_hermit]

And thus you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you can prove anything you like if you put the figures over in a certain way.

 

Percentage increases help maintain pay differentials, because if you don't have pay differentials, who would do the more demanding job that currently pays more?

 

In the example that you gave, the manager earns 10 times what the cleaner earns, and after 2 pay rises, STILL earns 10 times what the cleaner earns.

 

If we take flat rate increases across the salary scale, then over time the difference in pay becomes relatively insignificant;

 

Assume an organisation consisting of 21 employees;

 

1 is paid 25,000 to manage the team, 20 are paid 20000 as team members. £5000 extra when you are earning £20,000 is worth having.

 

We move to your utopia of across the board increases, and set a pay rise that is the same for all amounting to 2% of the paybill.

 

In year, there is a pay rise of £404.76 for all.

 

But let us move forward 100 years...

 

The manager now gets 32,520

The boss now gets 151,379

The staff get 146,379

 

The extra £5k isn't worth so much now.

 

How do you work that out?

 

What I am saying is that they would all get the same cash pay rise as each other, every year.

 

If you start with £8k and £80k, and this year they get £800 each, next year they will be starting with £8,800 and £80,800. The difference is still £72k.

 

The year after, the rise might be £450. So now they're on £9,250 and £81,250. The difference is still £72k.

 

The big advantage of this is that the grades don't gradually separate until promotion is impossible. And promotion is still desirable because there is still a very significant gap between the grades, it's just that it remains the same and doesn't get wider, so the people at the bottom aren't getting penalised.

 

I agree that there would eventually need to be some sort of adjustment to allow for inflation, because eventually £72k would cease to be a significant sum (using the figures in my example). The compound percentage increases that occur over time become too heavily 'top loaded' to be justified in this way, though.

Edited March 19, 2010 by sociable_hermit

[NB Alnwick]

Aren't we our own worst enemies? Jane and I always try to support firms that have a responsible attitude toward staff remuneration and purchasing - such as: John Lewis and the Co-op. But we know many people who blame the government or society for their lack of wealth and think that they are 'underprivileged' but still spend, what little money they have, with firms that are well known for their exploitation of the disadvantaged. And, to use an example from another thread, sharks that charge over 2000% for loans only survive because people are prepared to pay them.

 

When will we ever learn?

[Naughty Cal]

No he was bored.

 

Yeah, i must admit maltesers do get boring after a while

[mayalld]

How do you work that out?

 

What I am saying is that they would all get the same cash pay rise as each other, every year.

 

If you start with £8k and £80k, and this year they get £800 each, next year they will be starting with £8,800 and £80,800. The difference is still £72k.

 

The year after, the rise might be £450. So now they're on £9,250 and £81,250. The difference is still £72k.

 

The big advantage of this is that the grades don't gradually separate until promotion is impossible. And promotion is still desirable because there is still a very significant gap between the grades, it's just that it remains the same and doesn't get wider, so the people at the bottom aren't getting penalised.

 

I agree that there would eventually need to be some sort of adjustment to allow for inflation, because eventually £72k would cease to be a significant sum (using the figures in my example). The compound percentage increases that occur over time become too heavily 'top loaded' to be justified in this way, though.

 

Yes, there has to be an adjustment for inflation, and that adjustment is what happens automatically if you use percentages rather than flat rates.

 

Certainly the absolute value of the differential increases using percentage increases, but the "size" of the differential, relative to the actual payment doesn't.

 

If the cleaner gets 8,000 and the MD 80,000 the MD earns 10 times what the cleaner earns. Percentage increase means that the MD will always earn 10 times the cleaners wage.

[Natalie Graham]

Aren't we our own worst enemies? Jane and I always try to support firms that have a responsible attitude toward staff remuneration and purchasing - such as: John Lewis and the Co-op.

 

I used to work for the Co-op.

 

The Co-op has a responsible attitude to a great many things, but staff remuneration isn't one of them.

[David Schweizer]

Aren't we our own worst enemies? Jane and I always try to support firms that have a responsible attitude toward staff remuneration and purchasing - such as: John Lewis and the Co-op. But we know many people who blame the government or society for their lack of wealth and think that they are 'underprivileged' but still spend, what little money they have, with firms that are well known for their exploitation of the disadvantaged. And, to use an example from another thread, sharks that charge over 2000% for loans only survive because people are prepared to pay them.

 

When will we ever learn?

At one time I would have agreed with you, and was delighted when the Co-op took over our Village store from the previous owners. But my enthusiasm was short lived, they are appalling employers who treat their staff very badly. They also removed all the responsibly produced local produce from ther shelves, replacing it with poor quality plastic wrapped, plastic food which is transported half way across the country, and delivered every day in the largest noisiest ten wheeled artics you have ever seen. They are neither as responsible or ecological as tghey claim in all their publicity. There are several other things which do not sit well with their so called support of Socilaist principles, but that would take far too long.

 

Sorry I know this is but I just couldn't let it go unchallenged.

Edited March 19, 2010 by David Schweizer

[luctor et emergo]

I think I can see a flaw in this though...

 

year 1900, town clerk has an annual salary of twenty pounds, the office cleaner of £5

 

110 years later the Clerk of a council erans approx £70,000, the cleaner earns £69,995...

 

It saddens me that in my career there was a time when even large companies had a fixed differential between the highest and lowest paid, with directors getting 80% of what the CEO earned, down to graduates getting 20%, such that if the CEO got a big pay rise so did everybody else. Such an idea now gets laughed at

 

 

Sorry, where did that number come from? Or where do I apply?

 

[Natalie Graham]

I had a real battle to get the Co-op to let me order the locally produced beer from the brewery I could see from my office window rather than from the central distribution centre in Coventry.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Natalie Graham

[NB Alnwick]

At one time I would have agreed with you, and was delighted when the Co-op took over our Village store from the previous owners. But my enthusiasm was short lived, they are appalling employers who treat their staff very badly. They also removed all the responsibly produced local produce from ther shelves, replacing it with poor quality plastic wrapped, plastic food which is transported half way across the country, and delivered every day in the largest noisiest ten wheeled artics you have ever seen. They are neither as responsible or ecological as tghey claim in all their publicity. There are several other things which do not sit well with their so called support of Socilaist principles, but that would take far too long.

 

Sorry I know this is but I just couldn't let it go unchallenged.

 

So who is to blame? I think we all are . . .

[luctor et emergo]

Sorry, where did that number come from? Or where do I apply?

 

 

 

I getit, must be a co-op cleaner...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Taxi...

[David Schweizer]

So who is to blame? I think we all are . . .

Not sure why you have taken that view. We attempted to raise the issue with the Manager, and he was totally disinterested, the Area Manager would not even talk to us.. We no longer shop at the Village store, and now purchase from several other outlets in the area which still try to support ecologically grown food from local sources.

 

I am even going to put my name down for one of the new allotments which the Parish Council is trying to establish. (My last one was on privately owned land which was sold for housing - the new Rectory has now got the benefit of my Apple tree!)

Edited March 19, 2010 by David Schweizer

[nb Innisfree]

True enough.

 

But capitalism also needs a strong system of checks and balances in place to prevent exploitation, because it is very easy for those in charge to rig the deck in favour of those in charge..

 

As an easy example, take the normal % pay rise that companies award.

 

For an office cleaner on £8k a year, a 2% rise = £160 extra.

For a senior manager on £80k a year, 2% = £1600 extra.

 

The following year, £8160 + 2% = £8323.

£81,600 + 2% = £83,232.

 

In other words the pay differential which was originally £72k is now £74,909. Obviously the longer you continue this, the bigger the gap becomes.

 

The manager is becoming relatively better off, and the cleaner is increasingly worse off, relatively speaking. The poorest employees are usually discriminated against.

 

In my view, if a company is in profit and wishes to award a pay rise, it should take the sum available and divide it by the number of employees, so that everyone gets the same rise. That way the differentials will always remain the same.

 

Differentials can only be maintained by a percentage rise across the board. As MP says the cleaner would gradually close the gap on the manager. All this is of course assuming that all rises are for keeping up with inflation, with zero inflation there would be no rises other than for promotion and the status quo would be maintained.

 

 

Sorry, where did that number come from? Or where do I apply?

 

 

The problem is the £69995 would only provide the same standard of living as £5.00 110 years previously due to inflation, it's the manager who would come down to the cleaner

[Orca]

Meanwhile, back on topic - in the time it took to go off topic, 200 alternative lifestyle seekers have been kicked off t'cut and executed for not having a licence or a permanent address...... No.10 The Pollit Bureau said that this was in keeping with the ongoing clearing of the last bastion of Libertarian thinking..

 

(Oh Margaret, I love you!!)

Edited March 19, 2010 by Orca

[NB Alnwick]

Not sure why you have taken that view. We attempted to raise the issue with the Manager, and he was totally disinterested, the Area Manager would not even talk to us.. We no longer shop at the Village store, and now purchase from several other outlets in the area which still try to support ecologically grown food from local sources.

 

I am even going to put my name down for one of the new allotments which the Parish Council is trying to establish. (My last one was on privately owned land which was sold for housing - the new Rectory has now got the benefit of my Apple tree!)

 

I take that view because anyone of us is welcome to join the Co-op as a member and raise issues like this at an Annual General Meeting - the Co-op is owned and run by ordinary members of the public and those who direct its business ethics are elected by the same ordinary members of the public.

[Phil Ambrose]

I can see no reason why anyone should not be able to provide a contact address. The boat should be insured, be up to date with certificates and the owner paying some sort of council tax. I get fed up with scroungers and benefit cheats who try to live a life with the rest of us paying for it, be it in caravan, boat or whatever. My area has currently got still high unemployment, yet day after day I watch familes who are into third generation of unemployment boozing, smoking, in the betting office, wearing designer clothing ....... and we are paying for that!

 

 

Oh dear harsh words indeed, bit of generalisation going on here methinks.

True there are those in society who do milk the system but IMHO they are the minority and I doubt that the life of a CCer would appeal to them, so just chill a bit and respect the lifestyle choice of the CCers.

 

Phil

[Smelly]

, to use an example from another thread, sharks that charge over 2000% for loans only survive because people are prepared to pay them.

 

When will we ever learn?

 

From experience i must say that people borrow money from such firms because those firms are the only ones willing to lend them money.

 

Hence credit unions are such a good idea. If they started building houses it'd be great wouldn't it?

[mrsmelly]

I can see no reason why anyone should not be able to provide a contact address. The boat should be insured, be up to date with certificates and the owner paying some sort of council tax. I get fed up with scroungers and benefit cheats who try to live a life with the rest of us paying for it, be it in caravan, boat or whatever. My area has currently got still high unemployment, yet day after day I watch familes who are into third generation of unemployment boozing, smoking, in the betting office, wearing designer clothing ....... and we are paying for that!

 

Cor blimey I am slipping I have just read this thread which is several days old, I have only got as far as this ridiculous statement but need to say that you talk more crap than I do and that is saying something, why should we all be paying " some sort of council tax " ?. I do as I also pay business rates and other rip off britain stuff, but why should a continuous cruiser play council tax ? Surely that is their choice to move around and therefore not need to pay council tax. Do you think then that any one without a tv licence who has no tv should pay for one of those ? people who do not go fishing need a rod licence etc etc ?

Get a life and lay off the continuous cruisers after all they are REAL boaters.............