Tech CEO gets 163 times his average worker's pay  - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2015, 01:02:29 pm
content: I read today about this bloke who received from Telstra 163 times the salary of his average hard working employee. It got me fired up.www.theage.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/ceo-pay-in-spotlight-as-telstra-boss-pockets-163-times-average-workers-wage-20150813-giyduc.htmlAccording to The Age, "I can't sit here and defend my salary against all the guys who are out there working every day and I wouldn't try to," he (David Thodey) said. "I think there's a real issue with income disparity between what an average person gets and some of the really big salaries." I can't imagine him sharing his salary and bonuses with his workers. Themeter is in overload. In fact, it not only blew a fuse, it took out the whole power grid! Under Thodey's leadership, Telstra retrenched Aussie IT workers and sent jobs offshore, whilst the share price rose. My guess is Telstra employees would be quite angry at Thodey's "remorseful" statement.But compared to Australia, things are often worse in the USA...http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/Paywatch-2015Did a CEO like David Thodey work 163 times harder than his average engineer? 163 times longer hours? Has he an IQ 163 times higher than his engineers? Is he 163 times more educated? Is he 163 times more valuable as a human being? Or is he 163 times more greedy? On the other hand, maybe such CEO's have earned (repeat, EARNED) their wages and bonuses because they simply are superior beings.What do you reckon? Agree, disagree with big end of town CEOs' pay being obscene?Especially as a worker in electronics or IT, are you paid what you are "worth"?

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2015, 01:53:57 pm
content: It fires me up too.If you compare the productivity of this one person against 163 average employees, then no, the salary can't be justified. Whether that's a valid criticism or not, I'll leave that for debate!Publicly quoted boardroom and upper echelon executive pay awards regrettably don't follow the same rules that everyone else has to. Bonuses seem to be arbitrarily calculated, and self-justification is through continual change, whether beneficial or not. When they are awarding themselves their own pay, it is not their money. It is the shareholders'. That is you and me, either in direct stock ownership or through other vehicles like pensions and mutual funds. Despite remuneration committees, there is still no self-control. Whether the company is doing well or not seems to have little correlation either, with the excuse that the company would be doing even worse if it wasn't for executive X.Unfortunately I don't have a general solution. The differential between the "elite" few at the top and the rest continues to increase, and shows no sign of abating.Personally speaking, getting out of the salaried world and working for myself 25 years ago was the best thing I ever did, I was sick of being farmed out as a consultant at six times my own salary, with the disparity excused as "overheads". That way you make the decision of how much to pay yourself, and you have no shareholders to answer to. If you own the company, pay yourself what ever you like. But if you're leaching off the back of investors, you should think very hard before thinking that awarding yourself excessive pay is justified.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2015, 02:23:16 pm
content: The problem is that money is power, both politically and on the board. Combined with the complete lack of activism on the part of modern shareholders this is a recipe for massive corruption, inside and outside public companies.

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2015, 02:29:30 pm
content: That's fair, he puts in 160 times as many hours as everyone else and is 160 times as smart.Oh gawd, they should pay people according to how smart they are. So many people would starve, but everyone is happy about it.This what happens when people have no idea what unions are for. They teach nothing at all in schools anymore, you have to homeschool. People see kids come home to them from school and do not care that they learn nothing at all.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2015, 04:11:59 pm
content: I know a couple of people who do their own investing for pensions and the like and this is a common cause of much whining from them. Really the fact that shareholders, the owners the companies, can not do anything about wages they themselves think are too high is criminal.I can't blame the executives for accepting what they're offered or getting even more if they can, but I also can't help but think there's something wrong with a system where your bosses can't sack you for reasonable reasons or even set your wage to begin with.QuoteAs much as I may agree with a lot that site has to say I absolutely hate it when vertical axis on graphs don't start at 0...EDIT:Too many silly mistakes, need more coffee.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2015, 06:50:56 pm
content: Let people get paid whatever they can get.But then mandate 100% taxation on any earnings over a certain amount.I'd suggest that amount be $1,000,000 a year (and no loopholes).Factoid: In 1945 the US top marginal income tax rate was 94% on all income over $200,000, (equivalent of 2,500,000 in 2012 dollars) and remained above 90% until 1964.Did this high marginal tax rate have any deleterious effect on the US economy for those two decades?A: Nope.

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2015, 09:06:55 pm
content: The worst possible thing you can do is give more money to the governments of the world.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2015, 09:24:07 pm
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on August 13, 2015, 04:11:59 pmThey can elect different directors.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2015, 09:44:55 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on August 13, 2015, 09:24:07 pmIn theory I'd agree. Once upon a time that would definitely work, and I'd also say that in a lot of cases it's still true. But once upon a time 1 share definitely got you one vote, that's not the case anymore. Especially a if a company is "too big to fail*."Quote from: Stonent on August 13, 2015, 09:06:55 pmBut it can be very lucrative to do so. If you're giving enough to the right people.*Disgusting idea.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2015, 04:59:09 am
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on August 13, 2015, 09:44:55 pmAnd so is class envy.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 14, 2015, 05:23:31 am
content: As terrible a gap as it is, I don't necessary mind itifthey are held accountable. They get their pay if the company (genuinely) makes a profit in a sustainable way. But if the company loses money they should be accountable and getnothing.Heck, maybe even having to pay money back to the company.i.e. great reward comes with high performance high pressure risk.

author: bills
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2015, 05:33:07 am
content: You don't get paid for what you do you get paid for what you know and if you think you are not getting enough.You don't use what you know. (let the flames begin)

author: ivaylo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2015, 05:36:23 am
content: But they are the captains of industry. Without them no one knows what to do!

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2015, 05:48:42 am
content: Quote from: ivaylo on August 14, 2015, 05:36:23 amThen why do they need so many poorly paid people to tell them what to do ?

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2015, 05:49:04 am
content: Was going to write a long post but I think one phrase will do:Sure it's easy to make multi billion dollar decisions, anyone can!Do I think multi billion dollar companies CEOs should be payed more than professional athletes? yup, so probably they are not being paid enough in comparison.

author: bills
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2015, 06:28:32 am
content: [quoteSure it's easy to make multi billion dollar decisions, anyone can!Really ?

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2015, 06:32:34 am
content: Quote from: bills on August 14, 2015, 06:28:32 amI thought the phrase after that quote would make it clear I was being sarcastic. Otherwise we all be rock starts, professional athletes, genius painters/composers and captains of industry.Edited to fix the mismatched quotes

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2015, 07:33:31 am
content: Quote from: zapta on August 13, 2015, 09:24:07 pmIs that some sort of veiled accusation? If it is I'm pretty certain you're throwing it at the wrong person.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2015, 08:07:22 am
content: Quote from: zapta on August 14, 2015, 04:59:09 amI wonder how long it would be before a capitalist chimes in.Well I don't envy those on high salaries myself. I could get a job with better pay if I wanted to but I'm happy with where I am at the moment.It's good for people to be rewarded for hard work, innovation, skills ect. Indeed putting laws into place which punish people who do well is not good for the economy.On the other hand. Having a few people with a disproportionate share of the wealth is also bad for the economy because they end up taking more than their fair share of resources and make it more difficult for others to to well.

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2015, 09:34:43 am
content: Quote from: Hero999 on August 14, 2015, 08:07:22 amThe problem is to find the right balance between kapitalism and communism.

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2015, 10:08:58 am
content: The simple difference between Capitalism vs Communism if you want it in clear easy to understand terms, think of a pre-school class. There are say, a dozen kids or so, representing society. Money, assets, luxury items, they are the toys for the kids to play with. Capitalism right now, and the wealth inequality right now, would be represented by one child in the class having all of the toys to themselves, and not sharing any of the toys with the rest of the class. You just go look at luxury goods ownership.Communism is where there is a teacher present. Hell, look at the USA, they torture innocent people just for fun and have nobody to tell them that it's wrong.https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/13/hunger-striking-detainee-tests-obamas-will-close-guantanamo/and that is for people who the government itself states it has no interest in. Not criminals, but people 'of no interest to the government'.They don't have a clue that endlessly torturing people which they themselves call innocent is wrong, so what would they know about sharing or other kindergarten concepts of healthy social interaction.But back to wealth inequality, what would YOU do if one kid in the class is hogging all the toys to themselves ?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2015, 11:33:30 am
content: Quote from: TheElectricChicken on August 14, 2015, 10:08:58 amYour example assumes a fixed amount of toys. In reality, new value is created.What matters is not Capitalism vs Communism but freedom vs. oppression. If free people chose to live in a commune and share their assets, it's their privilege. In the same way, if free people chose to throw their money at a successful or a failing CEO, it's their privilege.Think freedom.

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2015, 12:19:38 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on August 14, 2015, 11:33:30 amQuoteNo worker in history and no member of the public has ever been asked to help determine the payrate of any CEO.No Australian has ever been asked to give permission for the government to rule over them, they are not given any options,

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2015, 03:14:46 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 14, 2015, 05:23:31 amSorry, great reward does NOT often come with high performance, high pressure and risk if you are a high performing employee in a multinational corporation.I developed some technology and processes in the late 90's which was key to IBM adding$100 MILLIONto the bottom line in the first year the technology was used. I was rewarded soon after with being sold off to a start-up company funded by venture capitalists, when the IBM Australia CEO told all myself and my colleagues verbatim "You either join the new company or you will be deemed to have resigned from IBM, in which case there will be no redundancy." At the time of the sell off, IBM confiscated about $40,000 of my superannuation retirement funds.IBM did however offer me a 30% discount on a new Aptiva PC in recognition of my 19 years of dedicated work with IBM. Louis Gerstner the then global IBM CEO on the other hand walked out with a $189 million golden handshake for 9 years work.The behaviour of IBM has been summed up, quite accurately, in the brilliant e-bookhttp://www.amazon.com/The-Decline-Fall-IBM-American-ebook/dp/B00KRHWZ22.Gerstner's son died choking on a steak in 2013.

author: ivaylo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2015, 04:09:33 pm
content: Quote from: TheElectricChicken on August 14, 2015, 05:48:42 amOh no, no, they don't need all these people. They are so good at everything they do, that they can do everything themselves singlehandedly. The captains of industry are hiring all of us just to feed us and keep us off the streets, don't you see? They also give to charity a lot. And all of us have an equal chance to join them one day. See, no class envy here...

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2015, 05:19:44 pm
content: http://dilbert.com/strip/2004-01-25http://dilbert.com/strip/2013-07-03http://dilbert.com/strip/2011-08-11Search dilbert for CEO PAY. 67 pages of results.......

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2015, 05:35:03 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on August 14, 2015, 11:33:30 amTo a point that's true but the planet only has finite resources and it's bad if a small number of people to hog most of them.QuoteA small number of people hogging most of the resources is oppressive to the majority.Many oppressive governments have identified themselves as communist but in reality they were capitalist with the government owning all of the resources resulting in repression of the majority and ultimately economic stagnation.When large companies own most of the wealth they can make it very difficult for others to set themselves up in competition and accumulate a reasonable share of the market. They can lobby the government and get laws made in their favour.

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2015, 03:32:25 am
content: Quote from: Hero999 on August 14, 2015, 05:35:03 pmA small number of people hogging most of the resources is oppressive to the majority.Yes, but it's freedom for the little brat who is hogging all the toys. You see that little brat thinks that they are better than everyone else and that really, they are the only person who really matters, so it's about freedom to them too. Like the freedom to slaughter children and babies.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2015, 03:41:52 am
content: Quote from: TheElectricChicken on August 15, 2015, 03:32:25 amYou are thekingof the baffling non-sequitur.

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2015, 03:44:33 am
content: Quote from: c4757p on August 15, 2015, 03:41:52 amWhy thank you I do my best for the little people.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2015, 04:59:00 am
content: Quote from: zapta on August 14, 2015, 11:33:30 amThe ultimate in freedom is anarchy.Is that what you really want?

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2015, 05:05:30 am
content: Quote from: cimmo on August 15, 2015, 04:59:00 amthat is what we have here in australia, $1500 fines for putting the garbage bin out too early or bringing it in too late, kids cannot sit in the front seat of the car. Every brain fart of the dictatorship is immediate law

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2015, 06:02:37 am
content: Quote from: miguelvp on August 14, 2015, 05:49:04 amYou can make a pretty good estimate what a professional athlete adds to the bottom line. They mostly deserve what they get paid from an economic perspective, they don't generally fail up either.

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2015, 09:06:44 am
content: Quote from: Marco on August 15, 2015, 06:02:37 amThey have salary caps in sports and sports are no worse off for it. They should have salary caps in politics and for CEO's.But this can't ever happen in an oppressive dictatorship like USA UK or AU

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2015, 10:00:21 am
content: Quote from: cimmo on August 15, 2015, 04:59:00 amhttp://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/30-appeal-to-extremes

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2015, 11:13:27 am
content: Quote from: zapta on August 15, 2015, 10:00:21 amWhy's it not a fallacy when you do it? I've never got that.

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2015, 01:03:31 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on August 15, 2015, 01:00:13 pmThat is exactly it. reminds me of Savage Garden - Affirmation.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2015, 04:30:42 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on August 15, 2015, 06:02:37 amSame goes with CEOs or do you think the board just blindly sets the price?And professional athletes do fail up more than CEOs in general.That said, you get your prima donnas like in every other field.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2015, 04:55:21 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on August 15, 2015, 01:00:13 pmThe concept of freedom is difficult for some. For them, it's all about personal grid, "What system will get me the most?".Freedom is a core value on its own. Be free and respect the freedom of others.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2015, 05:33:37 pm
content: Quote from: miguelvp on August 15, 2015, 04:30:42 pmShow me the equivalent of advanced metrics in sports which can give statistically significance performance estimates. A handful of CEOs which make it their business to guide companies through reorganizations have track records which allow something close to performance analysis you can use for athletes, but that's an outlier. Even if they make strategy decisions other CEOs in the same market don't and have success with it, it doesn't necessarily mean anything (confirmation bias, until he does it a dozen time he could have been lucky ... the differences between bold and foolhardy can only be determined statistically).QuotePretty much, market conform rates combined with some voodoo and nepotism.QuoteThey might not perform as expected after a transfer but if they fail to perform for a season it will be exceedingly obvious and they won't get a large transfer unless they can otherwise generate profits through marketability (also much easier to judge and measure than CEO performance).Performance metrics are for people on the floor and the field ... not for CEOs.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2015, 05:39:44 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on August 15, 2015, 04:55:21 pmTo paraphrase Sartre, freedom is lack of other people. It's impossible on a limited earth.Everything is a compromise.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2015, 06:07:03 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on August 15, 2015, 05:39:44 pmYou omitted this from my post "Be free and respect the freedom of others."

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2015, 06:20:48 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on August 15, 2015, 06:07:03 pmIt's impossible to be free when you're fenced in. Your freedom to be sovereign on your "property" comes at the cost of my freedom to cross it. One of us has to lose out.Which is okay, we can come up with compromises to limit both my freedom to infringe and the extent to which you can lay claim on the commons. It's all a compromise.

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2015, 06:33:20 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on August 15, 2015, 06:20:48 pmIn france a frenchman once told me they have 'every man's rights' where you can cross any land and there are extra rules like camping or when and how you can light a fire and so on. They are very protective of their beaches. They didn't like the idea of their national treasure Bridget Bardot having a small wall or a personal part of the beach years ago and it had to be removed, and they don't like it when the Saudi king does it either.France is brilliant for so many reasons.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2015, 06:40:03 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on August 15, 2015, 05:33:37 pmIt's really not too hard to find out:https://www.google.com/search?q=how+do+companies+measure+performance+of+ceo&oq=how+do+companies+measure+performance+of+ceo

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2015, 07:12:58 pm
content: Quote from: miguelvp on August 15, 2015, 06:40:03 pmAnd it's mostly a mismatch of financial measures and highly subjective board assessment. The only thing with some reasonable statistics behind it is the performance of given incentive structures, but not the ability of a given CEO to add to the bottom line based on past performance. You can look at an athlete and make a reasonable estimate "this is what it will cost to get him and this will be the likely impact on the bottom line".Fiorina would have washed out of the pros in a single season in sports.

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2015, 08:03:04 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on August 15, 2015, 01:00:13 pmCould you give us a glimpse of your dream and how it would work?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2015, 08:09:33 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on August 15, 2015, 06:20:48 pmIt's a continuum, one can be more free or less free, just like happiness.You aren't trying to pull an ATE, right?http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/30-appeal-to-extremes

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2015, 08:23:36 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on August 15, 2015, 07:12:58 pmCouldn't agree more. While there may be talk of performance related remuneration in the boardroom, the reality of implementation seems a distant dream.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2015, 10:05:51 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on August 15, 2015, 09:47:33 pmEnglish please. No habla Newspeak.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2015, 01:18:39 am
content: The root cause of obscene CEO pay is... wait for it... GREED. Does not matter which way you look at it.

author: bills
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2015, 02:33:35 am
content: Once again."You don't get paid for what you do you get paid for what you know and if you think you are not getting enough.You don't use what you know"

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2015, 02:49:20 am
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on August 16, 2015, 01:18:39 amGreed by whom? A 'free agent' CEO tries to negotiate the best package he can but he certainly can't dictate a specific offer, just like a EE seeking employment. An in place CEO may seek a raise but again the BOD has to approve.I just never was into salary envy, class warfare, or trying to decide what is 'fair' and 'not fair' for others, and who gets to decide which is which.I'm certainly glad I was born in the present era rather then any prior time that I've read about. I'm also glad I have as much personal freedom and choices as I do in the country I was born in. Life is too short to be angry about things one can't control. But then again one can choose to believe what they wish, except for maybe N. Korea.

author: bills
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2015, 03:17:29 am
content: Quote from: bills on August 16, 2015, 02:33:35 amThis is my conservative view I know that in a lot of country's (liberal ,socialist you just don't get it) thats ok we have ways to change ours.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2015, 09:30:15 am
content: So for those who think it's OK for a CEO of a publicly listed company to be paid 100+ times the average salary of his/her underlings, where should it end? 1,000x? 10,000x? Slavery?What has never been explained is how during a worldwide downturn when stock prices were largely stagnating, the board execs' pay was still increasing while everyone else took a cut in real terms. That is not market forces, that is the chief execs going on golfing booze ups with the fund managers, the very fund managers who are "investing" your money in mutual funds and pensions.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2015, 01:46:36 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on August 16, 2015, 11:58:04 amYou are confusing freedom with corruption.As I said, freedom is a strange concept for some people.

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2015, 01:56:11 pm
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on August 16, 2015, 01:18:39 amWho cares? If he makes his shareholders happy, then why not? A lot of people have retirement accounts and mutual funds that depend on companies making profits so they will be able to retire and not have to lose their house and other things.There is not some finite amount of wealth. Just because he got paid a lot doesn't mean he stole it from another person. That's just like stage 1 thinking there.

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2015, 02:22:39 pm
content: Quote from: Stonent on August 16, 2015, 01:56:11 pmEach country has a limited amount of real estate, a finite number of vehicles, a certain number of jet aircraft, a specific weight in gold, a set of Van Gogh paintings and a stash of furbie dolls and so on, every item of 'wealth' has a finite amount and each country has a GDP which is also finite, so how is it possible to add finite amounts and make an infinite total ? It only seems infinite.Inflation is when a few assholes continue to do 'quantitative easing' which is also known as counterfeiting, that is, producing money with nothing at all backing it. This means that you do a simple division of all the wealth in the country divide by all the money in the country. When people create their own money in a bankster bank, they de-value everyone else's money because there is more money chasing the same number of things, so actual prices rise.As for a CEO, he is just taking a larger slice of the national wage pie than he should.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2015, 02:28:24 pm
content: Quote from: Stonent on August 16, 2015, 01:56:11 pmThe point is that there isn't accountability to those who invest in those funds. You only have to look at the dire performance of funds based on stock investments to see that, you might as well put the money under your matress. While the fund managers and boards are pissing away our money, you can be sure that there'll be a nice kickback of one form or another for the fund managers to incentivise them to "invest".

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2015, 02:38:12 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on August 16, 2015, 01:46:36 pmI find it very interesting when so many Americans talk about this 'freedom' thing so passionately and patriotically and yet one out of every four prisoners in the world is an American in an American prison (or jail).You guys seem to have an interesting idea of what 'freedom' actually means."incarceration rate of the United States of America was the highest in the world, at 716 per 100,000 of the national population. While the United States represents about 4.4 percent of the world's population, it houses around 22 percent of the world's prisoners." - wiki

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2015, 03:04:47 pm
content: Quote from: cimmo on August 16, 2015, 02:38:12 pmI don't recall anybody claiming that the US is perfect. We have our share of busybodies and there are quiet a lot of improvements we need to do, freedom wise. For example in the area of victimless crimeshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crimeFreedom is a universal human concept. Nothing 'American' about it. You can pursue it everywhere.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2015, 05:16:16 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on August 15, 2015, 08:09:33 pmMaybe I'm just making a bad assumption ... generally when I hear an American say freedom and respecting freedoms I think they are talking about inalienable and untaxable property rights.Can I respect your freedom while demanding progressive property taxes?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2015, 05:26:35 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on August 16, 2015, 05:16:16 pmSome taxes are necessary to finance the government protecting our freedom, which is it's core mission.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2015, 01:41:11 am
content: That's an evasive answer.Let me try it differently, should government try to promote positive freedoms at the cost of negative freedoms? (Bonus question : do you believe land ownership is a negative freedom?)

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2015, 02:13:52 am
content: Quote from: Marco on August 17, 2015, 01:41:11 amWhat is negative freedom?

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2015, 03:32:33 am
content: First result from google :"Negative liberty is freedom from interference by other people. Negative liberty is primarily concerned with freedom from external restraint and contrasts with positive liberty (the possession of the power and resources to fulfil one's own potential)."

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2015, 04:20:52 am
content: Quote from: Marco on August 17, 2015, 01:41:11 amTrying to answer such a vague question is useless open to misinterpretation. If you have a concrete example I can give you my opinion where it falls on the continuum between extreme oppression and extreme freedom.

author: ivaylo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2015, 07:35:50 am
content: Too many social philosophers here... Think of it this way (an explanation of Sartre for enginees). It is not a one dimensional continuum from absolute oppression to absolute freedom. It's more of a two dimensional thing with my oppression/freedom orthogonal to the oppression/freedom of others. Now, some extremes (even quadrants?) are impossible. Like my absolute freedom can not be achieved at the same time as the absolute freedom of everybody else, it's always a compromise. So, when I become a CEO of a publicly traded company...

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2015, 12:13:23 pm
content: I think it's a disgrace that such a small proportion of people have such a large proportion of the world's smugness and self righteousness...

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2015, 03:06:50 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on August 17, 2015, 07:53:57 am"do you believe land ownership is a negative freedom?" is not a concrete example.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2015, 03:10:59 pm
content: Quote from: Delta on August 17, 2015, 12:13:23 pmDo yo say that governments should impose caps on smugness and self righteousness?I must say, it's very tempting.;-)

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2015, 03:52:39 pm
content: Quote from: Delta on August 17, 2015, 12:13:23 pmYou are so right, an even at rank 44 the UK is still on the "have most" category:https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.htmlBut you are right that within the country we, the US, don't do too good.https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.htmlBut the reason is not the CEOs, it's way more complicated than that, and our poor are way richer than the poor of other countries. That said we do have really poor people living in the US as there are in all of the other countries specially non-nationals.BTW I'm glad that you are on the camp to allow more immigration to the UK to help with the world inequalityWell I'm assuming you are pro-immigration based on your statement, but maybe I'm reading too much into what you said.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2015, 05:23:08 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on August 17, 2015, 03:06:50 pmAll right, take a place where land is limited and there's a shortage of housing, for example in many cities such as London and New York. The problem is rich people buy up most of the apartments, even though they have no intention of living in them or letting them at a reasonable rate. The end result is the average person can no longer afford a home so have to move out of the city.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2015, 09:05:56 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on August 17, 2015, 05:23:08 pmNothing wrong with that. Others don't have to provide us housing at our preferred locations.

author: rx8pilot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2015, 09:45:21 pm
content: Ok, take the 'average worker' engineer and put them in the CEO position.I don't care if they can layout a 30 layer PCB and program a trillions gate FPGA blindfolded - they probably cannot deal with the vision, skills, stress, pressure, timing, of asuccessfulCEO. There are very few people that have the range of skill to do it. Of course there are some that are salesmen that sell themselves as CEO material but generally don't last long, especially in a public company. The good ones have a unique set of skills that the average worker does not and they are responsible for $billions.Yes, I would like to see a much bigger hammer for those that fail, cheat, or steal but that is different from a blanket comaplaint about how much CEO's make relative to the workers. I have been in the entertainment biz for decades. The on-set crew works ridiculously hard and most of the them are quite sharp. They do not make $20mil per movie like the A-list actors because they cant act. The actors literally pretend and 'make believe' for a living working fewer hours than anyone. But....they are the glue that binds the whole project together and create the demand that justifies the paycheck.

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2015, 07:56:46 am
content: Quote from: rx8pilot on August 17, 2015, 09:45:21 pmQuit pretending they have more skills than some super-mom. They don't, they're just greedy liars who rob everyone for themselves and a few select friends, and if they have to throw people into the machinery, kill thousands by storing dangerous goods at a port, or sack everyone and move to a more exploitable location, they do. They're same as serial killers. No morals half the time.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2015, 08:33:55 am
content: In our country, such telecom CEO was payed a huge amount also, but he was worth it , because together with his political party he made entrepreneurship more difficult, made new competition impossible, and maintained oligopoly in the sector.Worth it for the company and the shareholders, not for the millions of people who want better service and lower prices.The only reason why I am against those wages, is that there's always a lot of back-room things going on, hidden contracts, covered-up actions, reward-positions, relationship swap deals etc.No one is worth that much when everything is running decently.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2015, 09:06:57 am
content: Quote from: TheElectricChicken on August 18, 2015, 07:56:46 am"Why CEOs are 4X more likely to be psychopaths":http://www.businessinsider.com.au/psychopath-jon-ronson-ceo-traits-2015-5"Why a Disproportionate Number of CEOs Are Psychopaths":http://www.payscale.com/career-news/2015/04/why-a-disproportionate-number-of-ceos-are-psychopathsFrom the second website:1. They understand how to use people for the most gain.Psychopaths have a tendency to understand the assets that individuals bring to the table. They can sum people up easily in terms of their strengths, their value, easily detaching from more nuanced or interpersonal aspects of their character. Psychopaths know how to boil someone down to their bare bones value – and that makes them "good managers," at least as far as the bottom line is concerned, because they can quickly assess someone's most valuable assets and capitalize on those traits.2. They're master manipulators.Psychopaths are cunning, and they use their manipulation skills to get people to do things they might not normally do. They use charm at first, which can be very hard to see through, and then guilt, or even force, to get people to act the way they want them to. These traits might help CEOs to get their jobs in the first place, and they certainly can use these traits to help keep them.3. They think they're special.An inflated sense of self-worth is a primary feature of psychopathy. These people often possess a grand view of their talents and potential, and this kind of confidence might help propel them into leadership positions. Additionally, willingness to take calculated risks is a very common trait of CEOs when compared with non-CEO executives – and confidence helps psychopaths hit that mark.4. Stoic, emotional self-control helps them thrive.An ability to stay calm and emotionally level under pressure is a helpful trait for CEOs. Pressure doesn't impact psychopaths the way it does others. Perhaps it's because they lack the empathy, or perhaps it's because of their lack of remorse and guilt; either way, psychopaths stay calm even when most everyone else falls apart. And, that makes them stand out in the business world.

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2015, 09:53:44 am
content: Quote from: cimmo on August 18, 2015, 09:06:57 am"Why CEOs are 4X more likely to be psychopaths":"Why a Disproportionate Number of CEOs Are Psychopaths":Exactly my point. They'll happily kill people in Bhopal or with roundup or DDT or whatever it takes to make a few extra sense. That is WHY they have to be limited or stopped. Period. Because they are incapable of limiting themselves. The minute you leave them to their own devices in a non communist/soviet/socialist/whatever, they're turning 8 year olds into dogfood. Literally. Would they take too much of the cake than is their share ? well Duh !

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2015, 11:33:04 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on August 18, 2015, 08:02:23 amMojo Chan, you are confusing between owning a property and renting somebody else's property.As for taxes, if the government takes excessive taxes, take your complain to the government.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2015, 02:05:06 pm
content: Quote from: rx8pilot on August 17, 2015, 09:45:21 pmSame with the live music industry. Classic example...The Funk Brothers, the most widely recorded musicians in history. The Funk Brothers have played on more number-one hits than the Beatles, Elvis Presley, the Rolling Stones and the Beach Boys combined. Their music has been heard by more people than anyone else ever. But they were not paid much. Without the talents of the Funk Brothers, a lot of big names would never have become stars.You will find many smart engineers have intelligence and vision to be a CEO, but they lack the ego, self promotion, marketing and sales skills and are too honest. They don't talk enoughand are too hard working to "delegate" their work to others.I think the excuse that "talented" CEO's are worth their $10 million salary is complete.This Australian government employee is on about 10 times the Prime Minister's salary...http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-11/critics-question-australia-post-ceos-multi-million-dollar-salary/5514682.Australia Post cost me $100,000 because they failed to deliver a registered letter within a reasonable time. The fools literally lost some irreplaceable cargo of mine, with some priceless family items in it. I would not even trust Australia Post to run a barbecue without totally f***ing it up.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2015, 02:55:23 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on August 18, 2015, 02:31:19 pmMojo Chan, respect from you is very low on my priority list.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2015, 03:51:29 pm
content: (source:http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eggh45jef/highest-paid-bosses/)So let us take the current top CEO and how his silver spoon helped him reach that goal:http://www.cwhonors.org/archives/histories/Hammergren.pdfHard work, focus and vision more than anything else. And even if he started college with the purpose of being an engineer, he drifted into marketing/business while in college.Edit:2nd top CEOhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_LaurenEdit:3rd one on the list, I start to see a pattern of silver spoons:http://urbanland.uli.org/capital-markets/michael-d-fascitelli-markets-success-giving-back/Edit:4th one:http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/11/21/rich-kinders-energy-kingdom/QuoteAnyways, I'm done looking for CEOs origins you can do the remaining ones if you have the time.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2015, 04:44:20 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on August 18, 2015, 03:56:52 pmI don't think you are right at all, actually very extreme left.I answered your questions but you keep ignoring anything that doesn't fit your socialist dogma.My advice to you is to go out and enjoy your own life instead of dictating to other people how they should live their own. Give it a try, you may even find life somewhat enjoyable.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2015, 04:59:01 pm
content: Quote from: AcHmed99 link=topic=52295.msg734281#msg734281Hmm, the article talks of 10 not 20 and it only shows 4 and those 4 have inherited the whole business founded by their father or grandfather.It's not like you could inherit being the CEO of a company when your parents didn't own controlling shares of it.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2015, 05:24:44 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on August 17, 2015, 09:05:56 pmI didn't say they should.My point is that the free market doesn't always allocate resources efficiently, resulting in waste and having a large equality gap is detrimental to the economy and society as a whole.If the super rich buy up all the property in a city and rents rise to astronomical levels, often leaving a large number of properties empty (as in London). The ordinary people will move out and will have to commute to work which will increase traffic congestion, pollution and make it more difficult for employers to recruit.One solution is to raise taxes on the most expensive properties. This doesn't reduce anyone's freedom. It just means those who can afford to pay more do.

author: rx8pilot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2015, 05:47:50 pm
content: Quote from: AcHmed99 on August 18, 2015, 02:25:20 pmWhere would all the support people be if there were no actors? The ones that are the most unique in some way get the most money and work the least. Actors are cast - they are not dictators. The ones that are paid $20M per picture are invited and in some cases begged to take the money.In the case of the ridiculously paid CEO scenario - they did not appoint themselves. They had to be chosen be a group. That group decided that it makes business sense to spend a giant pile of cash to get the skills that there chosen CEO has. If the chosen CEO is being offered $20M in cash and another $50M in performance based time released stocks - the board has calculated that this person can and will lead the company to earn at least 10x that value but probably way more.In general terms, there is nothing criminal. If you want to make $70M, you will not do it sitting at a bench designing circuits. There are 10's of thousands of engineers all over the world and the classic supply and demand system is at play. If you want to be an executive of a very large corporation you have to take a totally different path than just whining about how much someone else earns.You have to risk it all and bust your ass to start a new and successful business - appoint yourself CEO and pay yourself whatever the company can afford.You can get a couple of degrees in various business disciplines, bust your ass, build some serious political skills and convince the world you are a smart leader that can take an idea and develop a team to monetize that idea.You can weasel your way into a start-up that gets a pile of VC cash, skim it for yourself and get fired. In the end you still have a few million, a Ferrari, but little chance of ever doing it again.This could go on and on. Compensation will never be based on hourly effort, physical effort, or IQ points. No one will get a raise because they whine about how unfair the CEO makes. You will get a raise when you prove that you are the dominant reason the company increased its GP by $100M last year and you are the only person around that can do it again. If you think you have done that already, but were not recognized - leave and start your own company. Appoint yourself CEO and go shopping for yachts, jets, and super cars. It's easy and CEO's are monkey's right.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2015, 06:46:53 pm
content: Quote from: cimmo on August 18, 2015, 09:06:57 amTake the absolute inverse of a psychopath, and you have the biggest looser ever.Those guys don't become/stay CEO, they're eaten up after some weeks.No wonder there's a more than average number of more-than-average-psychopaths between the CEO's.But also in Olympic/TV Sports, project leaders, music/singers (try to work for Thom Yorke, Bono, Madonna,..)In short, everything that needs some real balls or real vagina to get there.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2015, 06:51:59 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on August 18, 2015, 05:24:44 pmThe goal of freedom is not efficiency. The goal of freedom is to be free. It's a core value, axiom.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2015, 06:56:33 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on August 18, 2015, 04:44:20 pmZapta, that moral-high troll just wanted to make a sentence with the new hipster word.Last time it was a sentence with micro-agression, this time it's something with positive-freedom.He's payed for trolling like that, and payed for not admit that.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2015, 06:58:56 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on August 18, 2015, 06:51:59 pmDon't talk about freedom with a leftist. It will be misunderstood.For them it means free of ownership-worries, freedom to steal maker's money, the freedom to completely fuckup and blame others.The freedom to undermine terms, too, till they mean nothing.

author: bills
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2015, 07:17:52 pm
content: Quote from: Galenbo on August 18, 2015, 06:58:56 pmI agree 110% It is almost impossible to debate some lefty's.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2015, 07:21:01 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on August 18, 2015, 06:51:59 pmI agree. People should have the freedom to own/rent property in a location near to where they work, at a price they can afford.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2015, 07:33:42 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on August 18, 2015, 07:21:01 pmThat's a beautiful quote, but then the details kick in.The moral-high comes around, wants immediately a full-luxuary appartment, cleaning of the stairs included, with the most expensive elevator.For a price that is "affordable" after working a maximum of 35 hours a week in a non-stressing planned environment, and after going 4 times a year on vacation.And it will never be enough, because he wants more than the neighbour.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2015, 07:45:10 pm
content: Quote from: Galenbo on August 18, 2015, 07:33:42 pmNope, a basic apartment, just comfortable enough to get by.If you can afford a luxury apartment then good for you.In London it's especially bad as the super rich are buying apartments and are not even living in them or letting them out, they're sitting there empty! Of course they're free to do so, at the expense of the freedom of others!

author: ivaylo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2015, 08:00:26 pm
content: QuoteYup, hard to bear, so many communists here...Quote from: TheElectricChicken on August 18, 2015, 07:56:46 amHere is an example closer to home. Who is/was a better CEO of Hewlett-Packard? Carly Fiorina or Meg Whitman? And how were/are they compared with Hewlett and Packard? Because both of Carly and Meg preside(d) over HP at times when CEO pay relative to everybody else was an order of magnitude higher than Hewlett and Packard times. They didn't determine their salaries, but that doesn't make the phenomenon less absurd. Yeah I know, freedom, freedom, blah, blah, freedom, blah...

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2015, 10:19:11 pm
content: Quote from: bills on August 18, 2015, 07:17:52 pmIt's impossible to debate with extremists, whether they be right/left wing, religious, anarchist etc.The problem is gross inequality and those at the bottom not being given the opportunity/freedom to work hard rise to the top - there's a huge pool of talent being wasted. Of course if someone is lazy they should not be entitled to anything.Anyway, I've derailed the thread somewhat, back to the original topic. Some people will always get paid more than others. There will be those at the top and bottom. The idea of imposing any kind of pay cap is totally retarded. Of course any organisation should have the right to pay their CEO as much as they like. As long as they pay their fair share of taxes, which should be spent on police, health, education, roads etc. as well as providing opportunities (not handouts) to those who are not so well off.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2015, 12:28:15 am
content: Quote from: Hero999 on August 18, 2015, 07:21:01 pmThat's simple, don't work in places you can't afford to live.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2015, 10:37:13 am
content: Quote from: Hero999 on August 18, 2015, 07:45:10 pmYou failed to understand the message.Who will determine "basic" "just" "comfortable" "enough" and "get by" ?I do not want an answer, just want you to think about the possibilities.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2015, 10:40:50 am
content: Quote from: zapta on August 19, 2015, 12:28:15 amTrue.There's also the fact that Wage depends on region.In my country, you get payed nearly 1000 euro more in one region then in the other, 50 kilometers away.The first is near the airport, they have to raise the wages to attract people to work there.It can also be seen as a compensation for traffic or more expensive housing.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2015, 11:07:09 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on August 19, 2015, 10:52:42 amI prefer to not look at these guy's personal practice, his personal theorizing and his personal scenarios.The comments he left are just a bait for another cheap pol-co rant and the accompanied trolling.Quote from: mojo-chan on August 19, 2015, 10:52:42 amThese pol-co's don't give a fck about the guys starving in the streets, but are always ready to use them as an example, exploit them, to improve their own situation.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2015, 12:36:27 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on August 18, 2015, 05:24:44 pmSounds like London has the same problem we do in Melbourne... Chinese buyers. It is one of a number of reason why many young Australian families cannot afford to put a roof over their heads near where they work. I don't blame Chinese buyers or greedy investors. 100% of the blame is on our federal politicians who have vested interests in high property prices and high rents. Many of our top politicians have demonstrated they are inept and out of touch with ordinary Australians, and guess what... they don't care.CEO's and politicians are probably bred from the same stock. The similarities between the two are striking.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2015, 02:57:59 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on August 19, 2015, 12:28:15 amSo much for supporting freedom.Quote from: Galenbo on August 19, 2015, 10:40:50 amThat's true in the UK too. The same job in London pays more than any other city but the extra wages still don't compensate for the higher rent. This has had a knock on effect to everywhere within 100 miles of London. Many people commute to London because they can't get a job locally but the extra money rarely covers the cost and time spent travelling.Quote from: VK3DRB on August 19, 2015, 12:36:27 pmI suspect it's similar in cities the world over.At least in large countries like the US and Australia, there's plenty of cheap land outside of the cities. On a tiny island, such as the UK, land is expensive everywhere and the planning laws are strict.

author: TheElectricChicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2015, 03:51:41 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on August 19, 2015, 02:57:59 pmIn australia in the last 5 or so years, cheap land has become much more scarce. Same reason as the UK. Counterfeiting.Or, when you lobby the politicians and make it legal (not in iceland that's for sure, where they jailed the banksters) it's called 'quantitative easing' and 'creating electronic debt at the touch of a key in bank accounts]'Simple formula at work here, whether the banks simply create money by tapping on keys and creating balances in accounts OR you just use a printer and print more money, it's the same result. Same amount of land, and everything else, being chased by more and more dollars. Result of intense competing dollars is the prices of land rise until the monetary bubble bursts.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2015, 04:41:08 pm
content: Quote from: Galenbo on August 18, 2015, 06:58:56 pmTo be fair that's true of both left and right extremes. Just look at how the Christian right redefines persecution to mean "they won't let me persecute someone."

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2015, 05:22:45 pm
content: Quote from: TheElectricChicken on August 19, 2015, 03:51:41 pmShortage of land or shortage of land approved by the government for building? It's not the same.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2015, 05:30:43 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on August 19, 2015, 05:22:45 pmHere a bit of both, though the central government is now clamping down on the more NIMBYish local councils. But just total lack of land is a major problem, we have about a fifth the population of the US but only one seventy fourth of the land.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2015, 05:48:31 pm
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on August 19, 2015, 05:30:43 pmIt your island is getting too crowded it may be a good time to to re-examine how many foreigners you let in.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2015, 06:18:27 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on August 19, 2015, 05:48:31 pmTo be fair on that one we do have about the same amount of people living and working abroad. And I really can't say anything about foreigners not belonging here or a lot of my familly would have to bugger off.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2015, 06:21:28 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on August 19, 2015, 05:48:31 pmWe can't do anything about that because when we joined the EU we agreed to allow anyone from any member state in.We could of course leave the EU but we'd lose a lot of trade with Europe which benefits our economy greatly.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2015, 08:33:53 pm
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on August 19, 2015, 06:18:27 pmWith that a unified EU view of the world, if that corner of the EU is too crowded just move another one. That's what we do here.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2015, 09:14:58 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on August 19, 2015, 08:33:53 pmI think that reply was meant for Hero999 lol. I have views on the subject but for the above stated reasons I also know I am biased in favour of skilled immigrants and refugees/genuine asylum seekers and the like. As much as I may be oversensitive regarding jingoism I don't count a sensible discussion about immigration as an exammple of that.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2015, 09:52:51 am
content: Quote from: Hero999 on August 19, 2015, 06:21:28 pmSays the promo campaign of the EU.Stay in, we'll give you "benefits"

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2015, 09:57:00 am
content: Quote from: zapta on August 19, 2015, 08:33:53 pmBased on those numbers, statists could conclude overpopulation is the big solution.Including streets and services, Monaco has 8m x 8m for each resident, crime is very low and everyone is weathy, good educated and healthy.:-)

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2015, 10:59:52 am
content: I wonder how many of these overpaid CEO's of American multinationals or Australian big business do unpaid volunteering or charity work.I know one bloke who is the head of a major hospital department, and is one of the top experts in the world in his field. He also runs his own private practice, where on operations alone, he has earned about $36 million. And he is only about 50 years old. This guy knows his stuff, and is like the best electronic engineer but is paid much much more of course than someone who designs circuits or writes code. He donates 2 days a week at the hospital with his expertise - pro bono.He is not a CEO, but he is probably one of the few who are worth his money. He even shouts me a drink when I see him. His contribution to the betterment of people's lives leave the politicians and their dodgy parties here for dead.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2015, 01:02:20 pm
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on August 20, 2015, 10:59:52 amCharity work is highly recommended to those who chase a steep career.A two to tree years pause, working for free is seen as a big leading card on the CV of the international MBA guy.In detail, they end up in a not-so-transparent NGO in Afrika, or an independent bank-sponsored-project in development countries.I guess they need ambitious people there for their "business", and those who are ready to take part in EVEN THAT, are considered "thrustworthy" afterwards.But I'm there's a minority that genuinely does it with all their heart.