Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sure, though the suggestion was also to limit pay as multiplies of certain salaries within the firm too.

And it's not just banks Stevo.

The rules around bonuses as a max multiple of the base have definitely put a dampener on pay on the continent. Not massive, but material.

After all, base salary euros are worth more than bonus euros.

Take your point although I thought you were coming at it from the point of view of your sector, as in your post above you referred specifically to 'City bonuses'.

Agree that a base pay Euro is worth more than a bonus Euro - the former is pensionable for a start.

The multiple of salary point is something I may have to look at among other things as part of the planning I mentioned recently. The other fun one is the Labour idea of giving 10% of the equity of certain companies to 'the workers'.

I take less issue with the final proposal; what's your criticism of it?

And to be clear, when I mean the City I guess I mean all of FS, not just banking.

For starters:
- Giving equity to employees should be a matter for companies, not the government.
- Likely unenforceable on overseas owned Groups, partnerships etc. Could be tricky for small private companies and those where the shareholding/balance of control is critical. So inherently unfair for UK listed companies and even Labour privately recognise there is major execution risk involved.
- Probably avoidable for many and likely to drive dysfunctional behaviour such as de-listing or putting an overseas parent company in place etc.
- Unlikely to make workers better off as there can be compensating adjustments elsewhere.
- It's a tax in disguise as any dividends over a certain threshold goes to the government.

OK so point 1) - meh. Point of principle as far as I am concerned - none of the governments business for outside of the public sector.
point 2) is that not a question of how well the law is constructed? They can construct the law as well as they like but how do you think they will enforce this on a company not subject to UK law? If for example the law says that a US company has to give away 10% of its shares in itself - no chance. Similarly, if they ask the same US company to give away 10% of shares in its UK subsidiary - no chance there either.
point 3) yes could be trickier for smaller companies but again, is its effectiveness not in how it's drafted rather than the principle itself? How well it is drafted could determine how small companies deal with it. However larger companies could well take the sort of actions I mentioned above to put the shareholder outside of UK law.
point 4) again, depends on execution but yes I see your point
point 5) I don't get this; someone somewhere is paying the dividend. Surely spreading it out over the workforce merely reduces the tax bill means less dividend is hitting the threshold? No - the way it is drafted means the workforce take a certain amount and presumably get taxed on it as individuals pay tax on dividends. The entire amount over a threshold per employee goes to the govt as I read. A new tax in disguise.

I think having some kind of representation from the workers on how firms are run is in principle, a good thing. I also see no issue with workers being able to have a say in how the profits of the firm are distributed. Having dealt with France for many years and the issues with worker representation and compulsory profit sharing, it is not a good thing in practice overall - IMO.

rick_chasey

Given the French earn more per hour worked I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss.

Existentially, what is the point of work, right?

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Given the French earn more per hour worked I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss.

Existentially, what is the point of work, right?

That is in spite of, rather than because of. Try managing a French business and you would understand the point. We would have invested more than we currently done have in France if it was not for the issues we face on 'workers representation' etc.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Given the French earn more per hour worked I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss.

Existentially, what is the point of work, right?

That is in spite of, rather than because of. Try managing a French business and you would understand the point. We would have invested more than we currently done have in France if it was not for the issues we face on 'workers representation' etc.

There is a convincing argument that the slow down in productivity since the ‘80s is partly a result of the lack of labour leverage.

There’s a balance and if you look at things like the ratio of top pay vs bottom pay or average pay, it’s not too difficult to conclude the balance has shifted too far.

*Everything* is skewed in favour of the top end and long term that’s not great.

The traction that labour get with these does point to a recognition that that balance isn’t there.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Given the French earn more per hour worked I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss.

Existentially, what is the point of work, right?

That is in spite of, rather than because of. Try managing a French business and you would understand the point. We would have invested more than we currently done have in France if it was not for the issues we face on 'workers representation' etc.

There is a convincing argument that the slow down in productivity since the ‘80s is partly a result of the lack of labour leverage.

There’s a balance and if you look at things like the ratio of top pay vs bottom pay or average pay, it’s not too difficult to conclude the balance has shifted too far.

*Everything* is skewed in favour of the top end and long term that’s not great.

The traction that labour get with these does point to a recognition that that balance isn’t there.

Evidence please?

There are two points at play here:-
1. Shares as a way of giving the workers more reward - you conceded above that was likely not to be the case as companies will probably reduce other parts of the compensation package.
2. Worker representation on running a company. These are the same workers who as an electorate you think are generally not capable of making informed decisions on the EU, so not sure how much value they will add to running a complex multinational enterprise?

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Given the French earn more per hour worked I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss.

Existentially, what is the point of work, right?

That is in spite of, rather than because of. Try managing a French business and you would understand the point. We would have invested more than we currently done have in France if it was not for the issues we face on 'workers representation' etc.

There is a convincing argument that the slow down in productivity since the ‘80s is partly a result of the lack of labour leverage.

There’s a balance and if you look at things like the ratio of top pay vs bottom pay or average pay, it’s not too difficult to conclude the balance has shifted too far.

*Everything* is skewed in favour of the top end and long term that’s not great.

The traction that labour get with these does point to a recognition that that balance isn’t there.

Evidence please?

There are two points at play here:-
1. Shares as a way of giving the workers more reward - you conceded above that was likely not to be the case as companies will probably reduce other parts of the compensation package.
2. Worker representation on running a company. These are the same workers who as an electorate you think are generally not capable of making informed decisions on the EU, so not sure how much value they will add to running a complex multinational enterprise?

I’m not interested in the bonus chat as we agree.

Re worker representation; the people who work at a firm are running it day to day, wouldn’t you say?

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Given the French earn more per hour worked I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss.

Existentially, what is the point of work, right?

That is in spite of, rather than because of. Try managing a French business and you would understand the point. We would have invested more than we currently done have in France if it was not for the issues we face on 'workers representation' etc.

There is a convincing argument that the slow down in productivity since the ‘80s is partly a result of the lack of labour leverage.

There’s a balance and if you look at things like the ratio of top pay vs bottom pay or average pay, it’s not too difficult to conclude the balance has shifted too far.

*Everything* is skewed in favour of the top end and long term that’s not great.

The traction that labour get with these does point to a recognition that that balance isn’t there.

Evidence please?

There are two points at play here:-
1. Shares as a way of giving the workers more reward - you conceded above that was likely not to be the case as companies will probably reduce other parts of the compensation package.
2. Worker representation on running a company. These are the same workers who as an electorate you think are generally not capable of making informed decisions on the EU, so not sure how much value they will add to running a complex multinational enterprise?

I’m not interested in the bonus chat as we agree.

Re worker representation; the people who work at a firm are running it day to day, wouldn’t you say?

Clearly there are workers of different abilities...the average one will not add much.

The average worker isnt really interested in the running of the company. In our French op, the interest only extends as far as considering whether what is being proposed will make the better off or not. Apart from the odd union/leftie type with an axe to grind.

rick_chasey

Yeah I see absolutely no reason for forcing firms to come to a balance between paying their staff and profits, that's where I'm coming from.

I absolutely see the need to incentivise investors to part with their cash and I see no benefit from labour having so much power that businesses are run into the ground.

If you look at the breakdown of where earnings have increased in the UK, it's almost exclusively for capital owners. Surely you want a balance between that and productivity? The argument I find convincing goes that as labour powers have been eroded and the threat of communism disappeared, there was no incentive for businesses to reward labour in the same way, and so all gains have been passed off to investors at the expense of labour.

What's quite funny is when you look at firms where the talent is unusually important, this balance is more quickly struck. A great example are investment banks, who continue to pay their staff incredibly well (as the limited supply of people able and willing to work in them is limited), despite weak performance for their shareholders. It absolutely can be done. But the labour in those firms is much more organised and has much more power; "don't pay me, I'll leave".

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yeah I see absolutely no reason for forcing firms to come to a balance between paying their staff and profits, that's where I'm coming from.

I absolutely see the need to incentivise investors to part with their cash and I see no benefit from labour having so much power that businesses are run into the ground.

If you look at the breakdown of where earnings have increased in the UK, it's almost exclusively for capital owners. Surely you want a balance between that and productivity? The argument I find convincing goes that as labour powers have been eroded and the threat of communism disappeared, there was no incentive for businesses to reward labour in the same way, and so all gains have been passed off to investors at the expense of labour.

What's quite funny is when you look at firms where the talent is unusually important, this balance is more quickly struck. A great example are investment banks, who continue to pay their staff incredibly well (as the limited supply of people able and willing to work in them is limited), despite weak performance for their shareholders. It absolutely can be done. But the labour in those firms is much more organised and has much more power; "don't pay me, I'll leave".

As always I will advise minimising the role of the state and suggest scrapping WTC

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

As always I will advise minimising the role of the state and suggest scrapping WTC

Unfortunate acronym on today of all days....!

Didn't universal credit already scrap that? I don't know much about it - is it basically a state subsidy for low paid people?

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yeah I see absolutely no reason for forcing firms to come to a balance between paying their staff and profits, that's where I'm coming from.

I absolutely see the need to incentivise investors to part with their cash and I see no benefit from labour having so much power that businesses are run into the ground.

If you look at the breakdown of where earnings have increased in the UK, it's almost exclusively for capital owners. Surely you want a balance between that and productivity? The argument I find convincing goes that as labour powers have been eroded and the threat of communism disappeared, there was no incentive for businesses to reward labour in the same way, and so all gains have been passed off to investors at the expense of labour.

What's quite funny is when you look at firms where the talent is unusually important, this balance is more quickly struck. A great example are investment banks, who continue to pay their staff incredibly well (as the limited supply of people able and willing to work in them is limited), despite weak performance for their shareholders. It absolutely can be done. But the labour in those firms is much more organised and has much more power; "don't pay me, I'll leave".

You should have a look at this.

https://www.gov.uk/tax-employee-share-schemes

There are already a few schemes whereby employers can offer employees shares, with tax advantages. I've only experience of these from an SME/professional services perspective, but in general I think the value of these schemes to the employer is in giving employees a wider perspective on how their actions affect the performance of the business and in turn their remuneration.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

As always I will advise minimising the role of the state and suggest scrapping WTC

Unfortunate acronym on today of all days....!

Didn't universal credit already scrap that? I don't know much about it - is it basically a state subsidy for low paid people?

or a state subsidy to allow employers to pay people less

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

As always I will advise minimising the role of the state and suggest scrapping WTC

Unfortunate acronym on today of all days....!

Didn't universal credit already scrap that? I don't know much about it - is it basically a state subsidy for low paid people?

or a state subsidy to allow employers to pay people less

That's what it seems to have become. The question is: if a particular business model relies on that subsidy to be viable, what happens when it is taken away? If it means we have to pay a bit more for the deliveries of our online purchases that's one thing, but if it just dumps a load of people on JSA, then it hasn't achieved much.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

As always I will advise minimising the role of the state and suggest scrapping WTC

Unfortunate acronym on today of all days....!

Didn't universal credit already scrap that? I don't know much about it - is it basically a state subsidy for low paid people?

or a state subsidy to allow employers to pay people less

That's what it seems to have become. The question is: if a particular business model relies on that subsidy to be viable, what happens when it is taken away? If it means we have to pay a bit more for the deliveries of our online purchases that's one thing, but if it just dumps a load of people on JSA, then it hasn't achieved much.

Short term / long term effects.

If we're pro-markets, and I am, then there is something to be said for getting rid of zombie firms that only survive on state handouts.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

As always I will advise minimising the role of the state and suggest scrapping WTC

Unfortunate acronym on today of all days....!

Didn't universal credit already scrap that? I don't know much about it - is it basically a state subsidy for low paid people?

or a state subsidy to allow employers to pay people less

That's what it seems to have become. The question is: if a particular business model relies on that subsidy to be viable, what happens when it is taken away? If it means we have to pay a bit more for the deliveries of our online purchases that's one thing, but if it just dumps a load of people on JSA, then it hasn't achieved much.

Short term / long term effects.

If we're pro-markets, and I am, then there is something to be said for getting rid of zombie firms that only survive on state handouts.

Sure, but if those zombie firms are, say, staffing the local care home...

rick_chasey

Yeah sure, of course; though if the private shareholders are making outsized returns....but anyway, the care industry is a whole other can of worms. My own experience is quite eye opening, to say the least.


On a tangent; how many people do you think made more money on paper through their house price increasing than they did working? I don't know the answer.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yeah sure, of course; though if the private shareholders are making outsized returns....but anyway, the care industry is a whole other can of worms. My own experience is quite eye opening, to say the least.


On a tangent; how many people do you think made more money on paper through their house price increasing than they did working? I don't know the answer.

I was thinking more of tesco and Macdonalds being subsidised by the state.

Most people's houses will reflect their earnings so I would think people making more on their house price increase will be the exception.

A stat I saw the other day was that house prices are 8 times people's earnings which sounds about right.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yeah sure, of course; though if the private shareholders are making outsized returns....but anyway, the care industry is a whole other can of worms. My own experience is quite eye opening, to say the least.


On a tangent; how many people do you think made more money on paper through their house price increasing than they did working? I don't know the answer.

In the last year or so in London? Not so many, but a few years back, lots and lots.

rolf_f

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yeah sure, of course; though if the private shareholders are making outsized returns....but anyway, the care industry is a whole other can of worms. My own experience is quite eye opening, to say the least.


On a tangent; how many people do you think made more money on paper through their house price increasing than they did working? I don't know the answer.

I was thinking more of tesco and Macdonalds being subsidised by the state.

Most people's houses will reflect their earnings so I would think people making more on their house price increase will be the exception.

A stat I saw the other day was that house prices are 8 times people's earnings which sounds about right.

Ahhh, I remember the good old days when a mortgage was 3.5 times your earnings.

surrey_commuter

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yeah sure, of course; though if the private shareholders are making outsized returns....but anyway, the care industry is a whole other can of worms. My own experience is quite eye opening, to say the least.


On a tangent; how many people do you think made more money on paper through their house price increasing than they did working? I don't know the answer.

I was thinking more of tesco and Macdonalds being subsidised by the state.

Most people's houses will reflect their earnings so I would think people making more on their house price increase will be the exception.

A stat I saw the other day was that house prices are 8 times people's earnings which sounds about right.

Ahhh, I remember the good old days when a mortgage was 3.5 times your earnings.

still is - there is a lot of equity being recycled

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I was thinking more of tesco and Macdonalds being subsidised by the state

I know you were; I was just making the point that some underpaid/subsidised jobs are rather more necessary than others. It is not necessarily the case that a viable business can be made out of providing what many would see as an essential service. Does that mean the service shouldn't be provided?

rolf_f

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yeah sure, of course; though if the private shareholders are making outsized returns....but anyway, the care industry is a whole other can of worms. My own experience is quite eye opening, to say the least.


On a tangent; how many people do you think made more money on paper through their house price increasing than they did working? I don't know the answer.

I was thinking more of tesco and Macdonalds being subsidised by the state.

Most people's houses will reflect their earnings so I would think people making more on their house price increase will be the exception.

A stat I saw the other day was that house prices are 8 times people's earnings which sounds about right.

Ahhh, I remember the good old days when a mortgage was 3.5 times your earnings.

still is - there is a lot of equity being recycled

Ahhh, I remember the good old days when a mortgage was 3.5 times your earnings plus a 10 percent deposit.

rjsterry

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yeah sure, of course; though if the private shareholders are making outsized returns....but anyway, the care industry is a whole other can of worms. My own experience is quite eye opening, to say the least.


On a tangent; how many people do you think made more money on paper through their house price increasing than they did working? I don't know the answer.

I was thinking more of tesco and Macdonalds being subsidised by the state.

Most people's houses will reflect their earnings so I would think people making more on their house price increase will be the exception.

A stat I saw the other day was that house prices are 8 times people's earnings which sounds about right.

Ahhh, I remember the good old days when a mortgage was 3.5 times your earnings.

still is - there is a lot of equity being recycled

Ahhh, I remember the good old days when a mortgage was 3.5 times your earnings plus a 10 percent deposit.

Not sure that has changed much either. Person buys flat for £130K in 2003 having borrowed £117K. 5 years later they have paid off £15K of borrowing and sell for £170K. They now have a £68K deposit to buy a small 2-bed house for £200K, borrowing the other £132K, and their salary only needs to have risen by £5K in that period.

pblakeney

Try that for a 1st time buyer in 2019.

Edit - Was aimed at the London centric.

kingstongraham

PBlakeney wrote:

Try that for a 1st time buyer in 2019.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-fo ... 70683.html

rjsterry

PBlakeney wrote:

Try that for a 1st time buyer in 2019.

The starting salary in that example would be about £33K. Above average for a single salary, but for two earnings, hardly the super-rich.

The point was more that people aren't borrowing as much as the house prices might suggest.

pblakeney

KingstonGraham wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Try that for a 1st time buyer in 2019.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-fo ... 70683.html

I very much know this.
Try telling the London centric to move though.

pblakeney

rjsterry wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Try that for a 1st time buyer in 2019.

The starting salary in that example would be about £33K. Above average for a single salary, but for two earnings, hardly the super-rich.

The point was more that people aren't borrowing as much as the house prices might suggest.

Again, you are not going to get much in London for £130k.

rolf_f

rjsterry wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yeah sure, of course; though if the private shareholders are making outsized returns....but anyway, the care industry is a whole other can of worms. My own experience is quite eye opening, to say the least.


On a tangent; how many people do you think made more money on paper through their house price increasing than they did working? I don't know the answer.

I was thinking more of tesco and Macdonalds being subsidised by the state.

Most people's houses will reflect their earnings so I would think people making more on their house price increase will be the exception.

A stat I saw the other day was that house prices are 8 times people's earnings which sounds about right.

Ahhh, I remember the good old days when a mortgage was 3.5 times your earnings.

still is - there is a lot of equity being recycled

Ahhh, I remember the good old days when a mortgage was 3.5 times your earnings plus a 10 percent deposit.

Not sure that has changed much either. Person buys flat for £130K in 2003 having borrowed £117K. 5 years later they have paid off £15K of borrowing and sell for £170K. They now have a £68K deposit to buy a small 2-bed house for £200K, borrowing the other £132K, and their salary only needs to have risen by £5K in that period.

Indeed, and aren't we lucky who bought houses around then (eg me). I remember those days which was my point. Which is also that I have a middle class job and live in a middle class house that I purchased on my own and now own outright.

I then watched as people following behind me achieved the same only with working class houses (back to backs on the edge of the city centre) and then couldn't achieve it all without dual incomes or parental contributions or silly contrived means to purchase things.

I live in a house that even the Chief Exec of my organisation would struggle to buy on their salary as a first time buyer. That is nuts.

tangled_metal

At the height of prices my house was 3x what I paid for it around 2000. I still have one huge regret. I bought in an area I wanted to live not where other people wanted to live. That means I missed out becoming mortgage free after 2 years of home ownership!

I'll explain, house prices tripled in my area over 4 or 5 years. In the neighbouring city these happened in 18 months to 2 years. One house I looked at for the same money as my house sold again after 2 years for enough money to clear my mortgage, buy a better house than mine on my very street and still have change for solicitor/estate agent fees and other moving expenses. It pays to live up north which was probably a decade plus behind the south in price rises. Where I live it happened about 4 years behind a city 40 minutes drive south.

Still can't complain.