Rich Getting Richer, Poor Getting Poorer

[JungleBoy]

Johannesburg - The earnings of executive directors of JSE heavyweights are rising continuously, while directors of smaller companies are seeing theirs shrink or remain constant.

Over the past year the salaries of executive directors at the Top 40 JSE companies have risen 23% and their short-term incentives 56%.

This is revealed in PwC’s third report on the remuneration of executive directors, which was released on Thursday. The report examines the annual reports of 384 JSE companies published in the year to end-April.

Spare a thought for the poor workers on strike....meanwhile fat cats continue to swim in the money.

 

[Albereth]

Spare a thought for the poor workers on strike....meanwhile fat cats continue to swim in the money.

I was just wondering who had any stats on the number of fat cats who have pulled people from their cars and beaten them to death.

 

[Hard Rain]

directors of smaller companies are seeing theirs shrink or remain constant.

That's because the "big boys" are big enough to capture government and use its policies and regulations to undermine their competitors. This disparity is not a market phenomenon, it's a government phenomenon.

 

[killadoob]

To quote busta rhymes.

The rich get richer and the poor get ****ed over and out. Nothing changes.

 

[Hard Rain]

The rich get richer and the poor get ****ed over and out. Nothing changes.

Uh, no. The condtion of "absolute poverty" has been declining as a percentage of population and in real terms for the past few decades. Consider that in the 19th century we could say well over 80% of the world's population languished in absolute poverty. Today, when we talk about poverty, we mean something very different...

 

[killadoob]

Uh, no. The condtion of "absolute poverty" has been declining as a percentage of population and in real terms for the past few decades. Consider that in the 19th century we could say well over 80% of the world's population languished in absolute poverty. Today, when we talk about poverty, we mean something very different...

So 80% of africa does not live in poverty?

 

[JungleBoy]

Uh, no. The condtion of "absolute poverty" has been declining as a percentage of population and in real terms for the past few decades. Consider that in the 19th century we could say well over 80% of the world's population languished in absolute poverty. Today, when we talk about poverty, we mean something very different...

How many low level jobs give you an accumulative annual increase of 79%. The workers on the ground are striking for a mere 10% and are often forced to settle for much less. Clearly, continuing on this path means that the gap between rich and poor is becoming larger and not smaller.

 

[LazyLion]

and me? The middle class is also getting poorer after being taxed to death!

 

[Hard Rain]

How many low level jobs give you an accumulative annual increase of 79%. The workers on the ground are striking for a mere 10% and are often forced to settle for much less. Clearly, continuing on this path means that the gap between rich and poor is becoming larger and not smaller.

This problem is caused by the inflationary money supply. The money supply is socialized by the government, so your problem is with the government, not with business.

 

[Hard Rain]

So 80% of africa does not live in poverty?

Poverty is a relative term. There's no denying that people are better off today anywhere in the world than they were hundreds of years ago. When I say "absolute poverty" I mean having literally nothing except a subsistant food supply.

 

[DreamKing]

and me? The middle class is also getting poorer after being taxed to death!

no... not yet

you still have a computer and you are still alive.

 

[Vrotappel]

Let's nationalise everything then we would not know what the fat cats are earning. Wat die oog nie sien nie maak die hart nie seer nie.

The only people that can really complain about this is the shareholders of the company. If they feel the company is managed well they will not have a problem. Ultimately they are the people taking the risk by investing their money in the company. Government's role should be to ensure that the market is set up for proper competition and that their is no collusion.

 

[Hard Rain]

Government's role should be to ensure that the market is set up for proper competition and that their is no collusion.

Ridiculous. The whole point of a market process is that there's no central plan or entity of force distorting the process to begin with.

 

[Vrotappel]

Ridiculous. The whole point of a market process is that there's no central plan or entity of force distorting the process to begin with.

In utopia yes, but in the real world we need some form of regulation. Unless you feel the sweatshops in China is ok? There is no pure market economy in the world. There must be a reason for it.

 

[BLIXEMPIE]

Good on the rich people. Someday I shall join them.

 

[Devill]

How many low level jobs give you an accumulative annual increase of 79%. The workers on the ground are striking for a mere 10% and are often forced to settle for much less. Clearly, continuing on this path means that the gap between rich and poor is becoming larger and not smaller.

That is true, and I am also for the wealth being distribute a tad more evenly BUT these fat cats as you call them make sure the "company" survives and makes a profit.

 

[Hard Rain]

In utopia yes, but in the real world we need some form of regulation. Unless you feel the sweatshops in China is ok? There is no pure market economy in the world. There must be a reason for it.

The idea that a government can be benevolent and omniscient enough to co-ordinate an economy is utopian.

"All this passionate praise of the supereminence of government action is but a poor disguise for the individual interventionist's self-deification." - Ludwig von Mises, Human Action

Regarding sweatshops, this 3-minute video explains it pretty effectively: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2sW2wt3nLU&feature=player_embedded

There is no cure for cancer in the world. There must be a reason for it. What a silly supposition, eh?

 

[Hard Rain]

That is true, and I am also for the wealth being distribute a tad more evenly BUT these fat cats as you call them make sure the "company" survives and makes a profit.

Yes, far better for the company to fail, people to lose their jobs and shareholders to lose the capital that could've been reinvested...

 

[VioAdmin]

I quit crying about this awhile ago, basically get rich and join the winning team. No point being poor/middle class, you will always complain.
*As long as their is a money system in the world, this statement will never change; too much corruption and greed.

 

[JungleBoy]

That is true, and I am also for the wealth being distribute a tad more evenly BUT these fat cats as you call them make sure the "company" survives and makes a profit.

Sure, I wasn't downplaying their contribution to the company but why do they normally plead poverty when workers demand their fair share? Why are they the last to get retrenched when the company in no longer doing well. Well the answer to that is simple. They together with the board of directors decide who gets to go.:erm:
Why punish the poor workers when it's mostly their strategic decisions that caused the k#k in the first place?