Sign up with GoogleThere certainly are not many "crazy" profits being declared buddy. And companies are not necessarily struggling either, however several sectors are in a lot of trouble. Food inflation, for example is largely due to vast problems in the Agricultural sector. Maybe you should do some research, and stop generalising.
-
Ask a question and get free supportUnlock new privileges and see hidden discussionsWin prizes and earn reputation
-
Question of the day ~ How often do you braai?
-
Afristay giveaway.Win a 2-night stay for two people at an establishment of your choice with R1,000 in spending money. Enter here.
White man changes surname
- Thread starter Sneeky
- Start date
There certainly are not many "crazy" profits being declared buddy. And companies are not necessarily struggling either, however several sectors are in a lot of trouble. Food inflation, for example is largely due to vast problems in the Agricultural sector. Maybe you should do some research, and stop generalising.
I'll give you two examples of companies that have declared profits for 2006, Pick n Pay and shoprite. The CEO of Shoprite made a cool R155m in bonuses over the past two years. It does not sound like they are in a "lot of trouble"! The bulk of what they sold is food products, not so?
Are you even aware of the wrangling going on behind the scenes at Shoprite? The CEO's in South Africa are unfortunately earning at the same level as their international counterparts, it sucks, but that's the way it works. They're not struggling, but they most certainly are not making crazy profits.
Now, for a quick little lesson on the difference between Food retailers and the agricultural sector, i.e. the Producer. A retailer buys goods, adds costs (maybe repackaging or whatever) and profits, and resells goods. A retailer, therefore passes the rising costs on to the consumer. The producer, produces goods at a cost (a cost which has seen increases because of the problems within the sector) - he has to charge more, leading to Food Inflation - the retailer just passes the costs on.
And I'm still waiting for those examples on "crazy profits"...
If they can afford international salaries that means they can afford to spend on AA programmes. the question is whether they want to or not?
...and the point of this lesson is...?
Most large companies do have a an AA/Bee system in place - but that's irrelevant. The two companies you mentioned have huge AA and BEE representation. I fail to see what the CEO salaries has to do with whatever point you're trying to make here, as a CEO is not trained, but appointed by the Board of Directors. A company is concerned with its bottom line, first and foremost, and anything it does is to ensure that it's bottom line can and will be sustained. AA programs do not negatively affect large companies as easily as it does small companies. It is easier, for example, to train one person in a team of 10 to do a job, than it is to train the only person to do the job.
To show you that retailers are not affected by Food prince inflation, the cost is absorbed by the consumer and often carried by the Producers (futures, etc play a role, but that's not important for this discussion). In any case, it was in response to this: "The bulk of what they sold is food products, not so?"
How is that a crazy profit? It is a healthy profit, but given the current economic playing ground for retailers this is a good thing. Now Telkom's profits are crazy - and a lot of that profit goes straight to government....
I think it's better we let this discussion alone because you seem to have lost the plot!
The producer charges the retailer more and the retailer charges the consumer more, now tell me how is the producer absorbing the rising cost? Lets look at the PPI which is very useful in the analysis of inflation. Because it measures the cost of production, a significant change in the rate of increase in the PPI is usually an indication that the rate of increase in the CPI will also change a few months later. It is almost alwys the case. Again, I ask you if the CPI almost always follows the PPI how can you say the producer is absorbing the rising cost?
You've lost the plot mate. You've been going on and on about companies not doing enough for BEE and AA, saying things like if they can pay big bonuses to CEOs then they can pay for an AA/BEE programme. But there's nothing supporting that large corporates (typically those with big earning CEO's) are not doing their part for BEE and AA - in fact, most large companies are doing a lot in this regard.
Yes - in terms of the producer. Producer Price inflation measures the average change over time in the selling prices received by domestic producers for their output. So you are correct here and effectively supporting what I have been saying - that producers do not necessarily carry the average difference in costs over to the retailer, therefore resulting in inflated costs over the next cycle (this is exactly what we're seeing now)
CPI is not a good indicator for Agricultural produce - particularly as it excludes most agricultural produce.
In any case, agriculture is not the biggest producer sector in the country and there is a far greater yield in almost all the other producing sectors.
Agricultural producers absorb rising costs often, most notably due to fixing contract prices before hand (often this is insured but in many cases in the last 5 years in particular the sector has seen big losses for farmers).
Farmers have been diversifying away from maize to other products because of their losses incurred with higher yields in maize production particularly last year. The result = a shortfall this year in total maize production. The same applies to meat. In fact, this year inflation in food prices has reached exceedingly worrying levels.
Perhaps you should revisit the previous posts.
"....Oh yes, companies have infinite resources. </sarcasm>
.... There is no time or cash for mentoring etc. You learn to do the work, or you don't... "
This is what brought us thus far... campanies have the cash, have the time, but they don't have the will... Why are you giving all these excuses for them anyway? I thought you'd be just as ticked off by companies that slack on their social responsibilities and only rely on using tokenism just to get by.
Hang on - who said I am defending companies here? I am merely pointing out that you are wrong. And, I would also like to point out that you are not quoting me here: ""....Oh yes, companies have infinite resources. </sarcasm>
.... There is no time or cash for mentoring etc. You learn to do the work, or you don't... ""
The points I have made so far are:
1. Companies can and should do more for true transformation (not enriching a few Black Elites as they are currently doing)
2. Just because a company makes a profit doesn't mean it's bad
3. People appointed into a position should be suitably qualified and capable to do the job - unless the position is an Apprenticeship type position
This is my opinion on AA/BEE and how it can be implemented.
1. Have a cut off date. Anyone born before 1988 is subject to AA rules. Anyone born after this date is exempt.
2. Implement higher and more bursaries to AA candidates - but have rules based on success conditions as part of them
3. Set rules banning multiple presentation by BEE Elites - it is not fair on the millions of people that are not being pulled into transformation that a handful of individuals reap all the rewards
4. Let the company choose the best candidate for the job first and foremost before considering AA/EE. AA/EE as a deciding factor is not encouraging a fair workplace environment, and is instilling a culture of discrimination.
An alternative to AA? That surely is the most laughable question. How about Free Market Economics (otherwise called Capitalism?) Something this country has never had (neither under the nats nor now, both equally communist in outlook: monopolies, exchange control, endless bureaucratic red tape the least of which is AA and BEE.)
Government should be promoting massive upliftment programs, ie, all the houses, roads, electricity, infrastructure that they should have been building for the last 12 years (which would alleviate the poorest of the poor.) Telephones would help too. While promoting Free Economics (like the rest of the free world!!!)
Ya, so the government is getting softer on AA, BEE, whatever? Why? Because it isn't working. Nobody likes to be dictated too (even in a communist country!!!)
Arguing with me? Um, no. We have touched posts twice. Last time "you were too busy on another thread" and this time "banging ones head." Yeh, right.
Do you really think companies sit around all day doing nothing (you must work for government?) Do you really think companies have millions lying around unused. Ja drag their feet: want to dictate go form your own company (like any free market system.)
Come down hard on them? Oh right: didn't you just establish poor peeps are getting poorer? That there hasn't been the growth? Well how about stop telling people how to run their business then maybe we could all move on.
Pick&Pay and Shoprite: isn't that the most laughable thing? These companies have established bee aa protocols (otherwise they wouldn't be in business.) And can you find better examples: NOT!!
How about you stop spreading your government propaganda and those pink specs then maybe we could all make a little more money.
New research findings show that about R300-billion of the country's estimated R600-billion buying power is contributed by black South Africans.
Black people's buying power is rocketing March 16 2006
It is time South Africa's "black middle class" invests in the poorest of the poor, says National Development Agency researcher and social scientist Thami Ngwena.
'Buppies' urged to invest in the poor November 17 2006
Some researchers claimed the government had failed dismally to alleviate poverty and that the poor's plight had deteriorated alarmingly, causing income to be even more unequally distributed.-
"As long as the ANC continues to deny the deterioration in the socio-economic conditions of the poor and persists with its propaganda that it is succeeding in creating a better life for all... the situation of the poor will not improve, but will continue to deteriorate."
SA's wealthy 'not making enough sacrifices' June 19 2006
Last edited:
I tend to agree with most of your posting except for a few things
How did you arrive at your cutoff date ('88) ?
"Let the company choose the best candidate for the job first and foremost before considering AA/EE. AA/EE as a deciding factor is not encouraging a fair workplace environment, and is instilling a culture of discrimination..."
contradiction, the AA candidate will have to be the best candidate to get the job, where is AA in that?
How did you arrive at your cutoff date ('88) ?
"Let the company choose the best candidate for the job first and foremost before considering AA/EE. AA/EE as a deciding factor is not encouraging a fair workplace environment, and is instilling a culture of discrimination..."
contradiction, the AA candidate will have to be the best candidate to get the job, where is AA in that?
Please post your sources. Ja, exactly!!
People born prior to 88 are now 18, hence they are not subjected to past prejudice.
Read again. AA candidate should not automatically be the best candidate for the job. It should be kind of a bonus but not a deciding factor.
Except that a free market economy requires mass participation otherwise the inequalities and injustices of the past will always result in crime, unrest form those that are excluded from participation.
I agree with you on that, however that is not opposed to AA in anyway.
I've worked for the government, a parastatal (telkom) and private enterprises
Contrary to popular belief, I worked the hardest when I worked for government.
There has been growth but in the wrong direction, i.e. the economy has grown but it has not created job opportunities.
and the other 50% is contributed by 7.7 % of the population!
true but this does not mean that 'non Buppies' should be let off the hook as they are still in the majority.
I agree, the gvt needs to improve on its AA implementation because it has not been effective enough. Therefore I don't see how I could be spreading gvt propaganda. I'm pro AA and I'm not necessarily pro gvt.
Someone born in '88 is just as much a victim of apartheid as anyone born before then - legacy. Someone who has benefitted from AA before, should be prohibited from benefitting again and again. This is what I consider to be a flaw in the implementation of AA.
Owing to history, the AA candidate already has a diminished chance of being the best candidate. That's like a boxing match between a heavyweight and and a flyweight. By some miracle, the fly weight might win, but the odds are against him.
JontyB
How's that? Apart from a select few who are born with a golden spoon in their mouth, how can an AA candidate who worked hard and topped his/her class have a diminished chance of being the best candidate? If you give a group of people the chance to succeed irrespective of colour in a fair and competitive pool, the best will rise to the occasion. If you work as hard as you can and you aim to succeed, it is not fair to say: "sorry, though you're top of the class, you're the wrong race."
The past is now in the past, let the new generation fight it out the way it was meant to be. Survival of the fittest - not survival 'cos I'm the blackest.