What is the squeezed middle?

Firefly said:
Two intelligent men obviously, but I don't see any invention as such
Click to expand...

First you asked for ONE technological or invention/breakthrough. When that was provided you wanted multiple technological breakthroughs, when that is provided you want specific items from Argos catalogue! Dont you know everything in Argos is manufactured in that other socialist republic, China!

Firefly said:
Not only that but "Although the sciences were less rigorously censored than other fields such as art, there were several examples of suppression of ideas." Not very free is it? Do you like suppression?
Click to expand...

No do you?
You asked me to show you examples of technological advances from USSR et al. I did.
Because of that you assume I am a supporter of that regime?

Firefly said:
My father had a business in the 80s and I remember Russian sailors coming in as a kid with their eyes wide open with the stuff we used to sell. They used to stock up on Levis when they were here to sell when they got home.
Click to expand...

I remember that too, whats your point?
 

True, and a lot of European Space Agency technology is built on American advancements, which as you have correctly pointed out advanced from Russian advancements in the field, which were built on German advancements, which also took from British advancements in science, which were built from the great minds of Einstein and Newton and many others all the way back to Italian physicist Galileo.
See, we are all in this together, if only we could organise a society where we could benefit equally from the fruits of each others labour and develop a truly civilised peaceful world.
 
No, people should benefit fairly from the fruits of their own labour. Otherwise nobody would work.
That's why I hate socialism; it's just protectionism and exploitation in disguise. The entire discussion about wages on another thread ignores the fact that capitalism facilitates the flow of money to poorer countries and has lifted billions out of real poverty. Irish socialists don't want that to happen as it makes us relatively poorer. They are happy for the real poor to stay poor so that we, the rich, can stay rich. It's okay because the real poor are far away and are a different colour. A few bob in a charity bucket it no substitute for economic justice.
Irish socialists only look at those who have more and want to take it from them in order to take some of it for themselves and give some of it to those who have less who are also Irish. It is based on resentment and had no concern for the real poor. It's disgusting.

By the way, the advancement of the Russian space program was slower than the Americans. They had a head start due to having more Nazi scientists than the Americans but due to their oppressive socialist system they failed to build n that advancement. By the mid 60's the Americans, with their free and democratic system (no socialist system can be free or democratic) they had passed out the Russians.
 
Seems like we're going deep on this one... so time to roll out this one:
"No society can be simultaneously fair, free and equal. If it is fair, people who work harder will accumulate more. If it is free, people will give their wealth to their children. But then it cannot be equal, for some people will inherit wealth they did not earn."
(Steven Pinker, paraphrasing Plato)

I've put the condition I think most relevant to the squeezed middle in bold...
 
Purple said:
people should benefit fairly from the fruits of their own labour.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, and should be rewarded accordingly. And thats where we tend to not agree on what are the benefits and fruits of that labour.
If we take our billionaire friend from the other thread, of no particular expertise. By his own admission, is not particularly industrious or qualified or hard-working. Yet he is a billionaire! How could this be? How could this person accumulate so much wealth from doing not very much, whereas the thousands of workers of Amazon that, through their combined efforts, have generated the wealth to make it the profitable company that it is, struggle on average incomes? Surely, going by your own quote above, this could not be classed as benefiting fairly from the fruits of their own labour?
Or how about my other friend, CEO of Wells Fargo, John Stumpf, a €19.1m salary, a €200m share ownership on the backs of huge profits, generated by thousands of workers on salaries of $20,000-$60,000, instructed to implement corrupt practices to boost profits. And when the game was up, he sacked 5,000 branch employees and denied knowing anything about the fraud.
Or our other hero in the airline industry. With a huge salary and share options spends a Friday morning waffling about allsorts of crap other than anything to do with the airline industry, while thousands of his fellow employees are being productive flying planes, serving customers and generating real profits. Diarmuid Ferriter has an interesting take in this regard.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/d...ion-of-michael-o-leary-is-troubling-1.2829876

"But where would O’Leary be without State support and public money? Ryan sought political backing to withstand Aer Lingus’s predatory pricing and Charles Haughey obliged, with Ryanair getting a free run at Stansted Airport through a demarcation of the routes between the two airlines. Ryan also secured State subsidies in return for serving provincial airports and in 1992, rent breaks for Ryanair’s headquarters at Dublin Airport."

Hardly a week goes by without some over valued 'chief' of something, or some executive being found out for gross payments paid to themselves, probably because their 'worth it'.
And thats the problem with the capitalist system as it operates. A small cohort of people will find themselves in the position of controlling the wealth that is created by their employees and duly reward themselves disproportionately as a consequence.
 

Aer Lingus's predatory pricing? Semi-state Aer Lingus?
Where would Ryanair be if the Irish Government hadn't let government-backed Aer Lingus steam roll them?
What prices would the public be paying today? The same prices we had in pre-Ryanair days when a trip to London was a month's wages?
We should be commending the foresight of the Irish government in not allowing a semi-state abuse its position to the detriment of the consumer!

Only in Ireland could a private company seeking a level playing field versus a semistate be considered "seeking public backing". Whoever wrote that article will go a long way in the Irish Times, they've certainly absorbed its ethos.
 
Last edited:
odyssey06 said:
We should be commending the foresight of the Irish government in not allowing a semi-state abuse its position to the detriment of the consumer!
Click to expand...

I agree, and my point is not to dilute what Ryanair achieved, nor to dismiss O'Leary in his role as chief decision maker. He deserves just rewards for doing his job.
My point is, that the value placed on those 'just rewards' are wholly disproportionate relative to the efforts of the thousands of other workers in Ryanair, without whom, the low-fares model would be just an idea.
In the end, it was the combination of a multitude of factors (Southwest Airlines low price model, Irish government facilitation, and ryanair employees) that created the Ryanair success.
 

dermot ferriter is a fine historian but a pretty far to the left idealogue , for folk like him an era where the likes of a cossetted state carrier like aer lingus were fleecing passengers is still preferable to an outfit which is market driven and union free

in these peoples eyes the market is dirty , the state always virteous
 

Except it is to miss the point. The point being, regardless of whether or not Ryanair was or was not up against state-owned Aer Lingus, it was still dependent on a multitude of other factors ranging from political intervention to employee subjugation in order for the 'low-fares' model to prevail. O'Leary succeeded in this, but this was his job, thats all. He did his job, nothing more.
But because he is also in a position of seniority he also gets to influence the level of pay and bonus and share options etc that he receives. Whereas other employees, by virtue of non-union recognition are not afforded the same influence with their pay and conditions.
Invariably, those at the top will gorge a larger slice than what is actually due to them. Hardly a week goes by without the over exorbitant rewards of some chief or other being revealed. In truth, these are mostly hard-working intelligent people, but so are their employees.
Good luck to anyone who reaches the top, I have no issue there, they get there for a reason. But it doesnt mean they are worth the €'000,000's extra in pay over and above their colleagues.
 
TheBigShort said:
Good luck to anyone who reaches the top, I have no issue there, they get there for a reason. But it doesnt mean they are worth the €'000,000's extra in pay over and above their colleagues.
Click to expand...

It does, if they made the calls that made the difference between the company thriving and going under...
Without the work of the employees, there is no company, but there are few employees whose decisions make or break a company.

History is full of companies whose CEOs and leadership team made the wrong calls, and the employees and shareholders paid for it. Or for that matter, teams who won nothing til the right manager came along, armies that won no battles until the right general came along.

I think the question is whether the company is getting value for money out of those rewards packages.
If they are not (and I think in many cases they are not), don't we have a corporate governance issue that the shareholders should be sorting out? Maybe we should be looking at it from that angle rather than trying to control CEOs through taxation and regulation.
 
TheBigShort said:
Good luck to anyone who reaches the top, I have no issue there, they get there for a reason. But it doesnt mean they are worth the €'000,000's extra in pay over and above their colleagues.
Click to expand...

I'm really upset with Rory McIllroy. I won one my club's monthly medal last year and got a poxy gift voucher for the pro shop. OK, Rory practices more then I, but is it fair that he makes over 10m a year?
 
Back on topic...

TheBigShort said:
If people get only a basic income but get to keep 2/3s of everything they earn with no limits, how is this disincentivising thousands from bothering to enter the workforce?
Click to expand...

Again...If people get only a basic income but get to keep 2/3s of everything they earn with no limits, how is this disincentivising thousands from bothering to enter the workforce?




How is a 21% tax rate crushing? Remember, the basic income (let's say 10k a year) is taxfree. So someone on 10e an hour working 35 hours a week would have a gross of 26,100 and pay income tax of 3,381 which is an effective tax rate of 12.9%. If an effective tax rate of 12.9% is in fact crushing, would it not also be crushing for so many companies who pay corporation tax at 12.5% ?
 
I do agree that the rewards for those at the top of some companies seem to be disproportionate to their contribution to the organisation.

I would specifically exclude Michael O’Leary from that group as he was the main driving force behind Ryan Air and without doubt it would not be a tenth of the success it is today without him. The people I have a problem with are those in Banking and Finance and other sectors where there are barriers to entry into the market and a general flow around of people at the top level from one bank to another. In short it is not a capitalist/ free market sector. The same can be said for those at the top of the legal and medical industries and in effect it's the same issue; massive levels of pay garnered off the backs of underlings.


That said as long as the employees of those companies are happy to work there and happy with their pay levels then I don’t see a link between their pay and that of those at the top. Maybe the top guys and gals should be paid less and the company keep more to invest in R&D or expansion or whatever. I know that senior programmers and software people in Amazon get paid vast amounts of money if they are good enough. Someone in their 30’s getting $300,000 a year can’t really complain, especially if they live in Seattle where they only pay 14% income tax and can deduct the sales tax they paid during the year from that income tax bill.
 
Firefly said:
How is a 21% tax rate crushing?
Click to expand...

Its crushing on income of €10,000. You didnt provide the detail of the basic income before now!!
You need to talk to Purple and the others who want to impose more tax on lower earners as there is a variance of applicable methods being proposed.
I have no issue in principle with what you are proposing, but if everyone is going to get a basic income of €10k, who will pay for this? There are 2,500,000 income earners in the State (according to revenue figures posted by Brendan Burgess). That will cost €25bn if they all get the 10k basic income.
 
Purple said:
I do agree that rewards for those at the top of some companies seem to be disproportionate to their contribution to the organisation.
Click to expand...


Hooray!! Some common gound!

Purple said:
would specifically exclude Michael O’Leary from that group as he was the main driving force behind Ryan Air
Click to expand...

For the record, I dont deny his achievements, nor his earned entitlement to riches. My issue is the system that allows small cohorts of people, by virtue of their position or status, to gorge on the lions share of profits relative to the rewards attributed to ordinary workers, particularly those who are trying to keep their heads above water themselves. Many of whom are hard-working, intelligent, and highly qualified and skilled themselves.
It is these people that are in danger of being lost to immigration, revolt, or whatever.
It is being reflected here on this site regarding tax on incomes. But the focus is how to get poor people to pay more, rather than what is obvious to me - focus on the economic policies that have resulted in a "trickle-up" wealth effect, rather than the other way round.
 
Purple said:
Why one or the other, why now both?
Click to expand...

Surely a trickle up wealth is self-defeating in the long run? Trickle-up implies greater and greater disparity between those at the top and those at the bottom.
Trickle down implies greater wealth for those at the top, but accordingly brings the rest of society along for the ride.

Trickle-up, which is what is occurring, is a recipe for social unrest.
 
I agree but again, that's not an argument for taking half the workforce out of the tax net and having an utterly unbalanced tax base generally.
We need to stop treating symptoms as if they are the root cause;
We have a truckle-up wealth effect so instead of addressing it we wreck our tax base.
We have the worst value for money health service in the developed world so instead of addressing that we just keep giving it more money.
We have an impossible state pension liability so we increase pensions.
We have a mediocre education system so we give pay increases to the people producing those mediocre results.
Etc.
 
TheBigShort said:
When that was provided you wanted multiple technological breakthroughs, when that is provided you want specific items from Argos catalogue! Dont you know everything in Argos is manufactured in that other socialist republic, China!
Click to expand...

Everything?

Almost all moderate to advanced technology coming out of China is down to their theft of IP from western nations. Their ability to produce inferior and unreliable replicas is hardly something to aspire to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register