According to WIKI (I know, I know) the term (grossly unfair to cats, IMHO) was a political one from America:"A Fat Cat is a man of large means and no political experience who having reached middle age, and success in business, and finding no further thrill ... of satisfaction in the mere piling up of more millions, develops a yearning for some sort of public honor and is willing to pay for it. The machine has what it seeks, public honor, and he has the money the machine needs"
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Villified and Venerated - but why ?
- Thread starter Butts
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
transmanche
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,021
Why apologise? One of Wikipedia's principles is verifiability: facts should be properly cited. You (as the user) are then free to judge the veracity of the information based on the reliability of the source material. (And if it's not properly cited, you can tag it as such - or remove it.)
Just because some people use Wikipedia for posting things like unverified railway 'gen' doesn't mean that all information should be treated as suspect. Look at the sources: then decide.
(Oh and Wikipedia is one of many Wiki projects. Some are co-ordinated through the Wikimedia Foundation - others are totally independent.)
EM2
Established Member
And yet bonuses still get paid. How is a loss of £8.2 billion in any way a good result? And why should those responsible for that loss be given over £500 million in bonuses, on top of their already massive salaries?
Butts
Veteran Member
That may have been the overall loss but some divisions may have made a profit which would entitle them to a bonus.
Or as I mentioned they may have been targetted to lose £10 Billion in which case it is a (relatively) good result.
And you can also flip this around for say those payday loan companies to bash them.
yes the APR is atronomical BUT most of them will charge you £25 on a loan of £100 which is 25% if you pay it back on time - which can be a lot less than if you were to go £100 overdrawn unauthorised.
But I dont want to go down that discussion due to the sheer amount of people who get themselves in a pickle with them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
That may have been the overall loss but some divisions may have made a profit which would entitle them to a bonus.
Or as I mentioned they may have been targetted to lose £10 Billion in which case it is a (relatively) good result.
A large chunk of the losses at RBS was down to £3Bn IIRC of claims made through PPI and other missold products including rate hedging fines and such like. I think the rest was made up of continuing bad loans that they gave out years ago and are still coming back to bite them on their bum.
The bonus' all went to the investment bankers IIRC who actually did their job and made money so if they didnt then I guess that figure for the losses wouldve been much higher.
But £25 interest over a week is an APR of 1300% not 25%, the clue is in the A as in Annual.
transmanche
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,021
I think that was his point. The interest rate charged is indeed 25% over the term of the loan - which does lead to that astronomical APR. But that may still be cheaper than an unauthorised overdraft, even with a nominally lower APR, due to charges that may be levied by the bank.
APR isn't really a suitable measure for such short-term loans - because as you point out it is an annual percentage rate...
I agree, all you are bothered about is how much per week/month you have to pay, the actual interested rate charged is largely irrelevant.
Somebody told me that there are only actually 5 payday loan companies but they use a lot of different names. All the companies are American, whether any of that is true or not I havent a clue.
Somebody told me that there are only actually 5 payday loan companies but they use a lot of different names. All the companies are American, whether any of that is true or not I havent a clue.
Well done. You have proved my point. The APR is being used to slate payday loan companies for chargning extortionate interest rates when the actual figure is no where near that rate.
Its the FSA who requires loan companies to show the APR yet when looked at the loan in isolation you pay nowhere near that and as I have said it is less than you would get charged for an unauthorised overdraft.
I was using such an example to show when headline figures are used to make something worse when they are not, in keeping with the thread.
Butts
Veteran Member
Let's get back to the ratio between the highest and lowest paid employees of a business.
My contention is that it would be much higher if football clubs than most other undertakings.
If we are arguing that morally there should be a limit, these institutions are the most guilty examples of inequality in the workplace.
My contention is that it would be much higher if football clubs than most other undertakings.
If we are arguing that morally there should be a limit, these institutions are the most guilty examples of inequality in the workplace.
The problem with there being a limit is that it would have to be one that was implemented world wide or the best players(who fans want to see playing for their club) would go to the team offering them the most money.
If this was implemented then you can guarantee that there would be ways and means of getting around such a wage limit that it would then be stupid to impose the limit anyway.
Football and professional sport is not like any other business. People pay to see the best(or in the case of lower teams, then they pay to see the team they love and whom represent their town/city. Its a passion first and foremost. You simply cannot compare it to any other business.
If this was implemented then you can guarantee that there would be ways and means of getting around such a wage limit that it would then be stupid to impose the limit anyway.
Football and professional sport is not like any other business. People pay to see the best(or in the case of lower teams, then they pay to see the team they love and whom represent their town/city. Its a passion first and foremost. You simply cannot compare it to any other business.
TheKnightWho
Established Member
Yes you can, because they are another business! If we imposed a limit on the maximum pay of anyone working for a company, you'll quickly see Britain lose its financial sector, its sport and pretty much every other highly competitive business to competitors around the world.
I'm not saying it's morally acceptable as things stand, but I am saying it's what will happen if we change it. Saying that football is not comparable "because of the passion" is just naive, and I'm tempted to say that you're only saying that because it's a business you particularly like.
EM2
Established Member
But it *is* unlike any other business.
Look at fans like DarloRich for example. The 'product' he is 'buying' is obviously of much lower quality than for someone like me, who buys the product produced by West Ham. Yet I would wager that if he were so inclined, he could afford to buy a much better product at Sunderland, Middlesbrough or Hartlepool.
In what other business would someone who can afford to buy a better quality product not do so, simply because of an affinity with the lower quality one?
TheKnightWho
Established Member
Because you're not comparing like with like. In economics it's about demand - quality of product is completely irrelevant because (as you've shown) it doesn't always apply. Indeed, if it did matter then it'd be a wonder that Poundland is still in business.
I have various demands for various goods, and these goods all have prices. I buy what I think is the most worth it based on the prices. Your demand for West Ham is considerably higher than your demand for anything else; likewise for DarloRich, his demands are different than yours, and so he buys a different good.
As I said - it's a business like any other. It just so happens that it's one where people's demands are affected by different factors than for most products, but that doesn't change the fact that they have them. You can't just say "well, their demands should be different, and so obviously you're wrong!" because that completely ignores quite a few factors at play. Business is (for the majority) reactive. They don't care why you have your demand - they just care that you do. (Yes - I'm ignoring advertising, but that complicates matters.)
Last edited:
Minilad
Established Member
At least no one has mentioned train driver wages yet!!
melena
Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 63
It seems to me that in times of recession certain people making a lot of money are venerated (Footballers, Film Stars, Musicians etc) yet others are vilified (Bankers, Energy Chiefs, Businessmen).
If a business man is referred to as a "fat cat" why are film stars seemingly excluded from this description when they are often making more money for arguably less responsibility.
When Ed Milliband talks about hitting "fat cats" by raising the rate of income tax to 50p why does he never use a footballer as an example?
Seems like double standards to me
Simple. Its a political bandwagon. If the public don't like what businessmen are making they make a fuss and grumble about the millions they make, the government/opposition jump in with silly ideas to raise taxes for the rich and hope to grab more votes at the next election. Then these ideas never materialise or are overturned. Same old thing really. If people make millions from doing their job properly, i wouldn't mind - its when they make millions for failing at their job I really object to.
Funnily enough, even in the banks, very few fall into that category.
Butts
Veteran Member
I read in The Independent today that Arsenal Chief Executive Ivan Gazidis has refused to become the first Football Club to pay it's staff the £8.80 per hour London living wage , Islington Council and Citizens UK were due to protest at The Emirates yesterday.
£2 Million per year Gazidis is probably one of the lower paid employees when compared to the playing staff.
With the amount of money sloshing about is this refusal an act of arrogant indifference?
Surely every Premiership Club could afford to pay at least The Minimum Living Wage to all employees.
£2 Million per year Gazidis is probably one of the lower paid employees when compared to the playing staff.
With the amount of money sloshing about is this refusal an act of arrogant indifference?
Surely every Premiership Club could afford to pay at least The Minimum Living Wage to all employees.
Last edited:
I read in The Independent today that Arsenal Chief Executive Ivan Gazidis has refused to become the first Football Club to pay it's staff the £8.80 per hour London living wage , Islington Council and Citizens UK were due to protest at The Emirates yesterday.
£2 Million per year Gazidis is probably one of the lower paid employees when compared to the playing staff.
With the amount of money sloshing about is this refusal an act of arrogant indifference?
Surely every Premiership Club could afford to pay at least The Minimum Living Wage to all employees.
Seems pretty venal to me.
I think generally people are quite relaxed about others making it rich when there's a sense that everyone is doing well.
The problem is that for the last decade and a half or so, this sort of mega-success has relied on the exploitation of everyone else. Wages and living conditions have stagnated whilst this super rich class of executives has prospered (and this has been happenning since before the never-ending recession). This is at the route of the justified anger against high pay. I'm very much of the opinion that this increasing inequality is a cancer gradually killing western society and whatever values it may once have held.
Yes, it has certainly come to a point where people are incredibly angry about anyone earning more than they are - or being successful. It has gone beyond just looking at the MD/CEO or a banker, it's basically anyone that earns a penny more than they do. Yet people obviously want more money themselves, so it's not a problem having the cash if it's you.
From what you can see on social media and comments on websites, it's almost hatred. People are incredibly nasty about those who 'have' and often wish very bad things on them.
I am sure at one time, and certainly more likely in the USA even now, you'd have aspired to be like that person who was successful and work hard to get there. But now many people feel like they've got no chance and have given up, making the hatred build even more.
From what you can see on social media and comments on websites, it's almost hatred. People are incredibly nasty about those who 'have' and often wish very bad things on them.
I am sure at one time, and certainly more likely in the USA even now, you'd have aspired to be like that person who was successful and work hard to get there. But now many people feel like they've got no chance and have given up, making the hatred build even more.
Indeed. I think it has a lot to do with the perception that even if you work hard, you may not be rewarded appropriately for it. In the past, you could expect to work, progress through the company, buy or rent a house for a sum that was not beyond your means, maybe change to another company and eventually retire with a decent pension or two. These assumptions don't work anymore unfortunately.
At the same time we have big business that can afford to pay its executives millions, yet can't afford to pay its staff a living wage.
No wonder people are angry.
- Status