Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
A mis-allocation of resources, or a necessity to try and retain the top talent?
£142,500 isn't a lot in my business. I know several guys who get paid upwards of 160k a year.
because it's a lot more than i get paid, but it's not the most.
not just any old pro.
It's rare they ever take the full amount anyway I think. And multi-millionaire Dave gave himself a small paycut so clearly he doesn't rate himself very highly.
I'm not sure what else the RAF and Army leads would do if we paid them less, go and be general's for another country?
But getting laid more than the Prime Minister is a necessity for the confidence of the nation's indie titty children. Thank god Nick Clegg didn't get in otherwise the PM would be better at getting pussy than most of the people on this board
I just know when I'm getting one the other's getting away.
I didn't actually realise he was that wealthy. It disturbs me on some level.
and a millionaire. I guess they're very similar these days. It's more about the way it's just accepted.
Which means his parents were/are loaded.
but he needs to pay himself a lot in order to catch up with Osbourne.
It's interesting as the City is nonplussed; they pay their guys far bigger retainers. Yet, I guess, as the sole buyer of civil servants, the civil service sets the market wage for them—i.e. it's their own choice.
or is that just the stuff of rumour?
to Westminster School, not Eton.
all the other members went to eton whilst osbourne went to westminister, and consequently he was the oik.
But he worked a stall selling bead necklaces down the markets on Sunday so made slightly more
Reckon you're paying too much rent? Force-strangle your landlord. Lunch seems too expensive? Force-strangle the waiter. Hooo yeah.
but I think Pol Pot dished it out, you know what Idi Amin?
though that will probably have gone down slightly with laws departure. our society is genuinely warped. no wonder our society is to tolerant of excessive wealth if we are comfortable with our leaders living lives so far removed from the people they work for.
What kind of name is Danny Alexander for a minister? He sounds like a rejected Red Hot Chili Peppers lyric
but it's a pretty obvious method of undermining the civil service and making the private sector seem more attractive to potential workers.
The argument seems to go:
- people at the top of the private sector should be highly paid so that they are able to retain staff and talent. People at the top of the private sector should be highly paid to motivate them. People at the top of the private sector should be highly paid as a reward for success. People at the top of the private sector should be given big pay off when they fail.
- the people that work in the public sector are those with little talent, because all those with talent are motivated by money.
- but then we have to pay some people at the top of the public sector a fair bit of money as otherwise they’ll piss off to the private sector.
- but then, when the private sector goes tits up, starts laying people off, cutting back pay and removing pension plans and benefits, the public sector may, for the first time, be left with an average wage higher than the private sector, and everyone knows that the most talented people are always motivated by money.
- I know! We’ll publically name these top public sector workers. That’ll send them back to the private sector where they can have anonymity, and we can go on complaining that the public sector is full of talentless chumps that can’t do their job and that the country would be better served by out-sourcing their jobs to highly paid private sector consultants.
- Excellent. Thank goodness I’m so wealthy that I can take a pay cut, otherwise this would be seen as rank hypocrisy.
250k or whatever sounds like a lot, but it really isn't an absurd amount for someone who is at the top of their field.
Does the Prime Minister get an MP salary as well as the PM one?