Question Time last night

[DodgyAgent]

Agreed. We're on shaky ground kicking up a fuss about bankers when the public would put us in the same boat as them... especially those of us on £500+/day AT the banks.

Rich B*stard

[Doggy Styles]

Rich B*stard

Not one of yours, obviously!

[Jeff Maginty]

..

[doodab]

Do you think reducing the pay of executives is going to help the economy? Of course it isn't.

Actually it seems that reducing the gap between the haves and have nots in the right way might actually help the economy.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...11/sdn1108.pdf

This note focuses on the duration of growth spells—defined as the interval starting with a growth upbreak and ending with a downbreak—and on the links between duration and various policies and country characteristics, including income distribution. It turns out that many of even the poorest countries have succeeded in initiating growth at high rates for a few years. What is rarer—and what separates growth miracles from laggards—is the ability to sustain growth. The question then becomes: what determines the length of growth spells, and what is the role of income inequality in duration?
We find that longer growth spells are robustly associated with more equality in the income distribution. For example, closing, say, half the inequality gap between Latin America and emerging Asia would, according to our central estimates, more than double the expected duration of a growth spell. Inequality typically changes only slowly, but a number of countries in our sample have experienced improvements in income distribution of this magnitude in the course of a growth spell. Inequality still matters, moreover, even when other determinants of growth duration—external shocks, initial income, institutional quality, openness to trade, and macroeconomic stability—are taken into account.

That isn't some lefty think tank speaking BTW, it's the IMF.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Before I go down this one, I personally fully endorse the model that IT contractors are paid

If you bothered to read what I said you will find that I agree with you (even the bit about agents). I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of mr Peoplesoft

Every time I post anything suggesting however gently suggesting that maybe we should have a think about whether the current setup has made us the slaves or the masters you trot out the same tired arguments about champagne socialism and hypocrisy, envy etc. I am reminded of some of Billy Connolly's mates who apparentrly used to have a go at him for socialising with rich people. You don't seem to accept that opinions can exist out of context - in the same way Billy's mates thought he had sold out because he had some rich pals. I pity that dogmatic limiting of horizons, whoever it comes from.

[d000hg]

Yeah I've noticed that too. I really think that some people on here are flattering themselves way too much if they think they are in the same category as the overpaid undeserving bankers. I don't know about agents - maybe if you own a recruitment firm (employing several staff, not just a one-man band operating out of his livingroom), then maybe you are in that league, but I do know that the vast majority of IT contractors earn less than 150K per year, so they are not even paying the highest rate of tax (except maybe if they are within IR35).

I don't know if that was aimed at me, but I never compared contractors and big business bosses in terms of salary. I compared them in the sense that in the public's eyes, both are paid a lot for what they do. Earning £150k for "being a programmer" is not something that the majority would endorse, and I imagine most here would feel uncomfortable revealing their earnings to those in regular £30k jobs... hence the way we invariably add the "no holidays, etc" clause in if we have to talk about it.