The One Click Group http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/THEONECLICKPROTEST/

The One Click Group
Health Advocacy

RSS Feed Follow OneClickGroup on Twitter

NEW
Dr Iain Stephenson
Found Guilty of Vaccine
Research Fraud
The One Click Group

NEW
Mobilising ME/CFS Charities
To Smash Flawed
PACE Trial Results
Lara, Health Advocate

NEW
UK Public Health
In Dire Straits
Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS

Lies Damned Lies
Swine Flu
Statistics Exposed
By Lara

Stunning
Vaccination Graphs
The Awful Stats In Action
Raymond Obomsawin Ph.D

Issues In Immunization
Theory And Practice
Raymond Obomsawin Ph.D

UPDATED
March 2010

One Click
Freedom
Of Information
UK Police Harassment
In The Internet Era

Barbara Loe Fisher
Interview
NVIC Conference
Style, Gonads
Brass Ovaries
By Jane Bryant

New Journalism
Challenging
Status Quo
By Jane Bryant
NVIC Conference
USA

How The
Judicial Review
Of The CFS/ME
NICE Guidelines
Was Lost
Jane Bryant
The One Click Group

The BMJ
Vaccines Propaganda
Professor
David Salisbury
And
Trimedia
Public Relations

David Southall
"A Very
Dangerous Doctor"
Panorama swims
with sharks
Lisa Blakemore Brown

Dr David Salisbury
Ooops!
Never Mind Me,
I'm Basil Fawlty!

ONE CLICK RESPONSE
David Salisbury
Vaccine Litigation

The Politics
And Commerce
Of Autism
By Lisa Blakemore Brown
Psychologist

Poling
Vaccine/Autism Case
Mitochondrial Disfunction
ME/CFS Patients

The Consensus Report
Family Law Reform

Canadian Definition of ME-CFS

The Weird World of Wikipedia
By Martin J. Walker

Click here to email us with any thoughts or opinions you wish to share about the website.

 

News Archives 5101-5120
Number Title Post Date
5101 US Senate to hold hearing on Facebook tracking cookies 17/11/2011 13:30:50
5102 UK government instructs Unum Insurance to profit from British disabled 17/11/2011 13:31:41
5103 Telegraph hires virulent homophobe as columnist 17/11/2011 13:32:39
5104 Occupy London to mark passing of City of London Corporation deadline 17/11/2011 13:34:00
5105 Police State Violence: Tactics Against The Occupy Movement 17/11/2011 13:35:34
5106 House Bill would spare thousands of dietary supplements from shelf removal 22/11/2011 15:39:17
5107 Stop targeting this imaginary army of long-term British sick 22/11/2011 15:43:47
5108 Support The ATOS Two 22/11/2011 15:44:53
5109 Assange hires Pirate Bay lawyer 22/11/2011 15:51:30
5110 Army sets pre-trial hearing date for Bradley Manning 22/11/2011 15:54:16
5111 Civil case allegations about mobile phone Location Data snooping by the News of the World 22/11/2011 15:55:50
5112 Vitamins Decrease Lung Cancer Risk by 50% 22/11/2011 15:57:08
5113 Pharmaceutical Drugs Linked to Childhood Diabetes 22/11/2011 15:58:07
5114 Chronic fatigue syndrome researcher Judy Mikovits arrested 22/11/2011 15:59:44
5115 Smoke, Mirrors, and the 'Disappearance' Of Polio 22/11/2011 16:01:12
5116 GAVI funding fatal polio vaccines 22/11/2011 16:03:10
5117 Bush and Blair found guilty of war crimes for Iraq attack 25/11/2011 15:29:55
5118 Occupy London responds to the Evening Standard 25/11/2011 15:32:30
5119 The Highest Earners Need To Be Very Careful About The R-Word 25/11/2011 15:40:57
5120 The Swing of That Truncheon Thing 25/11/2011 15:42:42

[Previous] [Next]

The Highest Earners Need To Be Very Careful About The R-Word
Share |

The Highest Earners Need To Be Very Careful About The R-Word

Chris Bowers is worried that an increasing pay gap may lead to a revolution.

24 Nov 2011


Revolution?

I’ve been mulling over whether using the R-word is a bit melodramatic, or even irresponsible. In recent weeks I’ve increasingly suspected it isn’t, and now with this week’s report by the High Pay Commission, I’m convinced it is legitimate to use it.

It was a friend who came from a background of inherited wealth who said to me many years ago ‘If the landed and rich had had their wits about them and acted responsibly, we’d never have had communism and would have prevented pretty much all the revolutions.’

That chimed with something that has always puzzled me. Isn’t it paradoxical that the parties that represent the rich don’t have the most advanced social policies? Surely if you’re rich, you want to enjoy your wealth, and the last thing you want to do is spend lots of money building walls around your house to keep out the dispossessed and fearing someone who envies your riches will throw a brick at your nice car. So why aren’t the Conservatives pushing truly inclusive social policies?

But what’s all this to do with the R-word? Indeed what R-word am I talking about? The word is ‘revolution’, and I fear we are getting dangerously close to the conditions in which social revolution becomes possible.


Dismiss it as melodramatic if you want – I hope you’re right and I’m wrong, but I think there is major cause for concern.

There is no formula for social revolution. If there were, it would be something like: ‘When the richest class of earners earns more than, say, 40 times what the poorest class earns, then you have the conditions in which people have more to gain by illegal acts that challenge the old order than they have by playing by the existing rules.’

This week’s report from the High Pay Commission confirms what many of us have suspected for some time – that the highest earners are not pulling their weight in national efforts to tackle the debt and deficit. My question is whether they are taking us near the marginal point where the least well-off feel they have more to gain by revolting.

The most conspicuous group of high-earners are the bankers, who seem to have gone back to their ‘entitlement’ mentality despite having, in many cases, been bailed out by the taxpayer in the 2008 crisis. But the problem runs throughout much of the management culture in this country, where salaries are based on assessments of how a person feels valued by their company rather than any need for a certain sum of money to do the job.

There must be a sum beyond which no-one needs any more money. I would put that at about £150,000 a year, though I’d accept it up to £200,000. It will obviously depend on commitments such as the number of children one has, whether any dependents have special needs that involve expense, and more contentious factors like whether it’s a basic entitlement to have private medical insurance and to be able to send your children to private school. But for anyone with four kids or fewer, £200,000 should be ample.

So why is our management culture all about getting salaries that go way beyond anyone’s assessment of what people should need? This is where the most influential group in the economy is missing the point about all of us pulling together. It’s not about some communist view of society, but about recognising that belt-tightening among those earning less than £30,000 is a matter of cutting out essentials, whereas belt-tightening among the top earners is about fractionally less to invest in some off-shore trust.

In many ways the situation cries out for legislation, but it goes beyond that. What we need is a change of attitude among the top earners in this country, whether induced by legislation or enlightened self-interest. When the economy is thriving, people may poke fun at the top earners but there’s very little resentment. But when public services are being cut, and energy and supermarket bills are rising alarmingly, the scope for resenting people on salaries over half a million is massive.

This is why George Osborne should be telling his friends in big business to go easy. He can blame Vince Cable if it helps him, but the message should get through that if the most affluent in society aren’t seen to be seriously pulling their weight, the conditions for social revolution will be enhanced. We had rioting in the summer – count that as a warning that needs to be heeded before the cost to the top earners becomes genuinely and uncomfortably high.

UK Web Hosting by 3DPixel.net Fri, November 25th, 2011. 03:40 pm