Yabby,

I know exactly how the world works. Thanks for your free character assessment and gratuitous advice, but I will say something about it.

I said absolutely nothing about Bonds taking its operation offshore. Zip. I was using the Bonds situation to make another point that goes much deeper into society.

"I would dispute the fact that workers get crumbs. In relative
terms, Australian workers get life on a plate."

Maybe they do get it better than other countries, but that wasn't the point. The point is, relative to some in this country, they are getting the sharp end of the stick. Get it?

I know this argument's as old as the hills, but the fact is it's still happening.

*THE REAL, THE BIG PROBLEM IS IN CUSTOMERS HEAD!*

Ah Antonios, slowly you get it :)

If Nike pay say Tiger Woods 20 million to promote
their shoes, then find their sales increased by
100$ million extra profit, because consumers take
notice of that and buy their overprices shoes,
don't blame Nike or Tiger Woods.

Consumers make free choices and it is neither up to
the company concerned or the sports star who gets
paid, to convince them any differently.

Yabby!
Who are you? You are a permanent promoter of business's interests on this forum!
You wrote that "Life is not fair, get used to it"
Life not only is not fair BUT is not logical too.
You know, you understand the huge cost for the golden boys, for the CEO, for the celebrities, the huge cost which greats huge problems not only to customers, not only to employees BUT ALSO TO BUSINESSES, TO EMPLOYERS.
Is not time, Yabby, for some limits on the maximum expenses for golden boys, CEO or celebrities?
Taxpayer's money are not for the golden boys, CEO or celebrities.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Sorry RobP, I must be having one of my slow days.

It is becoming clear to me that your post had nothing to do with Bonds underwear or Pacific Brands, and everything to do with class warfare.

I thought we had long since moved on from such a shallow and envious attitude, but clearly some haven't.

>>Is it actually fair that the people who do the work and get their hands dirty only receive the measly crumbs off the table?<<

That is as logical and convincing as asking "Is it deserving of our sympathy that these folk spend more on alcohol and cigarettes than they do on clothes?"

Neither argument makes any sense.

Most people in Australia subscribe to the view that if you work hard, you get rewarded. Sue Morphet, Pacific Brands CEO, was one of six kids raised in that mecca of silvertails, Bacchus Marsh. When her father died at age 50, she was a biology teacher at a Catholic school, married with two kids.

Are you suggesting that she should not have developed a career for herself, and be commensurately rewarded for doing so?

That is not to say there haven't been abuses of the system, and I would be the first to the barricades where companies are pillaged by the privileged. But I do not see that tearing down the building is a constructive response to the door being painted the wrong colour.

Our economy is built on achievement, not some spurious concept of "equality of outcome for all".

>>Sounds like a bit of a wimp-out, Pericles. So, if some people have disproportionally, and in some cases unfairly, profited from ordinary workers before, that makes it OK for it to continue?<<

You have not yet made a case, RopP, for disproportion and unfairness. You have simply observed normal commerce at work, and found it not to your liking.

spot on Pericles, RobP is being mean and tricky in his arguments. Advertising, that is getting your product known about is a pretty basic part of commerce. Rob is yet to advance a reason why Sarah should give her fees back.

The amount of money which is paid for celebrities, golden boys or CEO is huge.
Soon or later, many companies have big problems of cause their huge expenses to celebrities, golden boys or CEO.
These expences not only create problems to bysinesses but to employees AND THE WHOLE SOCIETY.
Under our system, every one is free to do what ever legal she/he wants, it is not their duty to care if their legal acts create local, national or international problems, if they create social or political problems.
The question is if the persons with the high income, understand or care at all for the problems they have created to innocent people, to families or childrens.
We know that about 18 billions of dollars which American taxpayers gave for the creation of new jobs went for bonus and aeroplains for private use of the golden boys and CEO.
When the celebrities, golden boys or CEO with their extremely high cost have created huge problems to the whole system, including businesses and shareholders, then we have no other way than to put a maximum mixed income for the celebrities,golden boys or CEO and we can do it with many ways.
No it is not celebrities, golden boys or CEO duty to return any cent from the money they took legaly.
IT IS OUR SOCIETY'S DUTY TO PROTECT ITS SELF FROM THE HIGH COST OF CELEBRITIES, GOLDEN BOYS OR CEO.
We can do it with many ways and WE MUST DO
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaid