“RobP in relation to the crux of your argument, one way that workers at the coalface (should that be solarface) can share in the wealth of their labour is to become an automatic shareholder in the company.”

Pelican, I think this is probably half right. Workers will get a better deal if they have these arrangements, but as long as there is such a large power disparity between them and their employers, they won’t see the full value of the extra work they have to do to secure the deal in the first place. Something more needs to happen. Not sure what though.

“It seems to me that it has never occured to the likes of Antonios and others, that he and other workers in fact own the "big business" which they claim to hate.”

Yabby, the problem with this argument is that the ownership of the ordinary shareholder is only nominal and not realisable to them. In effect, their wealth is sequestered in the system, where they often have no access to it at key points in their life. The other point is that the large institutional shareholders typically do all the decision making at company AGMs. The ordinary “Mum and Dad” shareholders are often treated like pesky mozzies. But I shouldn’t have to tell you this of course as you know how the world works!

Again, shareholder wealth is great in theory, but can be like a house of cards when the wealth is attempted to be realised by its “owners”. By then, the only thing share-holders may actually realise is that they’ve provided the capital to prop up a Ponzi scheme that mostly benefits the few.

“Most workers simply can't be bothered.”

No doubt this is true but then again workers either do not have enough incentive to be bothered or the path they need to take to get to a better place is fraught with pitfalls. These reasons can easily put the kybosh on people who, in a smoother course of events, could be bothered.

Fractelle,
Of course you're right in that the question's intentions weren’t expressed clearly enough but now they are one does need to examine our system of values. Specifically how humanely perverse they are rewarding some for beneficial acts of nature and punishing others that aren’t so lucky. Hard work by choice is one thing but the selectivity of obscene rewards are another.

Pericles,
You are having a “slow” day calling this topic “class war” or about envy is uncharacteristically simplistic at best and disingenuous at worst.

In the context of this topic the expressed view (by several posters) of currently practiced capitalism is tantamount being a modern defence of Dickensian attitudes.

No one is denying the right for people to raise themselves up or make a profit but to take the quantum leap to justify 3rd world factory practices/ conditions in the name of profit over humanity? The idea that if you won’t be my slave and be happy with what I deem is apposite then I’ll go where people are worse off, have less power and exploit their poverty ….please. What part does morality play in this view?

Likewise it is morally moribund to simply say that’s the way it is so I have to join in.
Like there isn’t other ways/ activities the capital could be used. Where in capitalism does it say either once invested I must follow the pack or I have an inalienable right to exploit (trade off others poverty)?

Neither does the humbleness of ones birth got anything to do with the topic. What’s wrong with Bacchus Marsh? The rest of that bit is irrelevant i.e. I spent time growing up in Clifton Hill orders of magnitude rougher and my dad died at 42 so what! Surely it’s what one does with ones power and money that counts.

RobP is suggesting and I agree that the disproportionate fees some people get are wrong.

PS neither is industrial democracy a hindrance to profit

Yes, there are some egregious examples of executive greed out there, examinator. I am not defending them.

But I suggest that your defence of RobP's screw-the-rich approach to life is borderline ridiculous.

>>In the context of this topic the expressed view (by several posters) of currently practiced capitalism is tantamount being a modern defence of Dickensian attitudes.<<

I'm defending child labour up the chimbley and dad-down-the-sewer now? Oh, please. Stay real.

And I'm not sure what this means.

>>to justify 3rd world factory practices/ conditions in the name of profit over humanity?<<

Are you suggesting that a Chinese worker should not be allowed to sell his labour at the prevailing market rates? What would you like to tell his wife and children, when you cast him on the labour scrap-heap through some muddle-headed theory of equality for all?

>>Neither does the humbleness of ones birth got anything to do with the topic. What’s wrong with Bacchus Marsh? The rest of that bit is irrelevant<<

I was merely pointing out that the CEO of Pacific Brands had made her way in big business from Bacchus Marsh, rather than from Toorak. Furthermore, if there were not the fruits of success available to her, would she not have preferred to stay safe and cosy in a Catholic School in Mentone?

>>RobP is suggesting and I agree that the disproportionate fees some people get are wrong.<<

I'm aware of that.

And I am saying that if Sarah Murdoch is able to put a price on her services that a company is prepared to pay, then you have no right to get in her way.

The general public identifies with these people. They trade upon this - that's what they employ agents for, to keep abreast of their market value.

What would you prefer, a government tariff administered by bureaucrats in Canberra?

Yep, that would put things right in a jiffy.

Pericles,

"But I suggest that your defence of RobP's screw-the-rich approach to life..."

Asking Sarah Murdoch to donate back to the workers - and I stress asking not dictating or mandating - is not "screwing the rich". Like what world do you live in? Get a sense of balance. Uncle Rupert would make her Bonds fee in about half an hour. All I'm saying is that Sarah could/should/whatever give back what the Murdoch family has already made many, many, many times over. Like, hello, what's so bad about that? Or is it a case of the principle that's important for you here?

*Yabby, the problem with this argument is that the ownership of the ordinary shareholder is only nominal and not realisable to them*

That ownership is clearly in their names. Yup, they can't spend
it all tomorrow, or many would not have a cent left, by retirement
time. That is fair enough. Govt accepts that some people are
too unreliable and stupid with their own money, to be trusted with
it. That does not mean, that it is not paid to them in due course,
when they retire.

*large institutional shareholders typically do all the decision making at company AGMs*

They do it on behalf of workers and workers hardly care about
what happens at AGMS, or they would question their super funds.
They don't.

Workers have as much say in those companies as they do in who
gets to be in Govt. Individually, they perhaps don't matter, but
as a united group, they could matter hugely, if they chose to.

*The ordinary “Mum and Dad” shareholders are often treated like pesky mozzies.*

They might be and those mums and dads are free to sell their shares,
if they don't like the board and the board pays no notice to their
concerns. OTOH I've seen pesky mums and dads have huge influence
on boards. Wesfarmers sold off their timber milling division,when
they got sick of greenies complaining at board meetings, for instance.

This whole notion that workers have no power and bosses have all
the power, is simply hogwash. One needs the other. If you don't
like the boss, find another job or start your own company, if you
think it so easy to be a boss. Then you will find out who the real
bosses are, i.e. consumers.

Yabby
I wrote twice on this thread for the need to put limits on the maximum expenses for golden boys, CEO or celebrities, one time I asked you personaly but until now you did not answer to me.
President Obama put for CEO as maximum yearly income from salaries $500.000 and Democratic senator Christopher Dodd limits on the bonus "any company taking government money would be barred from paying top earners bonuses equal to more than one-third of their total annual compensation"
You know what realy happened with the bonus until now.
Bank of America chief Kenneth Lewis was paid $16.4m in 2007, of which just $1.5m was in salary. Jamie Dimon, JP Morgan Chase chief executive, was paid $1m in salary in 2007 from a total package of more than $30m.
With the new law the CEO of Bank of America Kenneth Lewis will not earn $16.4m for 2009 but 500.000+166.666=$666.666 or 24 times less yearly income and Jamie Dimon, JP Morgan Chase chief executive 45 times less income.
Even republicans, even newconservatives was against the extremely high income from CEO BUT NOT YOU!
I think you stand on the extreme right side of the new-conservatives.
I can not find any other explanation for your silence about the high cost of CEO, CELEBRITIES OR GOLDEN BOYS.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide