so it turns out that with my naive suggestion i am not the only one thinking that dealing with the obscene salaries is a serious issue. i had suggested setting a salary cap above which people could then earn more and choose whether to invest it in arts, health, charity - something on the lines of transformation for good. doing so would overnight change our economics. this idea wil not go away out of my head. in fact i am getting more and more wound up about peoples' so called earnings and their supposed individual right to such earnings. i enjoyed the letter in today's guardian from les farris which said
Can we stop referring to "earnings" to describe the ludicrous sums looted from the economy by "top" people. The terms "trousered", "pocketed", "walked way with", "snaffled" or the simple "received" would be more appropriate. Nobody "earns" those levels of income.
that about says it! a report has just been published on high salaries and how they have escalated in the last 30 years so that the gap between high and low earners in a companby is wider than ever. in barcalys for example it is 75 times with top earners getting 4.5 million pounds in a year - yes a year. why do we tolerate this as a society? is this the sort of world we want to live in? it's completely absurd and indefensible.
the reason i mention it again is partly because of the report but also this indicator in companies of the differential in pay as a multiplier of the lowest to highest earner. a friend lis at grace pointed out that there is quite a discussion in places to suggest that a good move would be to curb this at 20 times. this still seems huge to me as someone who works in the charity sector but i guess it would be good to see footballers at chelsea earn a maximum of 20 times the recepionist or equivalent! it's certainly a step in the right direction.
the phrase i keep coming back to from st pauls occupy protest is the phrase another world is possible which is on tape all round the camp. in this area it surely is!