Dubstepforum.com

magma wrote:

rayman612 wrote:OMG HOW CAN U PAY THEM SO MUCH MONEY

omg u fucking retard everyone pays that pays a cable bill is giving them money

Exactly... would you all rather all that ad revenue ONLY went to Sky Sports and club shareholders?

It's ugly as fuck, but if that's the amount of revenue in the market for football, it's only fair a decent chunk of it goes to... footballers.

You would be surprised how many people dont know this. Like its as if the clubs make 10K a month and the rest is poured into footballers pockets becuase they demand that much or the games dotn happen.
Nothing to do with the Millions of adverts and logos over anything and everything

According to ITV the adverts are the best part

I like judo and sumo and that's about it. Even rugby union can get dull. African football's sick though!

garethom wrote:I'm not on about the fake liking, I'm on about the people mindlessly bashing all sports fans.

MrBlack wrote:How people can think it's acceptable to be paid a 100 grand a week to kick a ball about, is way beyond me.

Because that's how the job market works. They create a lot of money. There wouldn't be as much money without the people that earn the massive bucks. There aren't many of those people around, thus high wages.

Shelf stackers - Easy, not demanding, any fucker can do it - Low wage
Professional top-level athlete in a popular sport - Hard, takes a lifetime of dedication to a craft, people will spend lots of money to see them, there's maybe 10/20 people capable of playing at the very, very top level - high wage

Some one has swallowed the neoliberal propaganda. The people who create the profit are the shelf stackers and factory workers, the bosses and shareholders are just the ones who take that profit home. All profit is as a result of underpaying for labour.

Welcome to the real world.

I am the 1 in 10 that flat out doesnt bother lying. not my thing. music tho... maybe I lie about that? maybe I hate music??

(Pada) wrote:

garethom wrote:I'm not on about the fake liking, I'm on about the people mindlessly bashing all sports fans.

MrBlack wrote:How people can think it's acceptable to be paid a 100 grand a week to kick a ball about, is way beyond me.

Because that's how the job market works. They create a lot of money. There wouldn't be as much money without the people that earn the massive bucks. There aren't many of those people around, thus high wages.

Shelf stackers - Easy, not demanding, any fucker can do it - Low wage
Professional top-level athlete in a popular sport - Hard, takes a lifetime of dedication to a craft, people will spend lots of money to see them, there's maybe 10/20 people capable of playing at the very, very top level - high wage

Some one has swallowed the neoliberal propaganda. The people who create the profit are the shelf stackers and factory workers, the bosses and shareholders are just the ones who take that profit home. All profit is as a result of underpaying for labour.

This, who works harder?
Justin King CEO of Sainsbury's: put's in about 20 hours per week behind a desk, answering yes or no to ideas made by a marketing and sales team, got the job by virtue of who he knew, never stacked a shelf for a living or done manual labour in his life...looses people their job and moves on to next company after payout....
Earns £900,000 a year with a bonus of around 5 mill.
or
David Jones, sales assistant/merchandiser at Sainsbury's: put's in 37.5 hours p/week of non-stop shelf filling, back breaking trolley pushing and mopping up customer spills before he is personally held accountable for a customer's accident and looses his income, got the job by pretending he had a 'passion' for providing a customer experience, whilst pitted against another 100 people applying for the same role all of whom weren't fortunate enough to walk into a role of their picking...
David earn's around £11,000, overtime is expected.

Take Justin King away and people still need to buy food.
Take the David Jones's away and Sainbury's can't pay Justin King £900,000

That's quiet apt considering I work in Sainsburys. Nobody could say that my mate John* doesn't have a hard job, he worked 56 hours last week in the bakery (not an actual scratch bakery) because the top brass decided it would be a good idea to make a pack of cookies 50p. And he still doesn't make the living wage.

Justin King is a tool, he was talking about how he thinks its good to have restricted supermarket opening hours on a Sunday so staff can spend time with their families and yet his company operates hundreds of "convenience" stores open from 7-11 (or even 24 hours) on a Sunday.

How hard you work doesn't come into it, it's how replaceable you are. Yes, without the "bottom" layer, there are no profits, but if those people decide they don't wanna do that job anymore, there's plenty of people that will, and can.

If shelf stacking was an art that only a handful of people could do, the wage would rise massively. So fuck off with your "swallowed the neoliberal propaganda". I've swallowed nothing, I'm just not stupid. The guy at the top gets paid loads because he's responsible for decisions that could make or break tens of millions for shareholders. It'll take a lot of dedication, and a certain type of person to do that job. You get the average guy off the street to do it, and he'd fail within minutes. The guy at the bottom gets paid less, because you could get the average guy off the street to do it. Supply and demand.

[quote="Pedro Sánchez"
Justin King CEO of Sainsbury's: put's in about 20 hours per week behind a desk[/quote]

lol if you genuinely think CEOs work about 20 hours a week.

garethom wrote:How hard you work doesn't come into it, it's how replaceable you are. Yes, without the "bottom" layer, there are no profits, but if those people decide they don't wanna do that job anymore, there's plenty of people that will, and can.

If shelf stacking was an art that only a handful of people could do, the wage would rise massively. So fuck off with your "swallowed the neoliberal propaganda". I've swallowed nothing, I'm just not stupid. The guy at the top gets paid loads because he's responsible for decisions that could make or break tens of millions for shareholders. It'll take a lot of dedication, and a certain type of person to do that job. You get the average guy off the street to do it, and he'd fail within minutes. The guy at the bottom gets paid less, because you could get the average guy off the street to do it. Supply and demand.

But mate, your view is the one of neoliberalism, if you believe in equality then you cannot believe some should be payed far more from others hard work, regardless if he makes decisions or not, his position was invented to make a handfull of people very wealthy and look after only their interests. When you see people as replaceable part's of machinery then you're view of humanity is rather depressing. These companies should be grateful someone has decided to do these task's not the other way round and sooner more people relaise that, the quicker we can start changing the way things are being run and put power back into the hands of the many rather than the few, but hey maybe some of us just wanna see a fairer world.

garethom wrote:lol if you genuinely think CEOs work about 20 hours a week.

You have never obviously worked in any type of managerial position with CEOs in plain sight, business lunches on work expenses doesn't constitute as work to normal people mate.

garethom wrote:How hard you work doesn't come into it,

erm...

garethom wrote:Shelf stackers - Easy, not demanding

Supply and demand makes more sense for goods as they don't create a profit, human labour creates a profit and the profits of that labour go to somebody else. Labour is not a commodity. I agree that Justin King probably works hard, definitely has a high level of responsibility and probably deserves a high wage, but does he work 90,000 times harder than the guy on the shop floor? or deserve to be payed 90,000 times as much?

garethom wrote:The guy at the top gets paid loads because he's responsible for decisions that could make or break tens of millions for shareholders.

There is the problem right there, what work have the shareholders done to earn that money? It's immoral to make money from money.

(Pada) wrote:

garethom wrote:The guy at the top gets paid loads because he's responsible for decisions that could make or break tens of millions for shareholders.

There is the problem right there, what work have the shareholders done to earn that money? It's immoral to make money from money.

I agree with you to some extent about the shareholders although obviously in a lot of cases, those shareholders have pumped a lot of money into a business to keep it going or to grow it. A return on their investment isn't a lot to ask for.

Do I necessarily agree with the amount he's paid? Not really. Do I see why it's like that? Yes. Find somebody that would do the work of a CEO for a similar wage as a shelf stacker. Again, right or wrong, how hard you work does not come into it. Can a shelf stacker be replaced very easily? Yes. Can a CEO be replaced very easily No. When I said not demanding, I mean, you turn up, stack shelves, go home. Little stress, you know your situation, etc.

Pedro Sánchez wrote:

garethom wrote:lol if you genuinely think CEOs work about 20 hours a week.

You have never obviously worked in any type of managerial position with CEOs in plain sight, business lunches on work expenses doesn't constitute as work to normal people mate.

No, obviously not.

You think they do business lunches all day? I've worked with CEOs that have to drop shit at a moments notice to fly around the world to sort some shit out somewhere else. Getting shifted around to sort shit out on a daily basis. Making decisions that could make or break a company and the tens of thousands of people who work for it. 20 hour weeks? I've known people just a few levels above ME at work, let alone CEOs do 20 hour DAYS. I swear, it's too easy to think that the people above you do nothing until you do their job. I used to think that my project manager just chilled and let everybody else do the work. Then the last 2 weeks I had to do his job with him. Worst 2 weeks of my life. He's informing on decisions that could impact BILLIONS of pounds of public funding for education. At the company I work for, you can't even claim overtime pay when you get to a certain grade. If you've known CEOs that just fuck around at business lunches and do 20 hour weeks, you've met some seriously irresponsible CEOs.

I know I'm probably not gonna change your mind, I'm just conscious of being seen as some sort of Gordon Gekko like character. I think the job situation is a joke. Minimum wage is unliveable. Zero hour contracts and compulsory work for benefit schemes should be illegal. I'm just not naive enough to be unable to see that some people have skills that are far more valuable than others.

I agree that some people have skills others don't have and so should be payed more.

However in your original post you said "There wouldn't be as much money without the people that earn the massive bucks." this is bollocks. There wouldn't be as much money if it wasn't for the workers, the profit that is created is as a direct result of underpaying workers. The contradiction is that footballers are the workers, and it is probably one of the only places where they see the profits of their own work. If people formed more powerful trade unions and threatened to withhold our labour, we too might be able to see the profits of our labour.

(Pada) wrote:I agree that some people have skills others don't have and so should be payed more.

However in your original post you said "There wouldn't be as much money without the people that earn the massive bucks." this is bollocks. There wouldn't be as much money if it wasn't for the workers, the profit that is created is as a direct result of underpaying workers. The contradiction is that footballers are the workers, and it is probably one of the only places where they see the profits of their own work. If people formed more powerful trade unions and threatened to withhold our labour, we too might be able to see the profits of our labour.

Ah yeah, I get what you're on about now. There's been a misunderstanding. When I said "There wouldn't be as much money without the people that earn the massive bucks." I was specifically on about football, not all walks of life in general. There's only so much money in football because the footballers are entertaining to watch. Without a handful of amazingly talented people, there'd be nothing.

Oh I understand now, obviously because the thread was leaning towards discussing the high paid in general i think i got crossed wires. Basically we all want the same thing but have different views to how to get it.

It was fun to disagree while it lasted however haha.

still though, i dont give a fuck about football and couldnt care less if no one could ever kick a ball good again lol

(Pada) wrote: because the top brass decided it would be a good idea to make a pack of cookies 50p

the other day I wanted to get a pack of 50p cookies only to find that they now cost a pound, maybe it has changed back to 50p either way I wasn't happy. Got some 65p donuts instead that we're way to sweet and made me feel sick, was not happy

Football is typically very boring imo. Part of me thinks "hooliganism" is an attempt to at least make it reasonably exciting. Knowing your safety is in question at a "big derby" at least gives you something else to think about.

Also don't understand Manchester Utd fans who don't come from Manchester. So predictable. I had at least a little bit of fun watching Blackpool's stint in the premiership a couple years ago because no one really knew how it'd turn out... sort of.

cosmic surgeon wrote:Also don't understand Manchester Utd fans who don't come from Manchester. So predictable.

With their latest form, they might all fuckoff...Fingers crossed.