Linekers salary

[StringerBell]

23 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Absolutely not no - There are many factors at play which means that women are restricted in their earning potential by biological and historic societal factors - The simplest of which is obviously having children - We need to be proactive in our approach to ensure that the earning potential of women isn't affected by the fact that for around 2 years (minimum) their work lives will be affected for every child they have

And that's the simplest factor - Once we start getting into the historic societal repercussions it gets even more complex

What would you do about that?

[cheron85]

6 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

Yes often feminists do want equality. Equality of outcome. Like some sort of gender communism.

Liberals want equality of opportunity which will more than likely lead to fluctuating demographics in certain industries. Liberals do not view equality of outcome as a goal, but a potential outcome of the goal of equality of opportunity. Saying there is a correct an incorrect amount of men/women in a certain profession is tantamount walking into a room and saying there's too many black people.i mean, it's just weird.

In order to achieve equality of outcome you must discriminate against people based on sex.

And have you ever considered that women work in lower paid professions because they want to? "Want to be a teacher do you Mrs? Got your heart set on it? Well unfortunately the ministry of gender equality requires you to work as a physicist in order to achieve a state of absolute parity." No thanks.

Yes - I am talking about equality of outcome - It comes from the root of positive liberty - Positive liberty is what gave us the NHS and public education

You're quoting negative liberty - Freedom from constraint - The lack of constraint on what decisions you make to improve your life - It's the liberty which the Republican party in the US is based on (and most of the US constitution to be fair)

Not all Liberals are your liberals - In fact you're quoting closer to libertarianism

Your final point is the more complex historic societal point I mentioned in my following post - We have had "male and female roles/traits" for so long in society that it's impossible to determine what elements are societal bias - Do women naturally migrate to teaching because it's a more people-based, caring role? Why do they do that if so? Is it because of something biological or is it because historic societal male-bias has pushed women into these areas?

There's a lot of interesting research done in the US recently which shows that across almost any discipline the combination of women and men working together is much more efficient and give better outcome than single sex groups - The suggestion being that traditionally male dominated environments would benefit massively from an influx of more women

5 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

What would you do about that?

I don't think I'm going to be able to solve this on my own to be honest - I feel like that's why it's such an important debate

But there are simple things - Pension boosts for women seems a basic one - I think they do it for teachers at the moment (if they don't they should) as pension levels for them are based on number of years working

Actually that's an interesting question for you (genuine question not a dig) - If a woman has say 3 children - And we assume that (in some way) takes her out of work for 5-6 years over her 40 year career - She would have built up 5 years less of a pension pot than a male colleague over that time frame earning the EXACT same amount per hour - Is that fair? Your equality of opportunity would suggest so - But I don't think it is

[Red_Dawn]

So all those harassing letters, and cold calling salesmen banging on your door is to fund the bloated pay cheque of this tosser.

Stop paying it folks. 

[King Kevin]

14 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Yes - I am talking about equality of outcome - It comes from the root of positive liberty - Positive liberty is what gave us the NHS and public education

You're quoting negative liberty - Freedom from constraint - The lack of constraint on what decisions you make to improve your life - It's the liberty which the Republican party in the US is based on (and most of the US constitution to be fair)

Not all Liberals are your liberals - In fact you're quoting closer to libertarianism

Your final point is the more complex historic societal point I mentioned in my following post - We have had "male and female roles/traits" for so long in society that it's impossible to determine what elements are societal bias - Do women naturally migrate to teaching because it's a more people-based, caring role? Why do they do that if so? Is it because of something biological or is it because historic societal male-bias has pushed women into these areas?

There's a lot of interesting research done in the US recently which shows that across almost any discipline the combination of women and men working together is much more efficient and give better outcome than single sex groups - The suggestion being that traditionally male dominated environments would benefit massively from an influx of more women

I don't think I'm going to be able to solve this on my own to be honest - I feel like that's why it's such an important debate

But there are simple things - Pension boosts for women seems a basic one - I think they do it for teachers at the moment (if they don't they should) as pension levels for them are based on number of years working

Actually that's an interesting question for you (genuine question not a dig) - If a woman has say 3 children - And we assume that (in some way) takes her out of work for 5-6 years over her 40 year career - She would have built up 5 years less of a pension pot than a male colleague over that time frame earning the EXACT same amount per hour - Is that fair? Your equality of opportunity would suggest so - But I don't think it is

You would make a brilliant Labour chancellor , good at spending every bodies money. Why should an employer pick up the tab whilst having to possibly pay for a replacement  and as regard to the state pension women get credit whilst in receipt of child benefit I believe is that fair on men?

[Maestro]

20 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Yes - I am talking about equality of outcome - It comes from the root of positive liberty - Positive liberty is what gave us the NHS and public education

You're quoting negative liberty - Freedom from constraint - The lack of constraint on what decisions you make to improve your life - It's the liberty which the Republican party in the US is based on (and most of the US constitution to be fair)

Not all Liberals are your liberals - In fact you're quoting closer to libertarianism

Your final point is the more complex historic societal point I mentioned in my following post - We have had "male and female roles/traits" for so long in society that it's impossible to determine what elements are societal bias - Do women naturally migrate to teaching because it's a more people-based, caring role? Why do they do that if so? Is it because of something biological or is it because historic societal male-bias has pushed women into these areas?

There's a lot of interesting research done in the US recently which shows that across almost any discipline the combination of women and men working together is much more efficient and give better outcome than single sex groups - The suggestion being that traditionally male dominated environments would benefit massively from an influx of more women

I don't think I'm going to be able to solve this on my own to be honest - I feel like that's why it's such an important debate

But there are simple things - Pension boosts for women seems a basic one - I think they do it for teachers at the moment (if they don't they should) as pension levels for them are based on number of years working

Actually that's an interesting question for you (genuine question not a dig) - If a woman has say 3 children - And we assume that (in some way) takes her out of work for 5-6 years over her 40 year career - She would have built up 5 years less of a pension pot than a male colleague over that time frame earning the EXACT same amount per hour - Is that fair? Your equality of opportunity would suggest so - But I don't think it is

I am probably heading head first in to getting my arse tore apart by you here but I just wanted to pick apart your last paragraph how you think it is not fair a woman who has taken 5 to 6 years out of their career to have children receive a lesser pension.

The woman in your hypothetical analogy has willingly taken time our of work to have these three children and has not accrued 5-6 years of a pension, whereas the man has continued to work for those 5-6 years entitling him to that extra pension. I think that is completely fair. Let me ask you a question. If a woman who has no interest in having children works for 40 years and receives a pension, but a man decides to take a sabbatical for a total of 5-6 years over the same 40 year career, they will receive less pension than the female. Is that fair? 

[StringerBell]

11 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Yes - I am talking about equality of outcome - It comes from the root of positive liberty - Positive liberty is what gave us the NHS and public education

You're quoting negative liberty - Freedom from constraint - The lack of constraint on what decisions you make to improve your life - It's the liberty which the Republican party in the US is based on (and most of the US constitution to be fair)

Not all Liberals are your liberals - In fact you're quoting closer to libertarianism

Your final point is the more complex historic societal point I mentioned in my following post - We have had "male and female roles/traits" for so long in society that it's impossible to determine what elements are societal bias - Do women naturally migrate to teaching because it's a more people-based, caring role? Why do they do that if so? Is it because of something biological or is it because historic societal male-bias has pushed women into these areas?

There's a lot of interesting research done in the US recently which shows that across almost any discipline the combination of women and men working together is much more efficient and give better outcome than single sex groups - The suggestion being that traditionally male dominated environments would benefit massively from an influx of more women

I don't think I'm going to be able to solve this on my own to be honest - I feel like that's why it's such an important debate

But there are simple things - Pension boosts for women seems a basic one - I think they do it for teachers at the moment (if they don't they should) as pension levels for them are based on number of years working

Actually that's an interesting question for you (genuine question not a dig) - If a woman has say 3 children - And we assume that (in some way) takes her out of work for 5-6 years over her 40 year career - She would have built up 5 years less of a pension pot than a male colleague over that time frame earning the EXACT same amount per hour - Is that fair? Your equality of opportunity would suggest so - But I don't think it is

-No, you're not a liberal at all. You're a progressive and you have appropriated the liberal term. There is no type of liberalism that prioritises arbitrary characteristics such as race or gender over individuality and agency. No I'm not really a libertarian as I strongly believe in an amount of central regulation.

-What prompts more women to become teachers? Environment or biology? Scandinavian countries have done than most to control for societal factors. The result of this is that the only thing that is left are biological factors which then intensify. This has resulted in Scandinavian people tending to adopt more traditional gender roles at a greater rate than other countries.

-Thankfully the issue of there being compulsion placed on women to have children doesn't exist as enough of them want to have children anyway. They know what they are getting into, they do receive assistance and, simply put, if women don't want to have children then they don't have to. If there is a price to be paid for having children then the person having the child should be the one to pay it surely? I would have to have it explained to me why there is a problem to begin with before looking at ways to address it.

-That is interesting about the US research and is actually based on potentially improving society rather than 'we need more women here for some reason'. But there are lots of things we could do to become more efficient. Have you ever seen Logan's Run?

[StringerBell]

7 minutes ago, mastah said:

I am probably heading head first in to getting my arse tore apart by you here but I just wanted to pick apart your last paragraph how you think it is not fair a woman who has taken 5 to 6 years out of their career to have children receive a lesser pension.

The woman in your hypothetical analogy has willingly taken time our of work to have these three children and has not accrued 5-6 years of a pension, whereas the man has continued to work for those 5-6 years entitling him to that extra pension. I think that is completely fair. Let me ask you a question. If a woman who has no interest in having children works for 40 years and receives a pension, but a man decides to take a sabbatical for a total of 5-6 years over the same 40 year career, they will receive less pension than the female. Is that fair? 

Allow me to introduce you to meternity pay.

http://metro.co.uk/2016/05/02/author-argues-women-without-kids-should-get-maternity-leave-too-5853651/

[Carl Sagan]

2 hours ago, cheron85 said:

ITV did/do

Exactly, only because the BBC inflated the market in the first place by their vast wealth and absurd salaries. The BBC did it first so ITV had to follow suit to try to keep up. BBC salaries as a result of licence fee income distort the UK market.

[cheron85]

11 minutes ago, King Kevin said:

You would make a brilliant Labour chancellor , good at spending every bodies money. Why should an employer pick up the tab whilst having to possibly pay for a replacement  and as regard to the state pension women get credit whilst in receipt of child benefit I believe is that fair on men?

I'm not suggesting the employer would pick up the tab necessarily - I'm talking about private pensions - How as a society can we compensate women for - you know - keeping our species going...

9 minutes ago, mastah said:

The woman in your hypothetical analogy has willingly taken time our of work to have these three children and has not accrued 5-6 years of a pension, whereas the man has continued to work for those 5-6 years entitling him to that extra pension. I think that is completely fair. Let me ask you a question. If a woman who has no interest in having children works for 40 years and receives a pension, but a man decides to take a sabbatical for a total of 5-6 years over the same 40 year career, they will receive less pension than the female. Is that fair? 

If women don't have kids we don't exist - It's as simple as that - If we ever perfect cloning and can grow people in a lab rather than naturally then you can apply that idea - That it might be a choice - But until then if we want the human race to continue to exist we're going to need women to have children

If a woman chooses not to have kids and a man chooses not to have kids, they both work 40 years on the same salary they should have the equal opportunity and pay and pension - If the man takes time off to raise his kids as his wife/spouse/significant other goes back to work then they should be financially helped with that too - It just happens to be that generally speaking women do it - Because they've just carried and then pushed out a human - Which I'm told is a fairly draining experience

3 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

-No, you're not a liberal at all. You're a progressive and you have appropriated the liberal term. There is no type of liberalism that prioritises arbitrary characteristics such as race or gender over individuality and agency. No I'm not really a libertarian as I strongly believe in an amount of central regulation.

I studied politics at university - I'm talking about the long standing difference between the two:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty

In general negative liberty is the complete freedom from constraint where positive liberty is providing a better way for people to live freely (ie, freedom vs society)

1 hour ago, StringerBell said:

-That is interesting about the US research and is actually based on potentially improving society rather than 'we need more women here for some reason'. But there are lots of things we could do to become more efficient. Have you ever seen Logan's Run?

Yeh - Good example - Would have taken you slightly more seriously if you'd asked about reading Logan's Run - But still

[cheron85]

46 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

Exactly, only because the BBC inflated the market in the first place by their vast wealth and absurd salaries. The BBC did it first so ITV had to follow suit to try to keep up. BBC salaries as a result of licence fee income distort the UK market.

I think you've got it back to front - The commercial operators started poaching talent from the BBC - Which meant the BBC had to raise salaries to try and keep people

I mean personally I'd let them go if they get a better offer - The BBC has a good history of nurturing talent and I'm sure they'd find able replacements

[PodgeyRam]

8 hours ago, Gaspode said:

Radio Derby used to send a team to cover Wimbledon EVERY YEAR! - almost as if the BBC didn't have any other broadcasters there - it was simply a jolly for the sports department - goodness knows how much they wasted on that over the years....

Thankfully they've now stopped the individual stations from sending reporters (though I'm sure I heard the annoying woman on the evening programme (who covers the East Mids) saying she was presenting from down there this year so still some waste....)

I think you can make an argument for the radio presenters to be paid a decent salary - like him or loathe him, Evans has made the Radio 2 breakfast show the most listened to programme on radio, so he's doing something right - swap him for (the also vastly overpaid) Vanessa Feltz and you'd see the listener numbers tumble. Where I have a huge issue with the salaries is the likes of Hugh Edwards - sits on his arse reading from an autocue (adding nothing to content at all) and gets nearly £500M a year - and also seems to get significantly more than women doing the same job. Noticed he hadn't got the balls to present the news last night - guess he was too embarrassed.....

Let's say Huw Edwards gets  paid £600,000 a year, as has been published in the papers. He presents the BBC News at 10 for five days a week, 52 weeks a year. By my estimate that would mean he earns £2307 a day or £288 an hour (for an eight hour day). However, this does not take into account the fact that he also hosted (until very recently) the Wales Report on BBC Wales. He also did a a series of programs for the BBC covering the Aberfan disaster.

The reason he got paid more than nearly everyone else is because he's the flagship presenter for the BBC's flagship news program five days a week and that he does other programs. 

This is before you even get into how much work actually goes into making those programs. He doesn't simply read off the autocue, he helps to write the script. He deals with any breaking news/late changes to the script that happen while he's on air and he does it while giving nothing away to the audience. He actually hosts two hour long programs on the day - one at 5pm on the News Channel and the usual 10pm one on BBC One. 

[GenBr]

19 hours ago, Norman said:

He's never had a hard working day in his f*****g life, mate. That much is a fact.

No - that is your opinion - it isn't a fact. I assume you think only back breaking manual labour classes as hard work, but I can assure you that you don't become one of the best footballers England has ever produced and a top broadcaster without a lot of hard work.

[Norman]

20 minutes ago, GenBr said:

No - that is your opinion - it isn't a fact. I assume you think only back breaking manual labour classes as hard work, but I can assure you that you don't become one of the best footballers England has ever produced and a top broadcaster without a lot of hard work.

I don't class kicking a ball hard work. Or stumbling his words as the adverts draw closer on BT sport as hard work, no. Running and training for a lot of money, three hours a day is not hard work. Footballers are always saying theyre lucky they have such an easy job.

It makes home life easier, having kids easier, running a house easier. 

And the footballer and broadcaster bit is your opinion

[Sith Happens]

5 minutes ago, Norman said:

I don't class kicking a ball hard work. Or stumbling his words as the adverts draw closer on BT sport as hard work, no. Running and training for a lot of money, three hours a day is not hard work. Footballers are always saying theyre lucky they have such an easy job.

It makes home life easier, having kids easier, running a house easier. 

And the footballer and broadcaster bit is your opinion

I think its hard to say unless you have done their job to actually compare. I work in an office and have friends or associates or do jobs of a more physical nature such as building/gardener etc...some of them say to me my job isnt as hard as theirs because i sit on my backside most of the time.....i dispute it of course.

They havent done it so they dont know, i havent done their job so i cant say either way, but i still can say i work hard and can feel very tired after a day in the office.

[StringerBell]

1 hour ago, cheron85 said:

I'm not suggesting the employer would pick up the tab necessarily - I'm talking about private pensions - How as a society can we compensate women for - you know - keeping our species going...

If women don't have kids we don't exist - It's as simple as that - If we ever perfect cloning and can grow people in a lab rather than naturally then you can apply that idea - That it might be a choice - But until then if we want the human race to continue to exist we're going to need women to have children

If a woman chooses not to have kids and a man chooses not to have kids, they both work 40 years on the same salary they should have the equal opportunity and pay and pension - If the man takes time off to raise his kids as his wife/spouse/significant other goes back to work then they should be financially helped with that too - It just happens to be that generally speaking women do it - Because they've just carried and then pushed out a human - Which I'm told is a fairly draining experience

I studied politics at university - I'm talking about the long standing difference between the two:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty

In general negative liberty is the complete freedom from constraint where positive liberty is providing a better way for people to live freely (ie, freedom vs society)

Yeh - Good example - Would have taken you slightly more seriously if you'd asked about reading Logan's Run - But still

Are we in danger of women not wanting children? (Well if feminists have their way we might be).  

People have children for personal reasons. I don't know anyone who said they wanted a child out of a sense of duty. We do not need to incentivise or reward people for having children, we simply grant some level of assistance. We don't need to compensate them for something they have chosen to do to reward themselves.

Re positive and negative liberty, they appear to be along similar lines of the Frankfurt school. Which I think is linked with cultural Marxism? I prefer the look of Isiah Berlin to that and I'll look into it, it seems interesting, but don't see the two as mutually exclusive. Also I'd add I'm a bit concerned this muddies the waters, which is ironic considering Berlin apparently sought to distinguish these concepts as distinct so as not to not conflate things.

I describe myself as a classical liberal or traditional British liberal from before before this. I worry about constraint from government which is where I overlap with libertarians but they go too far for me. But I also want the freedom from tyranny, like the postmodernist moral busybodies desire to perform a top-down restructuring of society. Like say, someone who can look at a group of people and say 'no, no, too many men. Must do something about that.' If that's anyone's definition of liberal the the term has been hijacked just like the Americans have also hijacked it to mean anyone who votes Democrat.

[Norman]

21 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

I think its hard to say unless you have done their job to actually compare. I work in an office and have friends or associates or do jobs of a more physical nature such as building/gardener etc...some of them say to me my job isnt as hard as theirs because i sit on my backside most of the time.....i dispute it of course.

They havent done it so they dont know, i havent done their job so i cant say either way, but i still can say i work hard and can feel very tired after a day in the office.

And I don't care if you do or you don't. But being a footballer is up there as the easiest jobs in the world. Without taking pay into account.

Three hours a day. Breakfast and lunch cooked for you. All afternoon to rest, look after kids etc. Get paid enough for you wife wife be at home all day. House therfore is pristine. No worries financially for you or family. The best health care. All with no qualifications.

Gary didnt even have social media to contend with, but now uses it to mercilessly self publicise. He got the broadcasters job through being in football. If Scholes and Owen make it, then it cant be too hard. And you can't tell me he worked hard in the broadcasting proffession all his los life to he there. Even Robbie Savage has his own shows.

Name me an easier job.

[GenBr]

1 hour ago, Norman said:

I don't class kicking a ball hard work. Or stumbling his words as the adverts draw closer on BT sport as hard work, no. Running and training for a lot of money, three hours a day is not hard work. Footballers are always saying theyre lucky they have such an easy job.

It makes home life easier, having kids easier, running a house easier. 

And the footballer and broadcaster bit is your opinion

Again this is your opinion that they don't work hard. You could argue Ronaldo doesn't work hard either, because he has lots of money now, but that is patently untrue - it took him a lot off hard work to get where he is today and he still works extremely hard today both from a football perspective and a commercial perspective. To suggest that he has never worked hard in his life just because you consider his job to be easier than your own is downright ludicrous - it was his hard work in the first place that allowed him to be so successful, which turn helps to make his life easier.

You could argue the broadcaster bit is my opinion, but he is one of the highest paid broadcasters in the country and that is with commercial broadcasters as well as the BBC. The footballer bit is not an opinion though - it is backed up by facts and statistics - I didn't say he was the best - I said one of the best.

27 minutes ago, Norman said:

And I don't care if you do or you don't. But being a footballer is up there as the easiest jobs in the world. Without taking pay into account.

Three hours a day. Breakfast and lunch cooked for you. All afternoon to rest, look after kids etc. Get paid enough for you wife wife be at home all day. House therfore is pristine. No worries financially for you or family. The best health care. All with no qualifications.

Gary didnt even have social media to contend with, but now uses it to mercilessly self publicise. He got the broadcasters job through being in football. If Scholes and Owen make it, then it cant be too hard. And you can't tell me he worked hard in the broadcasting proffession all his los life to he there. Even Robbie Savage has his own shows.

Name me an easier job.

There are no worries financially, because  most of them have worked hard to get to the point where money is no longer an issue. I have some rather grand ambitions in my own life, so if I manage to work my way to the point where money is no longer an issue - you are just going to assume I've never worked a day in my life. Maybe we should all go and become professional footballers if you think it is so easy. Qualifications are meaningless - you make your own luck - Richard Branson left school with nothing.

And why do you say "even Robbie Savage" - he is a charismatic man who again has worked hard to build a new career after football. Sure football allowed them both to get their foot in the door broadcasting wise, but anything after that is their own doing. There are plenty of former footballers working in punditry and as commentators, but Lineker is the most successful of them all and it isn't through luck (since it doesn't exist). Just because he has been more successful than you doesn't mean he doesn't work hard.

 

[AndyinLiverpool]

One thing I will say about this whole thing: I have absolutely no idea who TV's Claudia Winkleman is or what she does.

[PistoldPete2]

6 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

One thing I will say about this whole thing: I have absolutely no idea who TV's Claudia Winkleman is or what she does.

Sexist.

[cheron85]

14 hours ago, StringerBell said:

Are we in danger of women not wanting children? (Well if feminists have their way we might be).  

People have children for personal reasons. I don't know anyone who said they wanted a child out of a sense of duty. We do not need to incentivise or reward people for having children, we simply grant some level of assistance. We don't need to compensate them for something they have chosen to do to reward themselves.

Except of course we do - Otherwise you're suggesting that NO men want to have children? Men want to, and get to, have children without the physical burden of having to carry and birth them - In your statement above men get the 'reward' without the consequence - That's not equality?

15 hours ago, StringerBell said:

Re positive and negative liberty, they appear to be along similar lines of the Frankfurt school. Which I think is linked with cultural Marxism? I prefer the look of Isiah Berlin to that and I'll look into it, it seems interesting, but don't see the two as mutually exclusive. Also I'd add I'm a bit concerned this muddies the waters, which is ironic considering Berlin apparently sought to distinguish these concepts as distinct so as not to not conflate things.

Berlin sought to explain it but it's a concept that originates in ancient Greece - As most politics and philosophy seems to have

15 hours ago, StringerBell said:

Like say, someone who can look at a group of people and say 'no, no, too many men. Must do something about that.' If that's anyone's definition of liberal the the term has been hijacked just like the Americans have also hijacked it to mean anyone who votes Democrat.

It's not "no too many men" - It's "why aren't there more women doing this?"

 

You mentioned previously equality of opportunity vs equality of output which I was thinking about last night - How do you give people who are biologically different equality of opportunity?

Great example is toilets  - Because men can stand easier to wee it means we can more efficiently do our business - Equality of opportunity would suggest "put the same number of toilets in both mens and womens" - However because of biology that will make for inefficiencies - longer waits for the ladies if there are the same number of people - So we need to build more toilets in the ladies than the mens - To provide equality of outcome - Everyone has to wait the same amount of time for a wee regardless of gender

Or are you saying women should just be forced to hold it?