Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Inequality


AngryOfTuebrook
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

I know a bit about this as the son of someone I know has been playing Roblox since he was a kid and now designs games on the platform. His game came out last year and was one of the top 5 games on the platform for a while.

 

It's certainly true that Roblox takes the lion's share of any money that the games make. On the other hand, this is a young man, from a working class family, who is going to be a millionaire this year. I don't know of any non-criminal way that a kid like that, with no formal training and entirely self-taught, could make that kind of money that quickly.

 

I was talking with someone else who knows more about Roblox than me, and they described the Roblox business model as targeting "rich autistic kids who will zonk out doing repetitive Ritalin tasks and dump their parents' wallet into getting the latest in-game hat".

 

It all sounds pretty exploitative to me, but I do think anyone designing games with the intent of getting rich is likely pissing in the wind; the impression I got was that the game designing was part of the overall user experience, and if your game ended up making money, that was a bonus. But either way, Roblox wins.


Cheers for that Stronts, good to get a bit of perspective. 
 

Good luck to the kid it he’s getting paid, that’s the name of the game. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Nelly-Szoboszlai said:

This seemed the most appropriate place to post this. 
 

Well done, that man. 
 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/07/liverpool-man-who-inherited-100000-lets-12-strangers-give-the-money-away

That's fantastic. The problem is that even a nice sum of money like that will soon be gone and the whole thing will be back to square one due to the depth of the inequality and poverty. If more people did this though,who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VladimirIlyich said:

That's fantastic. The problem is that even a nice sum of money like that will soon be gone and the whole thing will be back to square one due to the depth of the inequality and poverty. If more people did this though,who knows?

 

Well, there'll be a Labour government soon. I imagine Keir Starmer will fix the problem.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This from the Mirror comments section on the story. What a society we live in.

 

  1. It would have been much better spent if the residents spent it on themselves.

    & also .. No ya didn't  

    Comment by sammidge73.
  2. And the fact he’s “ a researcher” doesn’t go unnoticed

     

     

    Someone needs to look into this chap’s finances a bit more.. who today that is a delivery driver can claim they are wealthy enough not to want £100k?? How’s that work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grand Designs should have had a special on it. I wonder where he’s been living since he was released. This was 2020 and housing has only gotten worse. I wonder how hard it is for the invisible homeless now.

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/news/2020/mar/05/invisible-city-how-homeless-man-built-life-underground-bunker-hampstead-heath

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine if a CEO of a company with 2,000 employees decided, instead of paying himself (and it's almost always himself) £3.8m he'd make do with a measly £1.4m and pay every employee an extra £100 a month.  The CEO would still have more money than he could ever spend, but the employees would have a better chance of affording stuff they need; and that money would keep circulating around the economy, driving growth and supporting jobs, instead of disappearing offshore.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Imagine if a CEO of a company with 2,000 employees decided, instead of paying himself (and it's almost always himself) £3.8m he'd make do with a measly £1.4m and pay every employee an extra £100 a month.  The CEO would still have more money than he could ever spend, but the employees would have a better chance of affording stuff they need; and that money would keep circulating around the economy, driving growth and supporting jobs, instead of disappearing offshore.

Stop this nonsense. You'll never be an economist with that attitude!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Imagine if a CEO of a company with 2,000 employees decided, instead of paying himself (and it's almost always himself) £3.8m he'd make do with a measly £1.4m and pay every employee an extra £100 a month.  The CEO would still have more money than he could ever spend, but the employees would have a better chance of affording stuff they need; and that money would keep circulating around the economy, driving growth and supporting jobs, instead of disappearing offshore.

thats communist talk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Imagine if a CEO of a company with 2,000 employees decided, instead of paying himself (and it's almost always himself) £3.8m he'd make do with a measly £1.4m and pay every employee an extra £100 a month.  The CEO would still have more money than he could ever spend, but the employees would have a better chance of affording stuff they need; and that money would keep circulating around the economy, driving growth and supporting jobs, instead of disappearing offshore.

 

Shut up, you hard left bastard....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many companies with 2,000 employees are paying their CEO £3.8m?

 

The average FTSE 100 company pays a CEO salary of £3.91m (2022, most recent figures) and those 100 companies between them employ just under 4.9m people, which is an average of almost 49,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Strontium said:

How many companies with 2,000 employees are paying their CEO £3.8m?

 

The average FTSE 100 company pays a CEO salary of £3.91m (2022, most recent figures) and those 100 companies between them employ just under 4.9m people, which is an average of almost 49,000.

Ah, Smithers has arrived to release the hounds.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Strontium said:

How many companies with 2,000 employees are paying their CEO £3.8m?

 

The average FTSE 100 company pays a CEO salary of £3.91m (2022, most recent figures) and those 100 companies between them employ just under 4.9m people, which is an average of almost 49,000.

Super.

 

Pay an extra £100 a month to lowest paid 2,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Strontium said:

How many companies with 2,000 employees are paying their CEO £3.8m?

 

The average FTSE 100 company pays a CEO salary of £3.91m (2022, most recent figures) and those 100 companies between them employ just under 4.9m people, which is an average of almost 49,000.

whats the average salary of those companies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

whats the average salary of those companies?

 

Not a clue. It wasn't really relevant to my point.

 

Worth noting though that some of those employees will be overseas, which more than likely includes a hefty chunk of the 2,000 lowest paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

Not a clue. It wasn't really relevant to my point.

 

Worth noting though that some of those employees will be overseas, which more than likely includes a hefty chunk of the 2,000 lowest paid.

Also worth noting that the numbers there are just illustrative of the fact that there's still enough money for a more efficient and equitable distribution of salaries, even if you allow for the CEOs to be greedy Capitalist pigs paying themselves, say, 30-40 times the median wage.

 

109 times is beyond greedy: it's obscene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...