英国顶级CEO们仅4天的收入就超过了全国平均年薪
正文翻译
(The time of 9am on Friday 7 January marks the moment FTSE 100 bosses’ pay overtakes the entire annual pay of the average worker.)
（1月7日周五上午9点，是富时100指数公司的老板们的薪酬超过普通员工全年薪酬的时刻。）
新闻：
Top CEOs to surpass average yearly UK pay after just four days
-unxs contrast high pay with wider income squeeze as analysis reveals symbolic 9am moment
英国顶级CEO们仅4天的收入就超过了全国平均年薪
——随着分析展示了具有象征意义的上午9点时刻，工会将高工资与更广泛的收入压榨进行了对比
-unxs contrast high pay with wider income squeeze as analysis reveals symbolic 9am moment
英国顶级CEO们仅4天的收入就超过了全国平均年薪
——随着分析展示了具有象征意义的上午9点时刻，工会将高工资与更广泛的收入压榨进行了对比
(The time of 9am on Friday 7 January marks the moment FTSE 100 bosses’ pay overtakes the entire annual pay of the average worker.)
（1月7日周五上午9点，是富时100指数公司的老板们的薪酬超过普通员工全年薪酬的时刻。）
新闻：
The bosses of Britain’s biggest companies will have made more money in 2022 by breakfast time on Friday than the average UK worker will earn in the entire year, according to analysis of the vast gap in pay between FTSE 100 chief executives and everyone else.
对富时100指数公司（译注：在伦敦证券交易所上市的最大的100家公司）的CEO们与其他所有人之间巨大薪酬差距的分析显示，从2022年第一个周五早餐时间起，英国最大企业老板们的收入将开始超过英国普通员工全年的收入。
对富时100指数公司（译注：在伦敦证券交易所上市的最大的100家公司）的CEO们与其他所有人之间巨大薪酬差距的分析显示，从2022年第一个周五早餐时间起，英国最大企业老板们的收入将开始超过英国普通员工全年的收入。
The High Pay Centre, a thinktank that campaigns for fairer pay for workers, said that by 9am on 7 January, the fourth working day of the year, a FTSE 100 chief executive will have been paid more on an hourly basis than the UK worker’s annual salary, based on median average remuneration figures for both groups.
“高收入中心”（一个为工人争取更公平工资的智库）根据这两个群体平均薪酬的中位数称：从本年第4个工作日，即1月7日上午9时起，一个富时100指数公司的CEO的以时薪计算的收入将高于英国员工的年薪收入。
“高收入中心”（一个为工人争取更公平工资的智库）根据这两个群体平均薪酬的中位数称：从本年第4个工作日，即1月7日上午9时起，一个富时100指数公司的CEO的以时薪计算的收入将高于英国员工的年薪收入。
The country’s biggest unxs said it was disgraceful that “greedy executives are taking home millions while ordinary workers face yet another year of pay squeezes”, and they demanded that firms be forced to appoint a frontline worker to executive pay committees.
英国最大的工会表示这是可耻的：“贪婪的高管们带着数百万美元回家，而普通工人又面临着又一年的薪酬压榨”，他们要求公司必须任命一名一线员工进入高管薪酬委员会。
英国最大的工会表示这是可耻的：“贪婪的高管们带着数百万美元回家，而普通工人又面临着又一年的薪酬压榨”，他们要求公司必须任命一名一线员工进入高管薪酬委员会。
FTSE 100 chief executives were paid £2.7m on average in 2020 (the latest full-year figures available), which works out at 86 times the £31,285 average salary for full-time UK workers, according to Office for National Statistics figures.
英国国家统计局的数据显示，富时100指数公司的CEO们在2020年的平均薪酬为270万英镑（这是可获得的最新全年数据），是英国全职员工3.1285万英镑平均薪酬的86倍。
英国国家统计局的数据显示，富时100指数公司的CEO们在2020年的平均薪酬为270万英镑（这是可获得的最新全年数据），是英国全职员工3.1285万英镑平均薪酬的86倍。
The average CEO pay fell 17% in the 2020 financial year as many bosses took a temporary pay cut at the start of the pandemic and first national lockdown and many of their bonuses were cancelled. It means that this is the first year in a decade that CEOs have had to work into the fourth day of the working year to make the same amount as the average full-time worker in a year.
由于许多CEO在新冠肺炎疫情开始和第一次全国封锁时临时减薪，而且他们的许多奖金被取消，2020财年CEO的平均薪酬下降了17%。这意味着，这是10年来CEO们第一次必须工作到工作年的第4天，才能赚到与全职员工一年平均收入相同的钱。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
由于许多CEO在新冠肺炎疫情开始和第一次全国封锁时临时减薪，而且他们的许多奖金被取消，2020财年CEO的平均薪酬下降了17%。这意味着，这是10年来CEO们第一次必须工作到工作年的第4天，才能赚到与全职员工一年平均收入相同的钱。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Most FTSE 100 companies have not yet announced CEO pay for their financial year ending in 2021, but 57% of those that have done so have recorded an increase on 2020 levels, the High Pay Centre report said.
“高收入中心”的报告称，大多数富时100指数公司尚未公布其在2021年结束的财年的CEO薪酬，但已公布CEO薪酬的公司中，57%的公司比2020年的水平有所增加。
“高收入中心”的报告称，大多数富时100指数公司尚未公布其在2021年结束的财年的CEO薪酬，但已公布CEO薪酬的公司中，57%的公司比2020年的水平有所增加。
Frances O’Grady, the general secretary of the TUC, said: “The pandemic has shown us all who keeps the country going during a crisis. There are millions of hardworking people in Britain – from carers, to delivery drivers, to shop floor staff – who give more than they get back, but greedy executives are taking home millions while ordinary workers face yet another year of pay squeezes.
英国劳工联合会秘书长弗朗西斯·奥格雷迪表示：“这场大流行向我们所有人展示了，是谁在危机期间让国家继续前进。英国有数百万辛勤工作的人——从护理员、送货司机到车间员工——他们付出的比得到的多，但贪婪的高管们拿回家的是数百万美元，而普通工人则面临又一年的工资压榨。
英国劳工联合会秘书长弗朗西斯·奥格雷迪表示：“这场大流行向我们所有人展示了，是谁在危机期间让国家继续前进。英国有数百万辛勤工作的人——从护理员、送货司机到车间员工——他们付出的比得到的多，但贪婪的高管们拿回家的是数百万美元，而普通工人则面临又一年的工资压榨。
“As we emerge from the pandemic we need to redesign the economy to make it fair, and that means big reforms to bring CEO pay back down to earth.”
“随着我们从大流行中复苏，我们需要重新设计经济，以使其公平，这意味着进行重大改革，让CEO们的薪酬回归现实。”
“随着我们从大流行中复苏，我们需要重新设计经济，以使其公平，这意味着进行重大改革，让CEO们的薪酬回归现实。”
O’Grady said the company committees that set CEO pay must be “required to include workforce representatives who can speak up for a fair balance of pay with ordinary workers. Incentive schemes for company directors should be replaced by profit-share schemes that include the whole workforce. Too much wealth is being hoarded at the top.”
奥格雷迪说，设定CEO薪酬的公司委员会必须“要求包括能为与普通员工公平的薪酬平衡发声的员工代表。对公司董事的激励计划应该被包括全体员工的利润分享计划所取代。上层囤积了太多财富。”
奥格雷迪说，设定CEO薪酬的公司委员会必须“要求包括能为与普通员工公平的薪酬平衡发声的员工代表。对公司董事的激励计划应该被包括全体员工的利润分享计划所取代。上层囤积了太多财富。”
Pascal Soriot, the chief executive of AstraZeneca, the pharmaceutical company that makes the Oxford Covid-19 vaccine, was the highest paid, receiving £15.5m. The other top earners were Experian’s Brian Cassin, who got £10.3m, CRH’s Albert Manifold, with £10m, and Berkeley’s Rob Perrins, who collected £8m.
牛津新冠病毒疫苗的生产商阿斯利康制药公司首席执行官帕斯卡尔·苏博科薪酬最高，为1550万英镑。其他收入最高的人包括益百利公司的布莱恩·卡辛，收入1030万英镑；CRH公司的艾伯特·马尼福尔，收入1000万英镑；以及伯克利公司的罗伯·珀林斯，收入800万英镑。
牛津新冠病毒疫苗的生产商阿斯利康制药公司首席执行官帕斯卡尔·苏博科薪酬最高，为1550万英镑。其他收入最高的人包括益百利公司的布莱恩·卡辛，收入1030万英镑；CRH公司的艾伯特·马尼福尔，收入1000万英镑；以及伯克利公司的罗伯·珀林斯，收入800万英镑。
Gary Smith, the general secretary of the GMB unx, which represents 600,000 workers, said the figures showed that bosses were paid 173 times the amount collected by carers who risked their lives on the frontline of the pandemic.
代表60万名工人的GMB工会秘书长加里·史密斯表示，数据显示，老板的薪酬是在疫情前线冒着生命危险的护工们的173倍。
代表60万名工人的GMB工会秘书长加里·史密斯表示，数据显示，老板的薪酬是在疫情前线冒着生命危险的护工们的173倍。
“Fat cat bosses trousering 173 times more than the carers who look after our loved ones is a disgrace,” he said. “It doesn’t look very levelled up and is everything that’s wrong with our economy. All UK workers must be properly paid and valued if we want to get our post-Covid economy on track.”
他说：“肥猫老板们比照顾我们所爱的人多赚了173倍的钱，这是一种耻辱。这看起来不太稳定，这就是我们经济的所有问题所在。如果我们想让疫情后的经济走上正轨，所有英国工人都必须得到合理的薪酬和重视。”
他说：“肥猫老板们比照顾我们所爱的人多赚了173倍的钱，这是一种耻辱。这看起来不太稳定，这就是我们经济的所有问题所在。如果我们想让疫情后的经济走上正轨，所有英国工人都必须得到合理的薪酬和重视。”
The Unite unx’s general secretary, Sharon Graham, said: “Is it the nurse in an intensive care unit saving the lives of those struck by Covid, or an elite investment banker making millions, who contributes most to society? Which of them stood up for all of us during the pandemic?”
该工会的秘书长莎伦·格雷厄姆说：“是重症监护病房里拯救新冠肺炎患者生命的护士，还是赚得数百万美元的精英投资银行家对社会贡献最大？他们中是谁在大流行期间为我们所有人挺身而出？”
该工会的秘书长莎伦·格雷厄姆说：“是重症监护病房里拯救新冠肺炎患者生命的护士，还是赚得数百万美元的精英投资银行家对社会贡献最大？他们中是谁在大流行期间为我们所有人挺身而出？”
评论翻译
sidman1324Berkshire
This is so biased. These ceos have to run the companies and their risk is magnitudes higher than the employees they have and that’s part of the the reason they get paid so much.
But a lot of people are just going to demonise and slag off the rich as evil and greedy. Typical slow lane and scarce thinking.
这太有偏见了。这些CEO们必须经营公司，他们承担的风险要比他们的员工高很多，这也是他们获得高薪的部分原因。
但很多人只是把富人妖魔化，说他们是邪恶和贪婪的。典型的落后和无脑。
This is so biased. These ceos have to run the companies and their risk is magnitudes higher than the employees they have and that’s part of the the reason they get paid so much.
But a lot of people are just going to demonise and slag off the rich as evil and greedy. Typical slow lane and scarce thinking.
这太有偏见了。这些CEO们必须经营公司，他们承担的风险要比他们的员工高很多，这也是他们获得高薪的部分原因。
但很多人只是把富人妖魔化，说他们是邪恶和贪婪的。典型的落后和无脑。
StopConsumingAnimals
I mean, most of their risk is getting booted out with a payoff and moving to another well paid executive/director position in a different company. That’s a much more appealing level of risk than Fred stacking the shelves, whose risk is losing his job for reasons far beyond his control and leaving him with no income.
我的意思是，他们面临的大多数风险是：在获得回报的情况下被解雇，然后跳槽到另一家公司，继续获得高薪的执行/董事职位。这比弗雷德整理货架的风险更有吸引力，弗雷德的风险是由于远远超出他的控制能力的原因而失去工作和收入。
I mean, most of their risk is getting booted out with a payoff and moving to another well paid executive/director position in a different company. That’s a much more appealing level of risk than Fred stacking the shelves, whose risk is losing his job for reasons far beyond his control and leaving him with no income.
我的意思是，他们面临的大多数风险是：在获得回报的情况下被解雇，然后跳槽到另一家公司，继续获得高薪的执行/董事职位。这比弗雷德整理货架的风险更有吸引力，弗雷德的风险是由于远远超出他的控制能力的原因而失去工作和收入。
sidman1324Berkshire
But he can use that moment to pivot and try Something else out that can creat real wealth better than being a slave at a job.
但他可以利用这一时刻改变自己，尝试一些能创造真正财富的东西，而不是当一份工作的奴隶。
But he can use that moment to pivot and try Something else out that can creat real wealth better than being a slave at a job.
但他可以利用这一时刻改变自己，尝试一些能创造真正财富的东西，而不是当一份工作的奴隶。
StopConsumingAnimals
Irrelevant as to what Fred could do in that scenario. He has to retrain/pivot on a very low income, which is already high risk. The CEO could just retire - after a year they’re already set for as standard of life few of us could ever attain. The level of risk isn’t comparable.
这跟弗雷德在这种情况下会怎么做无关。他不得不以极低的收入进行再培训，这本来就是高风险的。而CEO可以一年之后退休——他们（凭借之前的收入）已经达到了我们很少人能达到的生活标准。二者的风险水平没有可比性。
Irrelevant as to what Fred could do in that scenario. He has to retrain/pivot on a very low income, which is already high risk. The CEO could just retire - after a year they’re already set for as standard of life few of us could ever attain. The level of risk isn’t comparable.
这跟弗雷德在这种情况下会怎么做无关。他不得不以极低的收入进行再培训，这本来就是高风险的。而CEO可以一年之后退休——他们（凭借之前的收入）已经达到了我们很少人能达到的生活标准。二者的风险水平没有可比性。
BaslificoBerkshire
So that accounts for 100 out of ~5.9M businesses, or 0.0016% of CEOs in the UK being paid like this.
The Median CEO salary in the UK is £78k, but that's far less sensationalistic and doesn't allow people to feel mistreated and outraged.
因此，在英国大约590万家企业中，有100家是这样的，也就是0.0016%的CEO的薪酬是这样的。
在英国，CEO的平均年薪为7.8万英镑，但远没有那么耸人听闻，也不会让人们感到受到虐待和愤怒。
So that accounts for 100 out of ~5.9M businesses, or 0.0016% of CEOs in the UK being paid like this.
The Median CEO salary in the UK is £78k, but that's far less sensationalistic and doesn't allow people to feel mistreated and outraged.
因此，在英国大约590万家企业中，有100家是这样的，也就是0.0016%的CEO的薪酬是这样的。
在英国，CEO的平均年薪为7.8万英镑，但远没有那么耸人听闻，也不会让人们感到受到虐待和愤怒。
FineusUnited Kingdom
It'd be interesting to see a model of the median pay of the CEO's of the largest employers of UK population vs. the median pay of those employees.
I think that'd be a marker on what kind of disparity of wage there is between those at the top and the largest numbers of people propping them up.
在英国最大的雇主的CEO的薪酬中值与这些员工的薪酬中值之间的比较将是一个有趣的模型。
我认为这可以作为一个标志，来衡量顶层和支撑他们的大多数人之间的工资差距。
It'd be interesting to see a model of the median pay of the CEO's of the largest employers of UK population vs. the median pay of those employees.
I think that'd be a marker on what kind of disparity of wage there is between those at the top and the largest numbers of people propping them up.
在英国最大的雇主的CEO的薪酬中值与这些员工的薪酬中值之间的比较将是一个有趣的模型。
我认为这可以作为一个标志，来衡量顶层和支撑他们的大多数人之间的工资差距。
headphones1
Pay, as in salary, is not really the problem. We have high income tax rates of 45% on high earners - this is fairly competitive with other major European economies. e.g. France, Germany, and Italy
We also have lifetime allowances for pensions, which incurs some hefty tax charges if you go over the limit too.
National Insurance is shit. This must be addressed. It's fucked how we have such a regressive tax.
Personally I think adding an additional tax bracket at the top is not the worst idea, but it'll need to be designed such that it doesn't impact professions such as doctors as hard as it does right now, as more and more doctors are leaving the profession early due to the lifetime allowance and tax burden on them. It's one thing to want to tax high earners, but you must consider what it's doing to certain professions that the country needs.
The real big problem is capital gains tax. It's always capital gains tax. Your average big company CEO will get paid in company shares and then sell them, paying a much reduced rate of tax.
工资，就薪水而言，并不是真正的问题。我们对高收入者征收45%的高收入税，这与其他欧洲主要经济体——法国、德国和意大利相比是相当有竞争力的。
我们还有终身养老金津贴，如果你也超过了限额，就会招致一些沉重的税收费用。
国民保险就是狗屎。这个问题必须得到解决。我们有这么大的累退税真是cao蛋。
我个人认为，在顶层增加一个额外的税收等级并不是最坏的主意，但是，随着越来越多的医生由于终身津贴和税收负担而提早离开这个行业，它需要设计得不会像现在这样严重地影响到医生这样的职业。向高收入者征税是一回事，但你必须考虑到这对国家需要的某些职业造成了什么影响。
真正的大问题是资本利得税。而且总是资本利得税。普通的大公司CEO将以公司股票的形式获得报酬，然后再出售，支付的税率将大大降低。（合法逃税）
Pay, as in salary, is not really the problem. We have high income tax rates of 45% on high earners - this is fairly competitive with other major European economies. e.g. France, Germany, and Italy
We also have lifetime allowances for pensions, which incurs some hefty tax charges if you go over the limit too.
National Insurance is shit. This must be addressed. It's fucked how we have such a regressive tax.
Personally I think adding an additional tax bracket at the top is not the worst idea, but it'll need to be designed such that it doesn't impact professions such as doctors as hard as it does right now, as more and more doctors are leaving the profession early due to the lifetime allowance and tax burden on them. It's one thing to want to tax high earners, but you must consider what it's doing to certain professions that the country needs.
The real big problem is capital gains tax. It's always capital gains tax. Your average big company CEO will get paid in company shares and then sell them, paying a much reduced rate of tax.
工资，就薪水而言，并不是真正的问题。我们对高收入者征收45%的高收入税，这与其他欧洲主要经济体——法国、德国和意大利相比是相当有竞争力的。
我们还有终身养老金津贴，如果你也超过了限额，就会招致一些沉重的税收费用。
国民保险就是狗屎。这个问题必须得到解决。我们有这么大的累退税真是cao蛋。
我个人认为，在顶层增加一个额外的税收等级并不是最坏的主意，但是，随着越来越多的医生由于终身津贴和税收负担而提早离开这个行业，它需要设计得不会像现在这样严重地影响到医生这样的职业。向高收入者征税是一回事，但你必须考虑到这对国家需要的某些职业造成了什么影响。
真正的大问题是资本利得税。而且总是资本利得税。普通的大公司CEO将以公司股票的形式获得报酬，然后再出售，支付的税率将大大降低。（合法逃税）
SomewhatAmbiguousGreater London
I'm always a bit confused about this angle looking at very high compensation roles. These CEOs haven't taken their wage from other workers, they have been given it by shareholders.
If these compensation packages were decreased it would never be distributed to lower employees, the asset owners (who are the truly rich) would just keep it.
Obviously I'd rather all wages were better, but if it's just a choice between some money being paid out to labour vs being held by the wealthy that's still a good thing. Especially when you consider the implications for taxation and the much higher rates workers pay than asset holders.
我一直对以这种视角看待超高薪职位感到困惑。这些CEO的工资不是从其他工人那里拿的，而是由股东给的。
就算这些薪酬方案被削减，它也将永远不会分配给较低的员工，资产所有者（真正富有的人）只会保留它。
显然，我宁愿所有的工资都更好，但如果只是在支付给劳动者的钱与富人持有的钱之间进行选择，这仍然是一件好事。尤其是考虑到税收的影响，以及工人比资产持有者支付的高得多的税率。
I'm always a bit confused about this angle looking at very high compensation roles. These CEOs haven't taken their wage from other workers, they have been given it by shareholders.
If these compensation packages were decreased it would never be distributed to lower employees, the asset owners (who are the truly rich) would just keep it.
Obviously I'd rather all wages were better, but if it's just a choice between some money being paid out to labour vs being held by the wealthy that's still a good thing. Especially when you consider the implications for taxation and the much higher rates workers pay than asset holders.
我一直对以这种视角看待超高薪职位感到困惑。这些CEO的工资不是从其他工人那里拿的，而是由股东给的。
就算这些薪酬方案被削减，它也将永远不会分配给较低的员工，资产所有者（真正富有的人）只会保留它。
显然，我宁愿所有的工资都更好，但如果只是在支付给劳动者的钱与富人持有的钱之间进行选择，这仍然是一件好事。尤其是考虑到税收的影响，以及工人比资产持有者支付的高得多的税率。
Dear-Criticism-447
However a CEO is rewarded for making the business more profitable, and keeping workforce wages low makes the business more profitable.
Some also lobby governments to do things like weaken trade unxs, maintaining this status quo.
然而，CEO会因为让公司盈利而获得奖励，而保持低工资会让公司盈利。
一些人还游说政府采取一些措施，比如削弱工会，维持现状。
However a CEO is rewarded for making the business more profitable, and keeping workforce wages low makes the business more profitable.
Some also lobby governments to do things like weaken trade unxs, maintaining this status quo.
然而，CEO会因为让公司盈利而获得奖励，而保持低工资会让公司盈利。
一些人还游说政府采取一些措施，比如削弱工会，维持现状。
SirLoinThatSaysNi
Wages do make a difference to profits but the drive is for expansion. You can only cut costs so much but growing the business has much more scope.
工资确实对利润有影响，但这是为了扩张。你只能削减这么多的成本，但扩大业务会有更大的发展空间。
Wages do make a difference to profits but the drive is for expansion. You can only cut costs so much but growing the business has much more scope.
工资确实对利润有影响，但这是为了扩张。你只能削减这么多的成本，但扩大业务会有更大的发展空间。
PositiveInteractions
The amount of low-paid people who defend this, especially on here, is fucking bizarre.
These people don't care if you stick up for them you know? They'd set you on fucking fire if they thought it would increase profits. What motivates you to go online and defend income inequality when you're on the side that is loosing out?
有那么多的低收入者为CEO辩护，尤其是在这里，真是太tm奇怪了。
这些人不在乎你是否维护他们，你知道吗？如果他们觉得把你tmd一把火点了能增加利润，他们就会把烧了你。当你站在输家一边时，到底是什么促使你上网为收入不平等辩护？
The amount of low-paid people who defend this, especially on here, is fucking bizarre.
These people don't care if you stick up for them you know? They'd set you on fucking fire if they thought it would increase profits. What motivates you to go online and defend income inequality when you're on the side that is loosing out?
有那么多的低收入者为CEO辩护，尤其是在这里，真是太tm奇怪了。
这些人不在乎你是否维护他们，你知道吗？如果他们觉得把你tmd一把火点了能增加利润，他们就会把烧了你。当你站在输家一边时，到底是什么促使你上网为收入不平等辩护？
mittenclaw
They think they are all future Elon Musks. It’s thoroughly depressing how many people want to appear to do the right thing but deep down would love to exploit their way to the top and don’t give a flying shit about someone desperate enough to go to a food bank.
因为他们觉得自己都是未来的埃隆·马斯克。很多人想要做正确的事情，但在内心深处，他们会阿Q式地高潮，对一个绝望到去食品银行的人毫不在乎，这真是令人沮丧。
They think they are all future Elon Musks. It’s thoroughly depressing how many people want to appear to do the right thing but deep down would love to exploit their way to the top and don’t give a flying shit about someone desperate enough to go to a food bank.
因为他们觉得自己都是未来的埃隆·马斯克。很多人想要做正确的事情，但在内心深处，他们会阿Q式地高潮，对一个绝望到去食品银行的人毫不在乎，这真是令人沮丧。
felesrooLondon
Elon Musk grew up with emeralds in his pockets.
Someone riding min. wage has more chance to win the lottery than to work their way up, and even if they won the lottery, they'd still be closer to being broke than being Elon Musk.
Even if they won $1 billion.
人家埃隆·马斯克从小就含着金汤匙。
工资最低的人中彩票的机会都比往上攀升的机会大，即使他们中了彩票，他们还是比埃隆·马斯克更接近破产。
哪怕他们中了10亿美元。
Elon Musk grew up with emeralds in his pockets.
Someone riding min. wage has more chance to win the lottery than to work their way up, and even if they won the lottery, they'd still be closer to being broke than being Elon Musk.
Even if they won $1 billion.
人家埃隆·马斯克从小就含着金汤匙。
工资最低的人中彩票的机会都比往上攀升的机会大，即使他们中了彩票，他们还是比埃隆·马斯克更接近破产。
哪怕他们中了10亿美元。
spubbbba
It always brings out the contrarians. You see them all over this thread "Well akchully CEO's don't determine pay, it's just the magical, invisible hand of the market, you commies don't understand supply and demand".
CEO's are incentivised to minimise "expenses" (which includes our wages) and the stagnation of pay for ordinary workers is a factor in the increase in profitability of many corporations. Those profits go to shareholders (which include top executives) and increased pay and bonuses for those executives too.
It's not like corporations are naturally occurring entities which have no option other than to maximise profits, even at the detriment of their workers or the company's long term future. We could change this, only that might mean the very wealthiest would lose out.
反对者哪都有。你可以在这个主题上到处看到他们：“好吧，CEO们不决定薪酬，这只是市场神奇的、看不见的手，你们这些共产主义者不懂供求关系。”
CEO们被鼓励尽量减少“开支”（包括我们的工资），而普通工人的工资停滞正是许多公司盈利能力提高的一个因素。这些利润流向了股东（包括高管），也增加了这些高管的薪酬和奖金。
公司并不是自然存在的实体，它们除了最大化利润之外别无选择，即使是在损害员工或公司的长远未来。我们可以改变这一点，只是这可能意味着最富有的人将会损失。
It always brings out the contrarians. You see them all over this thread "Well akchully CEO's don't determine pay, it's just the magical, invisible hand of the market, you commies don't understand supply and demand".
CEO's are incentivised to minimise "expenses" (which includes our wages) and the stagnation of pay for ordinary workers is a factor in the increase in profitability of many corporations. Those profits go to shareholders (which include top executives) and increased pay and bonuses for those executives too.
It's not like corporations are naturally occurring entities which have no option other than to maximise profits, even at the detriment of their workers or the company's long term future. We could change this, only that might mean the very wealthiest would lose out.
反对者哪都有。你可以在这个主题上到处看到他们：“好吧，CEO们不决定薪酬，这只是市场神奇的、看不见的手，你们这些共产主义者不懂供求关系。”
CEO们被鼓励尽量减少“开支”（包括我们的工资），而普通工人的工资停滞正是许多公司盈利能力提高的一个因素。这些利润流向了股东（包括高管），也增加了这些高管的薪酬和奖金。
公司并不是自然存在的实体，它们除了最大化利润之外别无选择，即使是在损害员工或公司的长远未来。我们可以改变这一点，只是这可能意味着最富有的人将会损失。
RegularDivide2
There’s another way at looking at this and that is to say that greater relative equality is simply healthier for all. As well as being better for the macroeconomy.
Pay discussion so often just falls into resentment and mud slinging. But there’s a positive case to be made for greater fairness. Simply because the outcomes are so much better.
从另一个角度来看这个问题，也就是说，更大的相对平等对所有人来说都更健康。也有利于宏观经济。
关于薪酬的讨论经常会陷入怨恨和诽谤。但也有积极的理由来争取更大的公平。只是因为结果更好。
There’s another way at looking at this and that is to say that greater relative equality is simply healthier for all. As well as being better for the macroeconomy.
Pay discussion so often just falls into resentment and mud slinging. But there’s a positive case to be made for greater fairness. Simply because the outcomes are so much better.
从另一个角度来看这个问题，也就是说，更大的相对平等对所有人来说都更健康。也有利于宏观经济。
关于薪酬的讨论经常会陷入怨恨和诽谤。但也有积极的理由来争取更大的公平。只是因为结果更好。
mittenclaw
Exactly - short term greed helps nobody including those at the top. They are not immune from climate change or social and civil instability. Maybe they can hide in their elysium style bunkers for a bit but if you make people poorer you also create more people who want to steal from or kill you.
没错——短期的贪婪对任何人都没有好处，包括那些高层人士。它们也不能免受气候变化或社会和民间不稳定的影响。也许他们可以暂时躲在极乐世界风格的地堡中，但如果你让人们变得更穷，你也会创造出更多想要偷窃或杀死你的人。
Exactly - short term greed helps nobody including those at the top. They are not immune from climate change or social and civil instability. Maybe they can hide in their elysium style bunkers for a bit but if you make people poorer you also create more people who want to steal from or kill you.
没错——短期的贪婪对任何人都没有好处，包括那些高层人士。它们也不能免受气候变化或社会和民间不稳定的影响。也许他们可以暂时躲在极乐世界风格的地堡中，但如果你让人们变得更穷，你也会创造出更多想要偷窃或杀死你的人。
Wilko2324
I don’t think people are defending the CEOs. They are against the idea that a private company should be capped on how much it can pay an individual.
我不认为人们在为CEO们辩护。他们是在反对给私人公司支付给个人的薪酬设置上限。
I don’t think people are defending the CEOs. They are against the idea that a private company should be capped on how much it can pay an individual.
我不认为人们在为CEO们辩护。他们是在反对给私人公司支付给个人的薪酬设置上限。
fobfromgermany
That sounds like the exact same thing with different words. How’s that any different?
听起来是一样的，只是用了不同的词。有什么区别吗？
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
That sounds like the exact same thing with different words. How’s that any different?
听起来是一样的，只是用了不同的词。有什么区别吗？
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Wilko2324
I guess what I mean is people are not saying mr smith CEO of private company XYZ deserves to be paid x thousand pounds. But no one should be able to dictate a cap on how much an individual can be paid by a private company.
我想我的意思是，人们不会说私人公司XYZ的CEO史密斯先生应该得到X千英镑的报酬。但是，任何人都不应该规定私人公司可以向个人支付多少工资。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I guess what I mean is people are not saying mr smith CEO of private company XYZ deserves to be paid x thousand pounds. But no one should be able to dictate a cap on how much an individual can be paid by a private company.
我想我的意思是，人们不会说私人公司XYZ的CEO史密斯先生应该得到X千英镑的报酬。但是，任何人都不应该规定私人公司可以向个人支付多少工资。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
BigGirthyBob
I think what most people want, isn't to impose an arbitrary "you can not earn more than x amount" system (which the critics would say would stifle innovation etc. Even though this method has been proven to work fine elsewhere). But rather saying - for example - an exec cannot earn more than 5 times the wage of the lowest worker/mean wage of the company's workforce etc.
A model like this wouldn't stop execs claiming huge multimillion pound pay packets. But it would mean they'd have to work harder/be even more successful to get there, as the whole company's workforce would be enjoying the benefit of their/the company's success, rather than just a couple of top level execs.
我认为大多数人想要的不是强加一个武断的“你不能挣到超过X的钱”的制度（批评者会说这会扼杀创新等等。尽管这种方法已经被证明在其他地方很有效）。而是说，比如，一个高管的工资不能超过最基层工人/公司员工平均工资的5倍之类的。
这种模式无法阻止高管们索要数百万英镑的巨额薪酬。但这意味着他们必须更加努力/更加成功才能到达那里，因为整个公司的员工都将享受他们/公司的成功带来的好处，而不仅仅是几个高层管理人员。
I think what most people want, isn't to impose an arbitrary "you can not earn more than x amount" system (which the critics would say would stifle innovation etc. Even though this method has been proven to work fine elsewhere). But rather saying - for example - an exec cannot earn more than 5 times the wage of the lowest worker/mean wage of the company's workforce etc.
A model like this wouldn't stop execs claiming huge multimillion pound pay packets. But it would mean they'd have to work harder/be even more successful to get there, as the whole company's workforce would be enjoying the benefit of their/the company's success, rather than just a couple of top level execs.
我认为大多数人想要的不是强加一个武断的“你不能挣到超过X的钱”的制度（批评者会说这会扼杀创新等等。尽管这种方法已经被证明在其他地方很有效）。而是说，比如，一个高管的工资不能超过最基层工人/公司员工平均工资的5倍之类的。
这种模式无法阻止高管们索要数百万英镑的巨额薪酬。但这意味着他们必须更加努力/更加成功才能到达那里，因为整个公司的员工都将享受他们/公司的成功带来的好处，而不仅仅是几个高层管理人员。
smww93
It’s also amazing how many people attack high pay of top executives but at the same time if they were to get in that position, they wouldn’t forfeit the wealth.
People attack the system when they think they’ll never get to that level. However, IF they did, their attitude would change in an instance and they’d try and justify the pay.
令人惊讶的是，有多少人攻击高管的高薪，但与此同时，如果是他们得到了那个职位，他们也不会主动拿出这个财富的。
当人们认为自己永远无法达到那种水平时，他们就会攻击体制。然而，如果他们达到了，他们的态度就会发生逆转，他们会反过来努力证明这个薪酬是合理的。
It’s also amazing how many people attack high pay of top executives but at the same time if they were to get in that position, they wouldn’t forfeit the wealth.
People attack the system when they think they’ll never get to that level. However, IF they did, their attitude would change in an instance and they’d try and justify the pay.
令人惊讶的是，有多少人攻击高管的高薪，但与此同时，如果是他们得到了那个职位，他们也不会主动拿出这个财富的。
当人们认为自己永远无法达到那种水平时，他们就会攻击体制。然而，如果他们达到了，他们的态度就会发生逆转，他们会反过来努力证明这个薪酬是合理的。
DemonXeron
Nobody is worth more than 10x somebody else. Anyone who thinks this is a fool or brainwashed.
CEOs should make no more than 10x their lowest paid employees wage (even overseas). We should tax 100% over 10x the average wage and we should support other countries where their people are poorer than ours with the money we make.
But the Earth will crumble well before any of this will happen. Its what happens when the rich are the ones with the reins.
没有谁的价值超过别人的10倍。只有SB或被洗脑的人会觉得有。
CEO的工资不应超过其最低工资员工的10倍（即使在国外也是这样规定的）。我们应该对收入超过平均工资10倍以上的人征收100%的税，我们应该用我们赚的钱来支持那些人民比我们更穷的国家。
但在这一切发生之前地球就会崩溃——当富人掌握权力时，就会发生这种事。
Nobody is worth more than 10x somebody else. Anyone who thinks this is a fool or brainwashed.
CEOs should make no more than 10x their lowest paid employees wage (even overseas). We should tax 100% over 10x the average wage and we should support other countries where their people are poorer than ours with the money we make.
But the Earth will crumble well before any of this will happen. Its what happens when the rich are the ones with the reins.
没有谁的价值超过别人的10倍。只有SB或被洗脑的人会觉得有。
CEO的工资不应超过其最低工资员工的10倍（即使在国外也是这样规定的）。我们应该对收入超过平均工资10倍以上的人征收100%的税，我们应该用我们赚的钱来支持那些人民比我们更穷的国家。
但在这一切发生之前地球就会崩溃——当富人掌握权力时，就会发生这种事。
SergioVamosLondon
CEOs take on more risk and make millions/billions for their companies and profit shareholders, they are not easily replaceable too. They probably work grueling hours and had to take insane risks to get to their positions. For example, JP Morgan pay someone like a Jamie Dimon a ridiculous sum because as a CEO he is the one that keeps the bank ticking.
CEO承担了更多的风险，为公司和利润股东赚取了数百万/数十亿美元，他们也不容易被取代。他们可能要工作很长时间，还要冒着疯狂的风险才能到达他们的位置。比如，摩根大通给杰米·戴蒙这样的人支付了一大笔钱，因为作为CEO，他是能维持这家银行运转的人。
CEOs take on more risk and make millions/billions for their companies and profit shareholders, they are not easily replaceable too. They probably work grueling hours and had to take insane risks to get to their positions. For example, JP Morgan pay someone like a Jamie Dimon a ridiculous sum because as a CEO he is the one that keeps the bank ticking.
CEO承担了更多的风险，为公司和利润股东赚取了数百万/数十亿美元，他们也不容易被取代。他们可能要工作很长时间，还要冒着疯狂的风险才能到达他们的位置。比如，摩根大通给杰米·戴蒙这样的人支付了一大笔钱，因为作为CEO，他是能维持这家银行运转的人。
hierosir
That's fine. As long as everyone's living standards (on average) continues to rise there shouldn't be a problem with ultra wealthy. The issue is when their wealth is at the expense of declining living standards for the greater population.
There shouldn't be an issue with wealthy disparity. Per se. But the abuse of the population.
If the issue is "everyone can afford to cloth, feed, educate, and shelter their family, as well as take a holiday once in a while. BUT THAT GUY CAN GO ON 100 HOLIDAYS" we've got a very good problem on our hand.
What we want to avoid is "that fucker can cloth, feed, educate, shelter, and pursue leisure activities, and I don't know where my next meal is coming from." That's the abomination we want to avoid.
这很好。只要每个人的生活水平（平均水平）继续提高，那么超级富豪就不应该是个问题。问题是，他们的财富是以更多人的生活水平下降为代价的。
贫富差距不应该是一个问题。本身不是。但是压榨剥削是。
如果问题是“每个人都能负担得起他们家人的衣食住行，以及偶尔度假。但那家伙可以享受100个假期”，那么我们的问题就不严重。（高 VS 很高）
我们想要避免的是“那个混蛋可以穿衣服，吃东西，教育，住，从事休闲活动，而我都不知道我的下一顿饭从哪里来。”——这才是我们想要避免的。（高 VS 低）
That's fine. As long as everyone's living standards (on average) continues to rise there shouldn't be a problem with ultra wealthy. The issue is when their wealth is at the expense of declining living standards for the greater population.
There shouldn't be an issue with wealthy disparity. Per se. But the abuse of the population.
If the issue is "everyone can afford to cloth, feed, educate, and shelter their family, as well as take a holiday once in a while. BUT THAT GUY CAN GO ON 100 HOLIDAYS" we've got a very good problem on our hand.
What we want to avoid is "that fucker can cloth, feed, educate, shelter, and pursue leisure activities, and I don't know where my next meal is coming from." That's the abomination we want to avoid.
这很好。只要每个人的生活水平（平均水平）继续提高，那么超级富豪就不应该是个问题。问题是，他们的财富是以更多人的生活水平下降为代价的。
贫富差距不应该是一个问题。本身不是。但是压榨剥削是。
如果问题是“每个人都能负担得起他们家人的衣食住行，以及偶尔度假。但那家伙可以享受100个假期”，那么我们的问题就不严重。（高 VS 很高）
我们想要避免的是“那个混蛋可以穿衣服，吃东西，教育，住，从事休闲活动，而我都不知道我的下一顿饭从哪里来。”——这才是我们想要避免的。（高 VS 低）
Duploosin
Honestly doesn’t even surprise me anymore. Been saying for ages that unfortunately here and everywhere else in the world the disparity between the rich and normal people is growing like crazy! There always been this disparity but the rich are becoming more rich through investment growth and salary increases, whilst the rest of us stay stuck in this limbo of just about making ends meet…
老实说，我已经见怪不怪了。我一直在说，不幸的是，在这里和世界其他地方，富人和普通人之间的差距正在疯狂地扩大！这种差距一直存在，但富人通过投资增长和工资增长变得更加富有，而我们其余的人则在勉强维持收支平衡的边缘止步不前……
Honestly doesn’t even surprise me anymore. Been saying for ages that unfortunately here and everywhere else in the world the disparity between the rich and normal people is growing like crazy! There always been this disparity but the rich are becoming more rich through investment growth and salary increases, whilst the rest of us stay stuck in this limbo of just about making ends meet…
老实说，我已经见怪不怪了。我一直在说，不幸的是，在这里和世界其他地方，富人和普通人之间的差距正在疯狂地扩大！这种差距一直存在，但富人通过投资增长和工资增长变得更加富有，而我们其余的人则在勉强维持收支平衡的边缘止步不前……
weaslewig
Saw someone say that it's easier to imagine the end of the world than it is the imagine the end of capitalism.
That hits deep.
看到有人说想象世界末日比想象资本主义末日更容易。
太精辟了。
Saw someone say that it's easier to imagine the end of the world than it is the imagine the end of capitalism.
That hits deep.
看到有人说想象世界末日比想象资本主义末日更容易。
太精辟了。
theredwoman95
Which is ironic as it's only existed for about 200-300 years. It'll fade away, just like every other economic system has, at some point - it's just a question of when, and what comes next.
And it's worth pointing out we've had theories on that for a while - that's how Marx initially proposed socialism, not based on his political inclinations but as a progression/response to capitalism, just as capitalism replaced mercantilism, which replaced feudalism.
这很讽刺，因为资本主义才存在了200-300年。它将会消失的，就像其他经济制度一样，在某个时刻消失——何时消失只是一个时间问题，以及接下来又是个什么制度来接替它。
值得指出的是我们对此已经有了一些理论——这就是马克思最初提出社会主义的方式，不是基于他的政治倾向，而是作为对资本主义的一种发展/回应，就像之前资本主义取代了重商主义，再之前重商主义取代了封建主义一样。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Which is ironic as it's only existed for about 200-300 years. It'll fade away, just like every other economic system has, at some point - it's just a question of when, and what comes next.
And it's worth pointing out we've had theories on that for a while - that's how Marx initially proposed socialism, not based on his political inclinations but as a progression/response to capitalism, just as capitalism replaced mercantilism, which replaced feudalism.
这很讽刺，因为资本主义才存在了200-300年。它将会消失的，就像其他经济制度一样，在某个时刻消失——何时消失只是一个时间问题，以及接下来又是个什么制度来接替它。
值得指出的是我们对此已经有了一些理论——这就是马克思最初提出社会主义的方式，不是基于他的政治倾向，而是作为对资本主义的一种发展/回应，就像之前资本主义取代了重商主义，再之前重商主义取代了封建主义一样。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Crescent-IV
You could earn £10,000 every day for 200 years and still not be a billionaire. People should stop defending billionaires.
即使你每天赚1万英镑，坚持200年也不会让你变成亿万富翁。人们不应该再为亿万富翁辩护了。
You could earn £10,000 every day for 200 years and still not be a billionaire. People should stop defending billionaires.
即使你每天赚1万英镑，坚持200年也不会让你变成亿万富翁。人们不应该再为亿万富翁辩护了。
ICantBelieveItsNotEC
On the other hand, it only takes about 17 consecutive doublings to get to a billion from £10,000. Only 10 consecutive doublings if you start at £1,000,000. Nobody gets rich by making a linear amount of money - people get rich by investing huge amounts of money into productive ventures.
但另一方面，从1万英镑到10亿英镑，只需要连续17次翻倍。如果起价100万英镑，那么只要连续10次翻倍。没有人是通过赚线性数量的钱而致富的，人们是通过将大量的钱投资于有生产力的企业而（指数性）致富的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
On the other hand, it only takes about 17 consecutive doublings to get to a billion from £10,000. Only 10 consecutive doublings if you start at £1,000,000. Nobody gets rich by making a linear amount of money - people get rich by investing huge amounts of money into productive ventures.
但另一方面，从1万英镑到10亿英镑，只需要连续17次翻倍。如果起价100万英镑，那么只要连续10次翻倍。没有人是通过赚线性数量的钱而致富的，人们是通过将大量的钱投资于有生产力的企业而（指数性）致富的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Crescent-IV
Your point? That is still completely unfeasible for a normal person. My analogy was to help represent how large a number one billion really is
你想表达什么？这对一个正常人来说仍然是完全不可行的。我的类比是为了帮助说明10亿这个数字到底有多大
Your point? That is still completely unfeasible for a normal person. My analogy was to help represent how large a number one billion really is
你想表达什么？这对一个正常人来说仍然是完全不可行的。我的类比是为了帮助说明10亿这个数字到底有多大
hysondj
I mean, is this a surprise to anyone? This is capitalism working as intended.
我想说，这让谁感到吃惊了吗？这就是资本主义的正常运作而已。
I mean, is this a surprise to anyone? This is capitalism working as intended.
我想说，这让谁感到吃惊了吗？这就是资本主义的正常运作而已。
rocki-iEast Sussex
"They're paid what they're worth" sounds like it's time for a general strike to remind everyone who actually provides value.
“他们得到的是他们应得的报酬”这话听起来让人觉得好像是时候举行一次大罢工来提醒人们“到底是谁在创造真正价值”了。
"They're paid what they're worth" sounds like it's time for a general strike to remind everyone who actually provides value.
“他们得到的是他们应得的报酬”这话听起来让人觉得好像是时候举行一次大罢工来提醒人们“到底是谁在创造真正价值”了。
很赞 1
收藏