- I read in my weekend newspaper that the Vans-O-Doom might not have been so very “O-Doom” after all. Sheesh.
- Reading back Friday’s “Rewards For Failure”, I see that I was indeed not in the best of moods and not as coherent as I’d have liked to have been on the subject of executive pay. I think that the point I should have made (rather than the point I in fact did make, which was more influenced by the desire to make a couple of jokes than it should have been) is this: Yes, there is an issue with respect to inequality of pay. In that it reduces social solidarity and allows an entire swathe of society to more or less opt out of social services, it’s a very serious problem indeed. But if you believe it’s a problem, it’s clearly one that ought to be addressed through the tax system, not by half-assed one-off attempts to meddle in the contracts struck between employers and employees. The thing that’s really bad about the “Rewards For Failure” approach is that ita weaselly way of looking like you’re attacking the “fat cats” without actually putting up the tax policy to do it.
The adjunct pay thing will be addressed this week, as I think that I can rewrite my piece in such a way as to make most of my points without losing most of my friends.