Friday 22 October 2021
Having no skin in the game
Why do BBC presenters receive such extraordinarily generous salaries? Supposedly they are paid some kind of market rate, but surely any jobbing actor could do what they do.
A more convincing explanation is that a huge salary is used to haul them into a particular social class and nail them there for the duration. It ensures that they have no skin in the game when it comes to certain social and political trends which damage social classes below their cosmopolitan comfort zone. For the common good of course.
For example, relentless attempts to make COP26 seem relevant to real life are driven by those with virtually no skin in the game. They can afford the obvious stupidity as payment for a Malthusian perspective to offset what to them should be minor financial downsides. It may not turn out like that, but this is their narrative.
The expensive energy, the inevitable restrictions on mobility, holiday travel, air travel. The colder houses, unaffordable winter heating, the inevitable impact on low income families. The chattering classes have far less skin than most of us in these, more serious downsides.
They never had any skin in the immigration game either, only ever viewing it from a comfortable cosmopolitan perspective. Having no skin in the game there was never a motive to explore the legitimacy of other, sharper perspectives further down the social ladder. Neither is there a motive to consider the inner city violence, the erosion of a successful culture or even the rewriting of history.
They have no skin in the increasingly forlorn need to preserve free speech. Just the opposite - they have skin the censorship game. They benefit from restrictions on criticism and even language because their social class created a need for heavier censorship. For the common good of course.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
This observation about 'skin in the game' accords with my advice to my (grown) children - "Share The Pain". If you are left fuming at the way in which some bureaucrat or storeperson has dealt with you make the problem theirs too by sharing the pain. Write to the head office. Find out the how to phone the boss in charge. Give cutting reviews on surveys (especially on products sold by stores like Amazon).
As a postscript, always make a note of the name of the person dealing with you, and the time, together with a brief note if possible. It makes it more difficult for you to be fobbed off again if you can quote these details.
Good argument there. The job is I believe quite taxing, with people on top TV and Radio shows having to deal with a lot of pressure in front of a big and often critical audience. That merits a high salary, but not anything like the astonishing amounts they get. Apparently judges used to be paid huge sums so as to make them immune to corruption, and this is quite similar.
Except, of course, that one would expect someone who has been financially lifted above the fray to be fairly even-handed in the prejudices they express. If you don't live in areas of high immigration or have to save up to pay your heating bill, then your political arguments might go either way, according to temperament and what you've been reading. But - with a few exceptions like Clarkson and Rod Liddle - they all seem to toe the party line. Looking for promotion or renewal of contracts, maybe?
DJ - A former boss of mine was a total shitehouse and a bully but what I learned from her was - keep a papertrail. Time after time when dealing with customers and suppliers her meticulous papertrail put her one step ahead of the opposition.
A friend of ours has the most perfect voice for broadcasting. My wife once asked me why he hadn't gone in for it. "Too intelligent" said I.
They may have no skin in the 'scientific game' that is net zero and the outlawing of 'fossil fuels' but they're in for a nasty shock. None of them are aware that the plastics which make up all modern electronics and much mechanics will vanish with the oil ban. Then what will they do? Stop sawing the bough between where they're sitting and the trunk perhaps?
Make the Chattering Classes the Teeth Chattering Classes by making them live as they wish to make others live.
DJ and Jannie - yes, always assume you are case-building. It's what I'm doing with an aspect of our GP service.
Sam - even modest wealth has always insulated people from real life, so I suppose one difference we see in judges is that they do see real life in spite of that. Even so, it is a little odd that so many BBC types do not seem to understand impartiality at all.
dearieme - at school we had a physics teacher with unusually good diction and a fine voice. He knew it too, but as far as I know never moved on from teaching.
Tammly - yes they don't appear to understand how deeply embedded it all is and how impossible their demands are.
Nessimmersion - that's the sinister aspect, they talk the talk but obviously have no intention of walking the walk.
Post a Comment