»

[whabang]

I say this because a person can work sixteen hours a day on two jobs, seven days a week, and get paid no more than £12,000.

Aw, come on! I make more than that, and I'm underpaid.
I worked my arse off last year, I had two week-jobs and a third in the weekend. In four months I made over £8,000...

As you said, maximum wage caps would be useless. Employers would look at it as a way to keep the wages of their top-workers down, and the ones with "atrocious wages" would find a work-around.

High wages are good, as long as they're equally distributed.

[Bobsonsirjonny]

MArk Thomas is full of rhetoric. He does make some valid points - but often goes IMHO way off the mark.

We have a taxation system use that - no need to cap income. People would leave the country..

If they aint already wanting to because we are turning into a neo facist un-democratic state that sucks Bush's balls..

[Glaucus]

Wilse wrote:
@Rob:

Interesting idea.
I've never really thought about that and I've had a few beers, so my initial opinion is liable to change.
My immediate reaction is that the basic premise is a good idea but I think I'd aim more at half a million.

Like I say, I'll probably think it's a daft idea in the morning. :-D

It's really not as good as it first seems. If the sallary cap is compressed to between $5 and $200,000, then all you'll get is a re-scaling of everyone's wages. Doctors will still make less then pop-stars, and nurses will still make less then pro athletes. Those who will make the maximum will be only those who are difficult or impossible to replace. Also, as a direct result of this, prices for everything will also be equally affected, but luxaries exclusive to only the wealthiest will now be only available to the $150,000 club and up. What's changed? Nothing really, just created a new scale to measure wealth by.

- Mike

[Bobsonsirjonny]

Glaucus wrote:
It's really not as good as it first seems. If the sallary cap is compressed to between $5 and $200,000, then all you'll get is a re-scaling of everyone's wages. Doctors will still make less then pop-stars, and nurses will still make less then pro athletes. Those who will make the maximum will be only those who are difficult or impossible to replace. Also, as a direct result of this, prices for everything will also be equally affected, but luxaries exclusive to only the wealthiest will now be only available to the $150,000 club and up. What's changed? Nothing really, just created a new scale to measure wealth by.

- Mike

Exactly - its rhetoric. Mark Thomas' argument was as you would be paid less you would work less.. But that simply would not be true. Likewise we would not see people on low incomes earning more - they would most likely stay on their current wage indefinately.

[Wilse]

@Mike & Rob:

It's really not as good as it first seems.

Exactly - its rhetoric.

Yeah, like I said, I'd had a few beers.
Stupid idea! ;-)

[AccyD]

KennyR wrote:
The best ways to prevent people stealing from society like that are strong trade unions, openness of enterprise, and more shareholder rights.

I was going to write a comment about this, but with the idiocy of Kenny's comment I can't even be bothered to !

[that_punk_guy]

AccyD wrote:

I was going to write a comment about this, but with the idiocy of Kenny's comment I can't even be bothered to !

Please do. Otherwise we might have to assume you had nothing of merit to say.

[AccyD]

that_punk_guy wrote:
Please do. Otherwise we might have to assume you had nothing of merit to say.

Well since you have forced me......... :-) :-)

Depending on your point of view you could argue that any system is stealing from one another (e.g. do trade unions reduce the rewards for running a businnes by "stealing" the availiable rewards for the risk-takers?)

History has proved that no other system can encourage economic growth like the predominatly (notice I say predominatly not wholly) capitalist system, since you can only encourage risk taking by allowing people to gain significantly from taking risks. If you reduce the potential gains then you will also reduce enterprise.

As mentioned earlier, why should people who are prepared to risk their homes & ultimately their whole lifestyle be limited as to what rewards they can make, just because others are not prepared to take those risks?

That simply smacks to me of jealousy rather than a coherant argument.

I appreciate I will never be another Richard Branson / Bill Gates / etc. etc. as I do not have the right attitude towards risk and reward, but I do not begrudge these people their wealth as they have worked hard and risked their whole lifestyle to achieve their goals. We should look up to these people rather than try and reduce their earnings from what appears to be jealously rather than a properly constructed argument.

As far as the argument goes as what someone is worth then you must look further than merely what they can produce in a "shift". Most of the high earners earn higher salaries than their staff because of the following reasons:

1) Better qualifications.
2) Desire to work long hours.
3) Desire to succeed.
4) High level of motivation.
5) Experience of the business & its operating environment.

When you compare these things to the average workers (in Kenny's example earning £12k per annum) then you realise that most of these people are not prepared, to study, work longer hours, have no desire to do more than the minimum required of them, and have to force themselves to get up in the morning.

Whilst I appreciate that not everyone who earns a relativly low salary falls into all of these categories, however I will bet £100 that they fall into at least one of the above.

When you look at these high earners you only see the positive sides of their jobs (i.e. the high salaries) and not the bad sides. For example I went out for a meal with my company's (a subsiduary of a FTSE100 company) MD, FD & Operations directors, and for a three hour meal starting at 8pm on a Friday night, between them they probably had three hours worth of phone calls. Do you really see that the majority of the population would be prepared to put up with that kind of inconvinience on a Friday night? NO. Well then they cannot expect to be rewarded like these people when payday arrives.

The above is only one example, how about working weekends, and haveing to stay in touch with the office during holidays etc. etc.

Also, you can argue that these people contribute more than their fair share to society, since they are paying tax at 40% (in the UK) on their earnings, and given the higher salaries are actually doing more to reduce inequality than those such as Kenny who (I'm assuming) only pays basic rate tax on smaller salary.

Similarly, they are also likely to consume less state benefits, as they will pay for private education for their children (thus increasing tax as more teachers are employed & reducing reliance upon the state to pay for their children so allowing more money per child to be spent on the less well off children), they are likely to pay for PMI & so will not use the NHS, again a social security paid for but not used, and finally will probably at the end of all of this have saved enough to get a good pension & so will probably pay tax on this whilst also not reciveing anything mroe than these basic state one. Again, having paid NI for a benefit they will not recieve.

So as you can see overall these high earners benfit not only themseleves but society as a whole, curb the enterprise culture in the country and you will kill England as a whole in the long-term.

Incidentally, I have not mentioned the following but will do if you wish to continue this debate:

1) Increaisng employment
2) Reducing unemployment
3) Increasing taxation
4) Better social mix.

[Bobsonsirjonny]

AccyD wrote:
1) Better qualifications.
2) Desire to work long hours.
3) Desire to succeed.
4) High level of motivation.
5) Experience of the business & its operating environment.

Well thats not always the case (I'm being devils advocate):

1) Ive a BA Hons
2) I work all the hours Gods sends when I have a deadline, as that is what happends in my chosen career.
3) I have that
4) Pretty much
5) Not a lot.

Yet I earn bugger all - and infact did a load of work to have my university take the money off me. I now work as a medical secretary cos the hours are less, the financial reward is more - I can then bugger off to Aus.. they also lack animators..

I was appauled to hear a lady phone in to critsise the policy. Her reasons were not logical like Mikes, but were quite greedy.. She explained about how she has sacrificed her home life for this money. How she has sacrificed her husband and his career etc. That she has done all this for the money and doesnt see why she should loose that.

I had to laugh, for she had placed money above her family. You cant take it with you. The point of earning is to provide for yourself and your family - She had all this money, and no one to spend it on as her greed had driven her away from them.

[KennyR]

So allowing people to make huge profits encourages investment (from Fade) and encourages trade and flow of capital (from AccyD). I won't deny either. So what have I got against it? Well...

Virtually all of the high band earnings are paid to company managers, CEOs, CTOs, whatever. These people invariably do not own the company, although they do have, most times, the power to affect wages.

Why is it then, that there are many documented cases of them raising their own wages out of nothing but greed? It's almost never performance related, and never in line with inflation or wages of lesser ranked employees. They often work less hours than the said employees, and sometimes are just token employees with very little responsibility.

So why shouldn't we allow this greed?

- It's bad for the company image
- It's bad for intercompany competition
- It's bad for the workforce morale
- It's bad for shareholder confidence

So it's bad on all levels, both commercial and social.

My 'idiocy' described three things: openness of business, so you can see what these people are getting paid, and whether they deserve it; strong trade unions to take possible strike action; and finally better shareholder options so that shareholders can revolt and stop wage rises. I don't really see idiocy in any of them, sorry. They're good for people and good for business.

Ok, my revulsion to truly disgusting wages paid to many management employees is an emotional response. But it's not one of jealousy. It's one of sheer injustice. If injustice is idiocy to the capitalist-minded, then perhaps capitalism really is the cold, inhuman system many of the far left decry it as, and systems like that eventually fall.

[AccyD]

KennyR wrote:
My 'idiocy' described three things: openness of business, so you can see what these people are getting paid, and whether they deserve it; strong trade unions to take possible strike action; and finally better shareholder options so that shareholders can revolt and stop wage rises. I don't really see idiocy in any of them, sorry. They're good for people and good for business.

Wrong on two counts.

Firstly, how much more power do you want to give shareholders, they already have the power remove members of the board, restrict their pay, and chase them through the courts if they suspect them of acting ultra vires (all of these options also apply to minority interests who can apply to the courts for a suspension of the business whilst matters are investigated). I don't see how we can give them any more power, short of giving them a directorship themselves?? So what powers exactly are you arguing to give them that they do not have??

Secondly, you can see what any director of a UK plc earns (inc. benefits in kind, share options, use of company assets, etc), simply phone up their head office and ask for a copy of their accounts. Again what more disclosures do you require??

For those points I would suggest you get a copy of the most recent company acts (1985 and 1989) and you will find that everything you need is already availiable by right of law.

Finally, strike action benefits no one (employee's, employer or the public), and smacks of desperation by people who cannot debate an issue sensibly. Ultimatly, stronger trade unions will only serve to stifle growth and create more unemployment in the long-term, thus making the problem even worse.

Ok, my revulsion to truly digusting wages paid to many management employees is an emotional response. But it's not one of jealousy. It's one of sheer injustice. If injustice is idiocy to the capitalist-minded, then perhaps capitalism really is the cold, inhuman system many of the far left decry it as, and systems like that eventually fall.

You mean the system that has worked for the last 8000yrs is bound to fail, exactly what basis & past evidence have you for your argument??

The only model that has positively failed during our recent history, is the communist one, and I hope you are not proposing this as an alternative - unless you have been drinking this evening??

[KennyR]

AccyD wrote:
Firstly, how much more power do you want to give shareholders, they already have the power remove members of the board, restrict their pay, and chase them through the courts if they suspect them of acting ultra vires (all of these options also apply to minority interests who can apply to the courts for a suspension of the business whilst matters are investigated). I don't see how we can give them any more power, short of giving them a directorship themselves?? So what powers exactly are you arguing to give them that they do not have??

One, simply: the veto.

Secondly, you can see what any director of a UK plc earns (inc. benefits in kind, share options, use of company assets, etc), simply phone up their head office and ask for a copy of their accounts. Again what more disclosures do you require??

Heh, nice try. You won't be informed of any bonuses, pension funds or performance related pay, just the basic wage which is often far short of what they really do get.

Finally, strike action benefits no one (employee's, employer or the public), and smacks of desperation by people who cannot debate an issue sensibly. Ultimatly, stronger trade unions will only serve to stifle growth and create more unemployment in the long-term, thus making the problem even worse.

Strikes are an absolutely last resort, and nobody wants them. They almost always result in people getting fired, not being paid, the company taking serious damage, and later backlashes against the unions. They are bad news all round.

That said, they are a very potent deterrent, and great for reminding management sometimes that the workers aren't packhorses. Actually, without even mentioning them, they are a distant threat on the horizon and prone to preventing the worst excesses of selfish thinking by management.

You mean the system that has worked for the last 8000yrs is bound to fail, exactly what basis & past evidence have you for your argument??

Imperialism was around even longer. Guess what, it failed. Absolutely spectacularly. It failed because it was based singularly on exploitation and as soon as people got the means to understand their part in the scheme of things, nobody was left to defend it.

My evidence: simply that injusticies in society are dealt with, sooner or later. By reform, not by revolution.

[Bobsonsirjonny]

A friend of mine has just been laid off. She was working for a company doing their web dev. She had loads of work pilled on her. Competition is so rife that they were paying her eff all - she was on about £800 a month. She took it though cos it had good career development potential. Anyway she was promised a bonus as soon as this was all done.

She did it - and they sacked her.

Turns out they are £120,000 in debt. The bank wants the money back. Turns out that management had given themselves a pay rise. She is now screwed, and will most likely not see any of the money owed to her. She had ambition, drive, worked hard, was willing to go the extra mile for bugger all cos she was promised bigger things.

[T_Bone]

> Turns out that management had given themselves a pay rise.

This isn't as corny as it sounds. Many CEO's and upper management argue that it's harder work doing their job when the company is doing badly.

Another reason it's sometimes done, is to pave the way for a crop of new blood, who they are enticing to come to the distressed company with the lure of higher wages, or even to keep crucial management from looking to flee the sinking ship.

Never ever accept a pretty picture of the future in leu of your current pay. If a company isn't sure enough of future success to pay you more NOW instead of later, then they really arn't optimistic enough themselves, so why should you be?

[Bobsonsirjonny]

Thing is competition is so rife they would have given the job to someone else. Career development is a factor - if it means you can get ahead its sometimes worth the gamble. But the managers dont make the product - they are now sacking there staff. How can they make money if they dont have anyone makeing the stuff they need to make money from?