FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Living Wage vs Labour Supply
Living Wage vs Labour Supply
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Can the wages of the unskilled wver catch up to a (notionally) fair rate that would be considered a fair living wage when we allow an the supply side (external supply) to tilt the balance of power in the market for workers? I’ve noticed that there is a link between those advicating improvements in wages and also advocating free movement. I voted remain - but was under no illusion that a huge reason for the free movement was to arbitrage wages between poorer lower paid areas and higher wage areas to manage inflation and help corporates. This is principally why the EU expanded east too. So now we have left, do we not celebrate the return of power to the worker to get a better deal? Can we have a cheap cake, one that the baker can afford to eat too?" that seems fair to me | |||
"Can the wages of the unskilled wver catch up to a (notionally) fair rate that would be considered a fair living wage when we allow an the supply side (external supply) to tilt the balance of power in the market for workers? I’ve noticed that there is a link between those advicating improvements in wages and also advocating free movement. I voted remain - but was under no illusion that a huge reason for the free movement was to arbitrage wages between poorer lower paid areas and higher wage areas to manage inflation and help corporates. This is principally why the EU expanded east too. So now we have left, do we not celebrate the return of power to the worker to get a better deal? Can we have a cheap cake, one that the baker can afford to eat too?" Irish here, but the whole way our global and unfortunately normalised absurd economic system works definitely needs to be overhauled or us "civilised" countries will see actions taken similar to what's happening across the pond. Seen these Freshii restaurants over in Canada trialing out call centre staff from Nicaragua paid $3.75 an hour taking orders through self service kiosks just to give to the kitchen right beside the customer? First world folk have to remain consumers in this consumption dependent world, but companies so obsessed with profit never seen before are getting fed up with us wanting to actually make enough money to live. | |||
"Can the wages of the unskilled wver catch up to a (notionally) fair rate that would be considered a fair living wage when we allow an the supply side (external supply) to tilt the balance of power in the market for workers? I’ve noticed that there is a link between those advicating improvements in wages and also advocating free movement. I voted remain - but was under no illusion that a huge reason for the free movement was to arbitrage wages between poorer lower paid areas and higher wage areas to manage inflation and help corporates. This is principally why the EU expanded east too. So now we have left, do we not celebrate the return of power to the worker to get a better deal? Can we have a cheap cake, one that the baker can afford to eat too?" There's no good reason why not, in a country as wealthy as the UK - and unskilled is a relative term. The pandemic proved that. Unfortunately, the UK market economy isn't designed for such a wage. It never really has been. The one thing the wealthy won't overpay for is the labour of less fortunate human beings. They never have. Capitalism is about making as much profit from lowly paid labour as you can get away with. That applies even in a market where there's a labour shortage - because, legally, the shareholders come first. The minimum wage was decried by the Tories - who, I'm led to believe, are firm advocates of the market economy - as being bad for business, when it was first introduced. Luckily, they've seen the error of their ways on that. The NMW will earn you £19,760, before tax and NI, for a 40hr week, for all 52 weeks. I could live on that, no problem. As it happens, I work two jobs and I'm still on UC. I'm doing ok - but I only have me to worry about and my needs are fairly small. However, I am in no way typical of your average UC claimant. There are millions of people in the UK who are really struggling, in the absence of the sort of wages you suggest, who have all sorts of family commitments to worry about. They really do need the help. I guess the question is, in order to support a fair wage, that lifts everyone out of the parameters of food and fuel poverty; how much more are you prepared to pay for what you want to buy? And how much more in various taxes? It's a tricky one - but you're right to ask the question. | |||
| |||
"Can the wages of the unskilled wver catch up to a (notionally) fair rate that would be considered a fair living wage when we allow an the supply side (external supply) to tilt the balance of power in the market for workers? I’ve noticed that there is a link between those advicating improvements in wages and also advocating free movement. I voted remain - but was under no illusion that a huge reason for the free movement was to arbitrage wages between poorer lower paid areas and higher wage areas to manage inflation and help corporates. This is principally why the EU expanded east too. So now we have left, do we not celebrate the return of power to the worker to get a better deal? Can we have a cheap cake, one that the baker can afford to eat too?" This goes against everything the Tory party stand for. There is not a snowballs chance in hell this will be allowed to happen. In real terms most people are being paid less. The inflation rises and the cost of living rises are pushing more and more people into poverty and foodbank use. It would be great if we could have a fairer society but Brexit and the Tories are all about widening the gap between the rich and poor, not shortening it! | |||
"Can the wages of the unskilled wver catch up to a (notionally) fair rate that would be considered a fair living wage when we allow an the supply side (external supply) to tilt the balance of power in the market for workers? I’ve noticed that there is a link between those advicating improvements in wages and also advocating free movement. I voted remain - but was under no illusion that a huge reason for the free movement was to arbitrage wages between poorer lower paid areas and higher wage areas to manage inflation and help corporates. This is principally why the EU expanded east too. So now we have left, do we not celebrate the return of power to the worker to get a better deal? Can we have a cheap cake, one that the baker can afford to eat too?" Speaking purely from personal experience my work and wage situation has improved significantly. More importantly we are now treated as valuable employees as opposed to disposable employees as it used to be. Before the attitude of management was, well if you don't like it then tough we will just bring in someone that will replace you. The problem was they were right. I don't know if it's the after effects of covid or what but something changed. | |||
"Can the wages of the unskilled wver catch up to a (notionally) fair rate that would be considered a fair living wage when we allow an the supply side (external supply) to tilt the balance of power in the market for workers? I’ve noticed that there is a link between those advicating improvements in wages and also advocating free movement. I voted remain - but was under no illusion that a huge reason for the free movement was to arbitrage wages between poorer lower paid areas and higher wage areas to manage inflation and help corporates. This is principally why the EU expanded east too. So now we have left, do we not celebrate the return of power to the worker to get a better deal? Can we have a cheap cake, one that the baker can afford to eat too? Speaking purely from personal experience my work and wage situation has improved significantly. More importantly we are now treated as valuable employees as opposed to disposable employees as it used to be. Before the attitude of management was, well if you don't like it then tough we will just bring in someone that will replace you. The problem was they were right. I don't know if it's the after effects of covid or what but something changed. " Unfortunately it’s not as rosy as you might hope. This is all about Brexit and shortages of workers which means business owners are having to pay more and behave more reasonably to their staff at the moment. Be aware though that the forthcoming Indian trade deals and visa arrangements will undermine that and something else which is not being mentioned much at the moment but is set to increase is the number of Hong Kong migrants who will be resettling to England. Two of my clients are retired and have relocated to Bristol from HK (along with their dependents) and they tell me that many more wish to do the same. So we will have more older people buying up property and making it even more difficult for young people to get on the property ladder. I don’t object to immigration as I believe it improves society but what we are going to see is a huge number of Tory supporting middle class immigrants who will make this country ever more polarised and plunge the poor into desperate levels of poverty and homelessness | |||
"Can the wages of the unskilled wver catch up to a (notionally) fair rate that would be considered a fair living wage when we allow an the supply side (external supply) to tilt the balance of power in the market for workers? I’ve noticed that there is a link between those advicating improvements in wages and also advocating free movement. I voted remain - but was under no illusion that a huge reason for the free movement was to arbitrage wages between poorer lower paid areas and higher wage areas to manage inflation and help corporates. This is principally why the EU expanded east too. So now we have left, do we not celebrate the return of power to the worker to get a better deal? Can we have a cheap cake, one that the baker can afford to eat too? Speaking purely from personal experience my work and wage situation has improved significantly. More importantly we are now treated as valuable employees as opposed to disposable employees as it used to be. Before the attitude of management was, well if you don't like it then tough we will just bring in someone that will replace you. The problem was they were right. I don't know if it's the after effects of covid or what but something changed. Unfortunately it’s not as rosy as you might hope. This is all about Brexit and shortages of workers which means business owners are having to pay more and behave more reasonably to their staff at the moment. Be aware though that the forthcoming Indian trade deals and visa arrangements will undermine that and something else which is not being mentioned much at the moment but is set to increase is the number of Hong Kong migrants who will be resettling to England. Two of my clients are retired and have relocated to Bristol from HK (along with their dependents) and they tell me that many more wish to do the same. So we will have more older people buying up property and making it even more difficult for young people to get on the property ladder. I don’t object to immigration as I believe it improves society but what we are going to see is a huge number of Tory supporting middle class immigrants who will make this country ever more polarised and plunge the poor into desperate levels of poverty and homelessness " As I say I am speaking personally about my own experience of things that have actually happened. I did not mention brexit at all. I have no idea if it will last or how long it will last but just glad things have improved. | |||
| |||
"A minimum wage that does not require government subsidy means that companies are paying the genuine cost of labour without subsidy. This cannot be undercut by imported labour. The problem with this is?" The principle in terms of fairness and humanity is I hope accepted by all and unquestioned. The challenge is in the calculation and what triggers change: balanced against the impacts on inflation and from import of labour and export of jobs. Could minimum wage rise to say £12ph without the benefit being eroded quickly be rapid inflation? What rate is enough for someone to fairly be compensated? What about parts of the country like London where it is a lot more expensive to live? Probably needs to be nearer £20ph there. Why are many jobs classified as MW? What differentiates a job that is MW vs a job that has a market salary that is markedly better? Is the problem that with advanced economies there are simply too many people who are not capable of exceeding WM boundaries and therefore some form of citizen income is needed as more and more technology advances arrive which further put pressures on lo earners? Is part of the issue that we need to level a hidden area of societal discrimination and an unspoken truth in the quest for equality. Not everyone has the same number of marbles in the box so should we move towards a model that flattens the difference and rewards doctors the same as cleaners. Is the problem not that we pay the bulk of society too little, but that we actually pay a minority too much. We should eliminate that to make it all fairer? Many questions. Not sure what the fair and workable solution is in the interconnected global economy without a global shift to level up and balance wages. Unless we ban trade deals that allow offshoring, labour migration and return to protectionism. | |||
"A minimum wage that does not require government subsidy means that companies are paying the genuine cost of labour without subsidy. This cannot be undercut by imported labour. The problem with this is? The principle in terms of fairness and humanity is I hope accepted by all and unquestioned. The challenge is in the calculation and what triggers change: balanced against the impacts on inflation and from import of labour and export of jobs. Could minimum wage rise to say £12ph without the benefit being eroded quickly be rapid inflation? What rate is enough for someone to fairly be compensated? What about parts of the country like London where it is a lot more expensive to live? Probably needs to be nearer £20ph there. Why are many jobs classified as MW? What differentiates a job that is MW vs a job that has a market salary that is markedly better? Is the problem that with advanced economies there are simply too many people who are not capable of exceeding WM boundaries and therefore some form of citizen income is needed as more and more technology advances arrive which further put pressures on lo earners? Is part of the issue that we need to level a hidden area of societal discrimination and an unspoken truth in the quest for equality. Not everyone has the same number of marbles in the box so should we move towards a model that flattens the difference and rewards doctors the same as cleaners. Is the problem not that we pay the bulk of society too little, but that we actually pay a minority too much. We should eliminate that to make it all fairer? Many questions. Not sure what the fair and workable solution is in the interconnected global economy without a global shift to level up and balance wages. Unless we ban trade deals that allow offshoring, labour migration and return to protectionism. " It's not so complicated. What is the minimum necessary for people to be safe and healthy? That's the minimum wage. There is no problem with inequality. There is a problem with fairness of opportunity and exploitation. How does that create inflation with adequate supply? How can labour be undercut? Technology rarely replaces people. It multiplies them. That's productivity. Trade deals are negotiated such that you don't undercut your own industries. Except in our case, apparently. Foreign aid is supposed to be one of the things that helps bring equity. We aren't interested anymore. | |||
"A minimum wage that does not require government subsidy means that companies are paying the genuine cost of labour without subsidy. This cannot be undercut by imported labour. The problem with this is? The principle in terms of fairness and humanity is I hope accepted by all and unquestioned. The challenge is in the calculation and what triggers change: balanced against the impacts on inflation and from import of labour and export of jobs. Could minimum wage rise to say £12ph without the benefit being eroded quickly be rapid inflation? What rate is enough for someone to fairly be compensated? What about parts of the country like London where it is a lot more expensive to live? Probably needs to be nearer £20ph there. Why are many jobs classified as MW? What differentiates a job that is MW vs a job that has a market salary that is markedly better? Is the problem that with advanced economies there are simply too many people who are not capable of exceeding WM boundaries and therefore some form of citizen income is needed as more and more technology advances arrive which further put pressures on lo earners? Is part of the issue that we need to level a hidden area of societal discrimination and an unspoken truth in the quest for equality. Not everyone has the same number of marbles in the box so should we move towards a model that flattens the difference and rewards doctors the same as cleaners. Is the problem not that we pay the bulk of society too little, but that we actually pay a minority too much. We should eliminate that to make it all fairer? Many questions. Not sure what the fair and workable solution is in the interconnected global economy without a global shift to level up and balance wages. Unless we ban trade deals that allow offshoring, labour migration and return to protectionism. It's not so complicated. What is the minimum necessary for people to be safe and healthy? That's the minimum wage. There is no problem with inequality. There is a problem with fairness of opportunity and exploitation. How does that create inflation with adequate supply? How can labour be undercut? Technology rarely replaces people. It multiplies them. That's productivity. Trade deals are negotiated such that you don't undercut your own industries. Except in our case, apparently. Foreign aid is supposed to be one of the things that helps bring equity. We aren't interested anymore." So what’s the number? | |||
"A minimum wage that does not require government subsidy means that companies are paying the genuine cost of labour without subsidy. This cannot be undercut by imported labour. The problem with this is? The principle in terms of fairness and humanity is I hope accepted by all and unquestioned. The challenge is in the calculation and what triggers change: balanced against the impacts on inflation and from import of labour and export of jobs. Could minimum wage rise to say £12ph without the benefit being eroded quickly be rapid inflation? What rate is enough for someone to fairly be compensated? What about parts of the country like London where it is a lot more expensive to live? Probably needs to be nearer £20ph there. Why are many jobs classified as MW? What differentiates a job that is MW vs a job that has a market salary that is markedly better? Is the problem that with advanced economies there are simply too many people who are not capable of exceeding WM boundaries and therefore some form of citizen income is needed as more and more technology advances arrive which further put pressures on lo earners? Is part of the issue that we need to level a hidden area of societal discrimination and an unspoken truth in the quest for equality. Not everyone has the same number of marbles in the box so should we move towards a model that flattens the difference and rewards doctors the same as cleaners. Is the problem not that we pay the bulk of society too little, but that we actually pay a minority too much. We should eliminate that to make it all fairer? Many questions. Not sure what the fair and workable solution is in the interconnected global economy without a global shift to level up and balance wages. Unless we ban trade deals that allow offshoring, labour migration and return to protectionism. It's not so complicated. What is the minimum necessary for people to be safe and healthy? That's the minimum wage. There is no problem with inequality. There is a problem with fairness of opportunity and exploitation. How does that create inflation with adequate supply? How can labour be undercut? Technology rarely replaces people. It multiplies them. That's productivity. Trade deals are negotiated such that you don't undercut your own industries. Except in our case, apparently. Foreign aid is supposed to be one of the things that helps bring equity. We aren't interested anymore. So what’s the number? " How would I know? That's what governments and experts work out. Over time. With a best first estimate followed by iterations and a government that has some purpose other than stating in power. | |||
"A minimum wage that does not require government subsidy means that companies are paying the genuine cost of labour without subsidy. This cannot be undercut by imported labour. The problem with this is? The principle in terms of fairness and humanity is I hope accepted by all and unquestioned. The challenge is in the calculation and what triggers change: balanced against the impacts on inflation and from import of labour and export of jobs. Could minimum wage rise to say £12ph without the benefit being eroded quickly be rapid inflation? What rate is enough for someone to fairly be compensated? What about parts of the country like London where it is a lot more expensive to live? Probably needs to be nearer £20ph there. Why are many jobs classified as MW? What differentiates a job that is MW vs a job that has a market salary that is markedly better? Is the problem that with advanced economies there are simply too many people who are not capable of exceeding WM boundaries and therefore some form of citizen income is needed as more and more technology advances arrive which further put pressures on lo earners? Is part of the issue that we need to level a hidden area of societal discrimination and an unspoken truth in the quest for equality. Not everyone has the same number of marbles in the box so should we move towards a model that flattens the difference and rewards doctors the same as cleaners. Is the problem not that we pay the bulk of society too little, but that we actually pay a minority too much. We should eliminate that to make it all fairer? Many questions. Not sure what the fair and workable solution is in the interconnected global economy without a global shift to level up and balance wages. Unless we ban trade deals that allow offshoring, labour migration and return to protectionism. It's not so complicated. What is the minimum necessary for people to be safe and healthy? That's the minimum wage. There is no problem with inequality. There is a problem with fairness of opportunity and exploitation. How does that create inflation with adequate supply? How can labour be undercut? Technology rarely replaces people. It multiplies them. That's productivity. Trade deals are negotiated such that you don't undercut your own industries. Except in our case, apparently. Foreign aid is supposed to be one of the things that helps bring equity. We aren't interested anymore. So what’s the number? How would I know? That's what governments and experts work out. Over time. With a best first estimate followed by iterations and a government that has some purpose other than stating in power." Fair enough. I was expecting a bit more. But good of you to acknowledge that this is basically ideological and expecting someone else to solve the riddle without having go consider the full implications of what it entails. I agree 100% it should be enough for people to have the basics and be healthy. If we paid bar star £18 an hour. Would a pint of beer be more or less expensive. Would that cut demand unless the drinkers paying the bill could offset the rise in cost? Could we somehow het the bar staff to pull 50 pints an hour by installing better pumps. Or make the glasses bigger? Could we 100% guarantee therefore that there’s no inflationary impact? Is it that simple? Could we encourage hair dressers to charge 25% more. Would their landlords not be tempted to hike up rents if they knew their tenants were more flush? I assume all their customers are also getting a pay rise to pay the bigger bill? Current fuel and general inflation aside. The real issue in this country is property costs and the proportion people on low incomes have to spend on accommodation. If there was such a thing as teal affordable housing then the current nmw would actually go a lot further. But successive governments have fuelled buy to let and done nothing to fix the supply side yet have allowed people to flood in pushing up demand. Fix that and a lot of other things will br a hell of a lot easier to fix. I dare say we’d still be in the EU if property affordability was healthier. | |||
"A minimum wage that does not require government subsidy means that companies are paying the genuine cost of labour without subsidy. This cannot be undercut by imported labour. The problem with this is? The principle in terms of fairness and humanity is I hope accepted by all and unquestioned. The challenge is in the calculation and what triggers change: balanced against the impacts on inflation and from import of labour and export of jobs. Could minimum wage rise to say £12ph without the benefit being eroded quickly be rapid inflation? What rate is enough for someone to fairly be compensated? What about parts of the country like London where it is a lot more expensive to live? Probably needs to be nearer £20ph there. Why are many jobs classified as MW? What differentiates a job that is MW vs a job that has a market salary that is markedly better? Is the problem that with advanced economies there are simply too many people who are not capable of exceeding WM boundaries and therefore some form of citizen income is needed as more and more technology advances arrive which further put pressures on lo earners? Is part of the issue that we need to level a hidden area of societal discrimination and an unspoken truth in the quest for equality. Not everyone has the same number of marbles in the box so should we move towards a model that flattens the difference and rewards doctors the same as cleaners. Is the problem not that we pay the bulk of society too little, but that we actually pay a minority too much. We should eliminate that to make it all fairer? Many questions. Not sure what the fair and workable solution is in the interconnected global economy without a global shift to level up and balance wages. Unless we ban trade deals that allow offshoring, labour migration and return to protectionism. It's not so complicated. What is the minimum necessary for people to be safe and healthy? That's the minimum wage. There is no problem with inequality. There is a problem with fairness of opportunity and exploitation. How does that create inflation with adequate supply? How can labour be undercut? Technology rarely replaces people. It multiplies them. That's productivity. Trade deals are negotiated such that you don't undercut your own industries. Except in our case, apparently. Foreign aid is supposed to be one of the things that helps bring equity. We aren't interested anymore. So what’s the number? How would I know? That's what governments and experts work out. Over time. With a best first estimate followed by iterations and a government that has some purpose other than stating in power. Fair enough. I was expecting a bit more. But good of you to acknowledge that this is basically ideological and expecting someone else to solve the riddle without having go consider the full implications of what it entails. I agree 100% it should be enough for people to have the basics and be healthy. If we paid bar star £18 an hour. Would a pint of beer be more or less expensive. Would that cut demand unless the drinkers paying the bill could offset the rise in cost? Could we somehow het the bar staff to pull 50 pints an hour by installing better pumps. Or make the glasses bigger? Could we 100% guarantee therefore that there’s no inflationary impact? Is it that simple? Could we encourage hair dressers to charge 25% more. Would their landlords not be tempted to hike up rents if they knew their tenants were more flush? I assume all their customers are also getting a pay rise to pay the bigger bill? Current fuel and general inflation aside. The real issue in this country is property costs and the proportion people on low incomes have to spend on accommodation. If there was such a thing as teal affordable housing then the current nmw would actually go a lot further. But successive governments have fuelled buy to let and done nothing to fix the supply side yet have allowed people to flood in pushing up demand. Fix that and a lot of other things will br a hell of a lot easier to fix. I dare say we’d still be in the EU if property affordability was healthier. " I have to agree with you there i feel sorry for people who are reaching retirement age and dont own their own property infact anyone who has to rent these days as the majority of their wages are going on rent. The government although building the houses they promised are all for sale.In my opinion each council should be made to build council houses for local people. | |||
"A minimum wage that does not require government subsidy means that companies are paying the genuine cost of labour without subsidy. This cannot be undercut by imported labour. The problem with this is? The principle in terms of fairness and humanity is I hope accepted by all and unquestioned. The challenge is in the calculation and what triggers change: balanced against the impacts on inflation and from import of labour and export of jobs. Could minimum wage rise to say £12ph without the benefit being eroded quickly be rapid inflation? What rate is enough for someone to fairly be compensated? What about parts of the country like London where it is a lot more expensive to live? Probably needs to be nearer £20ph there. Why are many jobs classified as MW? What differentiates a job that is MW vs a job that has a market salary that is markedly better? Is the problem that with advanced economies there are simply too many people who are not capable of exceeding WM boundaries and therefore some form of citizen income is needed as more and more technology advances arrive which further put pressures on lo earners? Is part of the issue that we need to level a hidden area of societal discrimination and an unspoken truth in the quest for equality. Not everyone has the same number of marbles in the box so should we move towards a model that flattens the difference and rewards doctors the same as cleaners. Is the problem not that we pay the bulk of society too little, but that we actually pay a minority too much. We should eliminate that to make it all fairer? Many questions. Not sure what the fair and workable solution is in the interconnected global economy without a global shift to level up and balance wages. Unless we ban trade deals that allow offshoring, labour migration and return to protectionism. It's not so complicated. What is the minimum necessary for people to be safe and healthy? That's the minimum wage. There is no problem with inequality. There is a problem with fairness of opportunity and exploitation. How does that create inflation with adequate supply? How can labour be undercut? Technology rarely replaces people. It multiplies them. That's productivity. Trade deals are negotiated such that you don't undercut your own industries. Except in our case, apparently. Foreign aid is supposed to be one of the things that helps bring equity. We aren't interested anymore. So what’s the number? How would I know? That's what governments and experts work out. Over time. With a best first estimate followed by iterations and a government that has some purpose other than stating in power. Fair enough. I was expecting a bit more. But good of you to acknowledge that this is basically ideological and expecting someone else to solve the riddle without having go consider the full implications of what it entails. I agree 100% it should be enough for people to have the basics and be healthy. If we paid bar star £18 an hour. Would a pint of beer be more or less expensive. Would that cut demand unless the drinkers paying the bill could offset the rise in cost? Could we somehow het the bar staff to pull 50 pints an hour by installing better pumps. Or make the glasses bigger? Could we 100% guarantee therefore that there’s no inflationary impact? Is it that simple? Could we encourage hair dressers to charge 25% more. Would their landlords not be tempted to hike up rents if they knew their tenants were more flush? I assume all their customers are also getting a pay rise to pay the bigger bill? Current fuel and general inflation aside. The real issue in this country is property costs and the proportion people on low incomes have to spend on accommodation. If there was such a thing as teal affordable housing then the current nmw would actually go a lot further. But successive governments have fuelled buy to let and done nothing to fix the supply side yet have allowed people to flood in pushing up demand. Fix that and a lot of other things will br a hell of a lot easier to fix. I dare say we’d still be in the EU if property affordability was healthier. I have to agree with you there i feel sorry for people who are reaching retirement age and dont own their own property infact anyone who has to rent these days as the majority of their wages are going on rent. The government although building the houses they promised are all for sale.In my opinion each council should be made to build council houses for local people." Each region of the UK has different housing issues. So it could be better if the responsibility for housing is devolved go regional powers and councils. | |||
"A minimum wage that does not require government subsidy means that companies are paying the genuine cost of labour without subsidy. This cannot be undercut by imported labour. The problem with this is? The principle in terms of fairness and humanity is I hope accepted by all and unquestioned. The challenge is in the calculation and what triggers change: balanced against the impacts on inflation and from import of labour and export of jobs. Could minimum wage rise to say £12ph without the benefit being eroded quickly be rapid inflation? What rate is enough for someone to fairly be compensated? What about parts of the country like London where it is a lot more expensive to live? Probably needs to be nearer £20ph there. Why are many jobs classified as MW? What differentiates a job that is MW vs a job that has a market salary that is markedly better? Is the problem that with advanced economies there are simply too many people who are not capable of exceeding WM boundaries and therefore some form of citizen income is needed as more and more technology advances arrive which further put pressures on lo earners? Is part of the issue that we need to level a hidden area of societal discrimination and an unspoken truth in the quest for equality. Not everyone has the same number of marbles in the box so should we move towards a model that flattens the difference and rewards doctors the same as cleaners. Is the problem not that we pay the bulk of society too little, but that we actually pay a minority too much. We should eliminate that to make it all fairer? Many questions. Not sure what the fair and workable solution is in the interconnected global economy without a global shift to level up and balance wages. Unless we ban trade deals that allow offshoring, labour migration and return to protectionism. It's not so complicated. What is the minimum necessary for people to be safe and healthy? That's the minimum wage. There is no problem with inequality. There is a problem with fairness of opportunity and exploitation. How does that create inflation with adequate supply? How can labour be undercut? Technology rarely replaces people. It multiplies them. That's productivity. Trade deals are negotiated such that you don't undercut your own industries. Except in our case, apparently. Foreign aid is supposed to be one of the things that helps bring equity. We aren't interested anymore. So what’s the number? How would I know? That's what governments and experts work out. Over time. With a best first estimate followed by iterations and a government that has some purpose other than stating in power. Fair enough. I was expecting a bit more. But good of you to acknowledge that this is basically ideological and expecting someone else to solve the riddle without having go consider the full implications of what it entails. I agree 100% it should be enough for people to have the basics and be healthy. If we paid bar star £18 an hour. Would a pint of beer be more or less expensive. Would that cut demand unless the drinkers paying the bill could offset the rise in cost? Could we somehow het the bar staff to pull 50 pints an hour by installing better pumps. Or make the glasses bigger? Could we 100% guarantee therefore that there’s no inflationary impact? Is it that simple? Could we encourage hair dressers to charge 25% more. Would their landlords not be tempted to hike up rents if they knew their tenants were more flush? I assume all their customers are also getting a pay rise to pay the bigger bill? Current fuel and general inflation aside. The real issue in this country is property costs and the proportion people on low incomes have to spend on accommodation. If there was such a thing as teal affordable housing then the current nmw would actually go a lot further. But successive governments have fuelled buy to let and done nothing to fix the supply side yet have allowed people to flood in pushing up demand. Fix that and a lot of other things will br a hell of a lot easier to fix. I dare say we’d still be in the EU if property affordability was healthier. I have to agree with you there i feel sorry for people who are reaching retirement age and dont own their own property infact anyone who has to rent these days as the majority of their wages are going on rent. The government although building the houses they promised are all for sale.In my opinion each council should be made to build council houses for local people. Each region of the UK has different housing issues. So it could be better if the responsibility for housing is devolved go regional powers and councils." Thats what i said councils should be made to they are in the best position to know the needs. | |||
"A minimum wage that does not require government subsidy means that companies are paying the genuine cost of labour without subsidy. This cannot be undercut by imported labour. The problem with this is? The principle in terms of fairness and humanity is I hope accepted by all and unquestioned. The challenge is in the calculation and what triggers change: balanced against the impacts on inflation and from import of labour and export of jobs. Could minimum wage rise to say £12ph without the benefit being eroded quickly be rapid inflation? What rate is enough for someone to fairly be compensated? What about parts of the country like London where it is a lot more expensive to live? Probably needs to be nearer £20ph there. Why are many jobs classified as MW? What differentiates a job that is MW vs a job that has a market salary that is markedly better? Is the problem that with advanced economies there are simply too many people who are not capable of exceeding WM boundaries and therefore some form of citizen income is needed as more and more technology advances arrive which further put pressures on lo earners? Is part of the issue that we need to level a hidden area of societal discrimination and an unspoken truth in the quest for equality. Not everyone has the same number of marbles in the box so should we move towards a model that flattens the difference and rewards doctors the same as cleaners. Is the problem not that we pay the bulk of society too little, but that we actually pay a minority too much. We should eliminate that to make it all fairer? Many questions. Not sure what the fair and workable solution is in the interconnected global economy without a global shift to level up and balance wages. Unless we ban trade deals that allow offshoring, labour migration and return to protectionism. It's not so complicated. What is the minimum necessary for people to be safe and healthy? That's the minimum wage. There is no problem with inequality. There is a problem with fairness of opportunity and exploitation. How does that create inflation with adequate supply? How can labour be undercut? Technology rarely replaces people. It multiplies them. That's productivity. Trade deals are negotiated such that you don't undercut your own industries. Except in our case, apparently. Foreign aid is supposed to be one of the things that helps bring equity. We aren't interested anymore. So what’s the number? How would I know? That's what governments and experts work out. Over time. With a best first estimate followed by iterations and a government that has some purpose other than stating in power. Fair enough. I was expecting a bit more. But good of you to acknowledge that this is basically ideological and expecting someone else to solve the riddle without having go consider the full implications of what it entails. I agree 100% it should be enough for people to have the basics and be healthy. If we paid bar star £18 an hour. Would a pint of beer be more or less expensive. Would that cut demand unless the drinkers paying the bill could offset the rise in cost? Could we somehow het the bar staff to pull 50 pints an hour by installing better pumps. Or make the glasses bigger? Could we 100% guarantee therefore that there’s no inflationary impact? Is it that simple? Could we encourage hair dressers to charge 25% more. Would their landlords not be tempted to hike up rents if they knew their tenants were more flush? I assume all their customers are also getting a pay rise to pay the bigger bill? Current fuel and general inflation aside. The real issue in this country is property costs and the proportion people on low incomes have to spend on accommodation. If there was such a thing as teal affordable housing then the current nmw would actually go a lot further. But successive governments have fuelled buy to let and done nothing to fix the supply side yet have allowed people to flood in pushing up demand. Fix that and a lot of other things will br a hell of a lot easier to fix. I dare say we’d still be in the EU if property affordability was healthier. I have to agree with you there i feel sorry for people who are reaching retirement age and dont own their own property infact anyone who has to rent these days as the majority of their wages are going on rent. The government although building the houses they promised are all for sale.In my opinion each council should be made to build council houses for local people. Each region of the UK has different housing issues. So it could be better if the responsibility for housing is devolved go regional powers and councils.Thats what i said councils should be made to they are in the best position to know the needs." I was agreeing with. Strange, I know.  | |||
"A minimum wage that does not require government subsidy means that companies are paying the genuine cost of labour without subsidy. This cannot be undercut by imported labour. The problem with this is? The principle in terms of fairness and humanity is I hope accepted by all and unquestioned. The challenge is in the calculation and what triggers change: balanced against the impacts on inflation and from import of labour and export of jobs. Could minimum wage rise to say £12ph without the benefit being eroded quickly be rapid inflation? What rate is enough for someone to fairly be compensated? What about parts of the country like London where it is a lot more expensive to live? Probably needs to be nearer £20ph there. Why are many jobs classified as MW? What differentiates a job that is MW vs a job that has a market salary that is markedly better? Is the problem that with advanced economies there are simply too many people who are not capable of exceeding WM boundaries and therefore some form of citizen income is needed as more and more technology advances arrive which further put pressures on lo earners? Is part of the issue that we need to level a hidden area of societal discrimination and an unspoken truth in the quest for equality. Not everyone has the same number of marbles in the box so should we move towards a model that flattens the difference and rewards doctors the same as cleaners. Is the problem not that we pay the bulk of society too little, but that we actually pay a minority too much. We should eliminate that to make it all fairer? Many questions. Not sure what the fair and workable solution is in the interconnected global economy without a global shift to level up and balance wages. Unless we ban trade deals that allow offshoring, labour migration and return to protectionism. It's not so complicated. What is the minimum necessary for people to be safe and healthy? That's the minimum wage. There is no problem with inequality. There is a problem with fairness of opportunity and exploitation. How does that create inflation with adequate supply? How can labour be undercut? Technology rarely replaces people. It multiplies them. That's productivity. Trade deals are negotiated such that you don't undercut your own industries. Except in our case, apparently. Foreign aid is supposed to be one of the things that helps bring equity. We aren't interested anymore. So what’s the number? How would I know? That's what governments and experts work out. Over time. With a best first estimate followed by iterations and a government that has some purpose other than stating in power. Fair enough. I was expecting a bit more. But good of you to acknowledge that this is basically ideological and expecting someone else to solve the riddle without having go consider the full implications of what it entails. I agree 100% it should be enough for people to have the basics and be healthy. If we paid bar star £18 an hour. Would a pint of beer be more or less expensive. Would that cut demand unless the drinkers paying the bill could offset the rise in cost? Could we somehow het the bar staff to pull 50 pints an hour by installing better pumps. Or make the glasses bigger? Could we 100% guarantee therefore that there’s no inflationary impact? Is it that simple? Could we encourage hair dressers to charge 25% more. Would their landlords not be tempted to hike up rents if they knew their tenants were more flush? I assume all their customers are also getting a pay rise to pay the bigger bill? Current fuel and general inflation aside. The real issue in this country is property costs and the proportion people on low incomes have to spend on accommodation. If there was such a thing as teal affordable housing then the current nmw would actually go a lot further. But successive governments have fuelled buy to let and done nothing to fix the supply side yet have allowed people to flood in pushing up demand. Fix that and a lot of other things will br a hell of a lot easier to fix. I dare say we’d still be in the EU if property affordability was healthier. I have to agree with you there i feel sorry for people who are reaching retirement age and dont own their own property infact anyone who has to rent these days as the majority of their wages are going on rent. The government although building the houses they promised are all for sale.In my opinion each council should be made to build council houses for local people. Each region of the UK has different housing issues. So it could be better if the responsibility for housing is devolved go regional powers and councils.Thats what i said councils should be made to they are in the best position to know the needs." In that case they need to be provided money, starting with enough to meet the requirements that Central Government hand them without funding. Poorer areas need more money, but can raise less in Council Tax. That will also feed through to Council funded services like social care paying proper salaries. This must include a substitute for business rates which is a huge problem for high streets. For all of this we pay in income tax and/or corporations actually pay their fair share. | |||
"A minimum wage that does not require government subsidy means that companies are paying the genuine cost of labour without subsidy. This cannot be undercut by imported labour. The problem with this is? The principle in terms of fairness and humanity is I hope accepted by all and unquestioned. The challenge is in the calculation and what triggers change: balanced against the impacts on inflation and from import of labour and export of jobs. Could minimum wage rise to say £12ph without the benefit being eroded quickly be rapid inflation? What rate is enough for someone to fairly be compensated? What about parts of the country like London where it is a lot more expensive to live? Probably needs to be nearer £20ph there. Why are many jobs classified as MW? What differentiates a job that is MW vs a job that has a market salary that is markedly better? Is the problem that with advanced economies there are simply too many people who are not capable of exceeding WM boundaries and therefore some form of citizen income is needed as more and more technology advances arrive which further put pressures on lo earners? Is part of the issue that we need to level a hidden area of societal discrimination and an unspoken truth in the quest for equality. Not everyone has the same number of marbles in the box so should we move towards a model that flattens the difference and rewards doctors the same as cleaners. Is the problem not that we pay the bulk of society too little, but that we actually pay a minority too much. We should eliminate that to make it all fairer? Many questions. Not sure what the fair and workable solution is in the interconnected global economy without a global shift to level up and balance wages. Unless we ban trade deals that allow offshoring, labour migration and return to protectionism. It's not so complicated. What is the minimum necessary for people to be safe and healthy? That's the minimum wage. There is no problem with inequality. There is a problem with fairness of opportunity and exploitation. How does that create inflation with adequate supply? How can labour be undercut? Technology rarely replaces people. It multiplies them. That's productivity. Trade deals are negotiated such that you don't undercut your own industries. Except in our case, apparently. Foreign aid is supposed to be one of the things that helps bring equity. We aren't interested anymore. So what’s the number? How would I know? That's what governments and experts work out. Over time. With a best first estimate followed by iterations and a government that has some purpose other than stating in power. Fair enough. I was expecting a bit more. But good of you to acknowledge that this is basically ideological and expecting someone else to solve the riddle without having go consider the full implications of what it entails. I agree 100% it should be enough for people to have the basics and be healthy. If we paid bar star £18 an hour. Would a pint of beer be more or less expensive. Would that cut demand unless the drinkers paying the bill could offset the rise in cost? Could we somehow het the bar staff to pull 50 pints an hour by installing better pumps. Or make the glasses bigger? Could we 100% guarantee therefore that there’s no inflationary impact? Is it that simple? Could we encourage hair dressers to charge 25% more. Would their landlords not be tempted to hike up rents if they knew their tenants were more flush? I assume all their customers are also getting a pay rise to pay the bigger bill? Current fuel and general inflation aside. The real issue in this country is property costs and the proportion people on low incomes have to spend on accommodation. If there was such a thing as teal affordable housing then the current nmw would actually go a lot further. But successive governments have fuelled buy to let and done nothing to fix the supply side yet have allowed people to flood in pushing up demand. Fix that and a lot of other things will br a hell of a lot easier to fix. I dare say we’d still be in the EU if property affordability was healthier. " If we pay people £18 hour to pull pints because that's what they need to live, then the subsequent cost of a pint is the cost of a pint. Otherwise, it's being subsidised. Reduce alcohol tax in bars, as it is not necessary to raise the tax to pay for welfare at the other end. If you believe in the market, then there's a balance that will be reached between automation and real people. Does the customer want an automated bar? There is no 100% guarantee of any complex system, but it has to be viewed as a system with a tone set at the top. Agreed that one of the biggest drivers of inequality is housing. However, this has been a deliberate policy of governments for decades. Driving home purchases and property speculation and by to let through tax policy. Why? Let's see who their donors do and what they and their friends and partners do. It's a system which rewards people with capital and wealth. Jill the by to let tax break and you immediately release that speculative squeeze. | |||
| |||
"So theres a general support for hyperinflation then ?" Explanation? There's no suggestion that you introduce wide ranging changes whilst multiple global crises are underway... | |||
| |||
"I've been trying to take in this thread. Lots of ideas and a horrible quote function makes it hard to follow positions My gut feel is prices don't go up directly with wages. If we double wages, prices won't double. So wage increases improve the situation. Provided that the companies continue to exist and employ everyone. At some point, the increment benefit to the group (most of us are better off) is offest by the larger costs to the few (unemployment). That number will vary depending on views. The minimum wage effectively tells the world that if your company can't add enough value to be able to support this wage, it's not valuable enough to us. Again, subjective. But we are addicted to cheap consumerables. So for many companies the answer was to offshore. With high employmeng rates we can ignore the issue. We only care when jobs can't be offshored. Then we argue the effects of immigration of people rather than the emigration of jobs. FoM I'm sure had downward pressure on a group of people. For those people, taking away competition (protectionism) would help in the short run. But we are back to a balancing act. What is the marginal rate of salary that will fill a group of jobs. Is that affordable? If not, what happens to the existing roles? Eg if you cant employ enough potato pickers on wages that allow you to make a profit, do hoinscale back or sell out? That may depend on overheads etc. Do you invest in tech? If so, do you need any potato pickers ? Big dump of ideas. No answers. Just a "it's complicated, a forum nor a referendum wil solve this.". But fun to discuss!" Auto-correct is also unhelpful for clarity sometimes
As soon as it's discussed, the "simple" answers that politicians use and people cling to are exposed as rubbish.
It's a big problem in modern politics. The sound bites and vox pops using trite phrases like "common sense" and " obvious" and extrapolating personal experience and circumstances to society at large.
At the very least exposure to different perspectives is good. | |||
| |||
| |||
"How about passing a law so that the top dog in any buisness can only be paid ten times more than the lowest in a company Think cleaner on £10 per hr and the fat cat at the top no more than £100 per hr If the boss wants more then he has to pay more to everyone on lower wages in his company and this should include shares and pensions" This flies against everything the UK government represents. If they even thought this for a second, their party would lose all its funding quicker than the blink of the eye. | |||
"How about passing a law so that the top dog in any buisness can only be paid ten times more than the lowest in a company Think cleaner on £10 per hr and the fat cat at the top no more than £100 per hr If the boss wants more then he has to pay more to everyone on lower wages in his company and this should include shares and pensions This flies against everything the UK government represents. If they even thought this for a second, their party would lose all its funding quicker than the blink of the eye." I wonder how many would vote for that in a referendum? | |||
"How about passing a law so that the top dog in any buisness can only be paid ten times more than the lowest in a company Think cleaner on £10 per hr and the fat cat at the top no more than £100 per hr If the boss wants more then he has to pay more to everyone on lower wages in his company and this should include shares and pensions This flies against everything the UK government represents. If they even thought this for a second, their party would lose all its funding quicker than the blink of the eye. I wonder how many would vote for that in a referendum? " Not enough. The money always wins. | |||
"How about passing a law so that the top dog in any buisness can only be paid ten times more than the lowest in a company Think cleaner on £10 per hr and the fat cat at the top no more than £100 per hr If the boss wants more then he has to pay more to everyone on lower wages in his company and this should include shares and pensions" Whilst the principle of closing the obscenely wide gap between the extremes is sound. I think 10x would remove a lot of incentive. Do you really think cleaning a floor and a toilet is 1/10th the value contribution and responsibility that the “top dogs” provide to lead and organise a business? Maybe 100x would work. But at 10x I think firms would simply sack all their lower paid staff and outsource the work to a company. | |||
"How about passing a law so that the top dog in any buisness can only be paid ten times more than the lowest in a company Think cleaner on £10 per hr and the fat cat at the top no more than £100 per hr If the boss wants more then he has to pay more to everyone on lower wages in his company and this should include shares and pensions This flies against everything the UK government represents. If they even thought this for a second, their party would lose all its funding quicker than the blink of the eye. I wonder how many would vote for that in a referendum? Not enough. The money always wins." Do people seriously expect “professionals” to train hard to a decade and the only earn 10x what a cleaner earns? How long does it take to learn how to clean a floor with a mop and push a hoover around? An hour or a day or two at most. How long does it take to train ti be an accountant or engineer or learn how to run a company? 5 to 10 years in most cases I expect. What would motivate those individuals? I DO get that the low paid are exploited too much, but do we honestly think society would be better off by curtailing drive and ambition so much? A citizen income - probably in tokens for some sort of rations - so that all qualifying individuals receive basic food, energy units and shelter. Then get to earn from whatever job would be better. | |||
"How about passing a law so that the top dog in any buisness can only be paid ten times more than the lowest in a company Think cleaner on £10 per hr and the fat cat at the top no more than £100 per hr If the boss wants more then he has to pay more to everyone on lower wages in his company and this should include shares and pensions This flies against everything the UK government represents. If they even thought this for a second, their party would lose all its funding quicker than the blink of the eye. I wonder how many would vote for that in a referendum? Not enough. The money always wins. Do people seriously expect “professionals” to train hard to a decade and the only earn 10x what a cleaner earns? How long does it take to learn how to clean a floor with a mop and push a hoover around? An hour or a day or two at most. How long does it take to train ti be an accountant or engineer or learn how to run a company? 5 to 10 years in most cases I expect. What would motivate those individuals? I DO get that the low paid are exploited too much, but do we honestly think society would be better off by curtailing drive and ambition so much? A citizen income - probably in tokens for some sort of rations - so that all qualifying individuals receive basic food, energy units and shelter. Then get to earn from whatever job would be better. " The answer, I suspect, would be to do something to change how we all think, like to have a maximum price on things. Like a car, or a house, or a fridge or whatever. To shift the aim in life from being making as much money as possible, to being as happy as possible. I realise that this isn't a realistic solution, for a million and one reasons. I just used it to try to illustrate an idea. | |||
"How about passing a law so that the top dog in any buisness can only be paid ten times more than the lowest in a company Think cleaner on £10 per hr and the fat cat at the top no more than £100 per hr If the boss wants more then he has to pay more to everyone on lower wages in his company and this should include shares and pensions This flies against everything the UK government represents. If they even thought this for a second, their party would lose all its funding quicker than the blink of the eye. I wonder how many would vote for that in a referendum? Not enough. The money always wins. Do people seriously expect “professionals” to train hard to a decade and the only earn 10x what a cleaner earns? How long does it take to learn how to clean a floor with a mop and push a hoover around? An hour or a day or two at most. How long does it take to train ti be an accountant or engineer or learn how to run a company? 5 to 10 years in most cases I expect. What would motivate those individuals? I DO get that the low paid are exploited too much, but do we honestly think society would be better off by curtailing drive and ambition so much? A citizen income - probably in tokens for some sort of rations - so that all qualifying individuals receive basic food, energy units and shelter. Then get to earn from whatever job would be better. The answer, I suspect, would be to do something to change how we all think, like to have a maximum price on things. Like a car, or a house, or a fridge or whatever. To shift the aim in life from being making as much money as possible, to being as happy as possible. I realise that this isn't a realistic solution, for a million and one reasons. I just used it to try to illustrate an idea. " There’s probably some merit in diversifying the metrics by which people are rewarded and by which evaluate success. But happiness is very subjective. One person may be quite happy sitting on a sofa watching tv all day, and have basic needs. Others might have very expensive hobbies and reward their hard work with indulgence in such things. So how do we balance contribution to society against the reward? I completely understand that we’re at a somewhat skewed place right now where some are rewarded a lot for doing not so much and others that work hard are effectively on their knees - but how do we deliver the happiness to all? Are we saying give everyone the same and define happiness as the lowest common denominator? Or do we give everyone whatever they want for doing as little or as much as the can be bothered in return? | |||
"How about passing a law so that the top dog in any buisness can only be paid ten times more than the lowest in a company Think cleaner on £10 per hr and the fat cat at the top no more than £100 per hr If the boss wants more then he has to pay more to everyone on lower wages in his company and this should include shares and pensions This flies against everything the UK government represents. If they even thought this for a second, their party would lose all its funding quicker than the blink of the eye. I wonder how many would vote for that in a referendum? Not enough. The money always wins. Do people seriously expect “professionals” to train hard to a decade and the only earn 10x what a cleaner earns? How long does it take to learn how to clean a floor with a mop and push a hoover around? An hour or a day or two at most. How long does it take to train ti be an accountant or engineer or learn how to run a company? 5 to 10 years in most cases I expect. What would motivate those individuals? I DO get that the low paid are exploited too much, but do we honestly think society would be better off by curtailing drive and ambition so much? A citizen income - probably in tokens for some sort of rations - so that all qualifying individuals receive basic food, energy units and shelter. Then get to earn from whatever job would be better. The answer, I suspect, would be to do something to change how we all think, like to have a maximum price on things. Like a car, or a house, or a fridge or whatever. To shift the aim in life from being making as much money as possible, to being as happy as possible. I realise that this isn't a realistic solution, for a million and one reasons. I just used it to try to illustrate an idea. There’s probably some merit in diversifying the metrics by which people are rewarded and by which evaluate success. But happiness is very subjective. One person may be quite happy sitting on a sofa watching tv all day, and have basic needs. Others might have very expensive hobbies and reward their hard work with indulgence in such things. So how do we balance contribution to society against the reward? I completely understand that we’re at a somewhat skewed place right now where some are rewarded a lot for doing not so much and others that work hard are effectively on their knees - but how do we deliver the happiness to all? Are we saying give everyone the same and define happiness as the lowest common denominator? Or do we give everyone whatever they want for doing as little or as much as the can be bothered in return? " Good points! I don't have any answers, but they're good questions. I guess the opportunity should be available for people to be able to be happy. And if they choose not to take it, that's their choice. A fair society to me, doesn't mean giving anyone something that haven't worked for. IE the cleaner getting equivalent of 10% of the CEOs salary (not that cleaners don't work their asses off). But that everyone has the same opportunities of education and the same opportunities to do things with their life that they deem to be successful. | |||
"How about passing a law so that the top dog in any buisness can only be paid ten times more than the lowest in a company Think cleaner on £10 per hr and the fat cat at the top no more than £100 per hr If the boss wants more then he has to pay more to everyone on lower wages in his company and this should include shares and pensions This flies against everything the UK government represents. If they even thought this for a second, their party would lose all its funding quicker than the blink of the eye. I wonder how many would vote for that in a referendum? Not enough. The money always wins. Do people seriously expect “professionals” to train hard to a decade and the only earn 10x what a cleaner earns? How long does it take to learn how to clean a floor with a mop and push a hoover around? An hour or a day or two at most. How long does it take to train ti be an accountant or engineer or learn how to run a company? 5 to 10 years in most cases I expect. What would motivate those individuals? I DO get that the low paid are exploited too much, but do we honestly think society would be better off by curtailing drive and ambition so much? A citizen income - probably in tokens for some sort of rations - so that all qualifying individuals receive basic food, energy units and shelter. Then get to earn from whatever job would be better. The answer, I suspect, would be to do something to change how we all think, like to have a maximum price on things. Like a car, or a house, or a fridge or whatever. To shift the aim in life from being making as much money as possible, to being as happy as possible. I realise that this isn't a realistic solution, for a million and one reasons. I just used it to try to illustrate an idea. There’s probably some merit in diversifying the metrics by which people are rewarded and by which evaluate success. But happiness is very subjective. One person may be quite happy sitting on a sofa watching tv all day, and have basic needs. Others might have very expensive hobbies and reward their hard work with indulgence in such things. So how do we balance contribution to society against the reward? I completely understand that we’re at a somewhat skewed place right now where some are rewarded a lot for doing not so much and others that work hard are effectively on their knees - but how do we deliver the happiness to all? Are we saying give everyone the same and define happiness as the lowest common denominator? Or do we give everyone whatever they want for doing as little or as much as the can be bothered in return? " If you need to "incentivise" your start to do their job, then you have the wrong people. Everyone contributes to success or failure with some bonus for going over and above. Lots of metrics can measure that. CEOs are only employees, the same as anyone else. Entrepreneurs take a financial risk. What they are paid is up to them. Happiness is transient. Contentment longer lasting. We aren't very good at distinguishing the two. | |||
"How about passing a law so that the top dog in any buisness can only be paid ten times more than the lowest in a company Think cleaner on £10 per hr and the fat cat at the top no more than £100 per hr If the boss wants more then he has to pay more to everyone on lower wages in his company and this should include shares and pensions This flies against everything the UK government represents. If they even thought this for a second, their party would lose all its funding quicker than the blink of the eye. I wonder how many would vote for that in a referendum? Not enough. The money always wins. Do people seriously expect “professionals” to train hard to a decade and the only earn 10x what a cleaner earns? How long does it take to learn how to clean a floor with a mop and push a hoover around? An hour or a day or two at most. How long does it take to train ti be an accountant or engineer or learn how to run a company? 5 to 10 years in most cases I expect. What would motivate those individuals? I DO get that the low paid are exploited too much, but do we honestly think society would be better off by curtailing drive and ambition so much? A citizen income - probably in tokens for some sort of rations - so that all qualifying individuals receive basic food, energy units and shelter. Then get to earn from whatever job would be better. The answer, I suspect, would be to do something to change how we all think, like to have a maximum price on things. Like a car, or a house, or a fridge or whatever. To shift the aim in life from being making as much money as possible, to being as happy as possible. I realise that this isn't a realistic solution, for a million and one reasons. I just used it to try to illustrate an idea. There’s probably some merit in diversifying the metrics by which people are rewarded and by which evaluate success. But happiness is very subjective. One person may be quite happy sitting on a sofa watching tv all day, and have basic needs. Others might have very expensive hobbies and reward their hard work with indulgence in such things. So how do we balance contribution to society against the reward? I completely understand that we’re at a somewhat skewed place right now where some are rewarded a lot for doing not so much and others that work hard are effectively on their knees - but how do we deliver the happiness to all? Are we saying give everyone the same and define happiness as the lowest common denominator? Or do we give everyone whatever they want for doing as little or as much as the can be bothered in return? If you need to "incentivise" your start to do their job, then you have the wrong people. Everyone contributes to success or failure with some bonus for going over and above. Lots of metrics can measure that. CEOs are only employees, the same as anyone else. Entrepreneurs take a financial risk. What they are paid is up to them. Happiness is transient. Contentment longer lasting. We aren't very good at distinguishing the two." Horseshit. People need to earn a living and most people are incentivised ti strive for better when they see there are greater rewards. It should by in means be the only lever, but it is certainly part of the toolkit. BTW you missed the point. It was not incentivise staff to do their job. It was incentivise people to train hard for a particular skill set. We can’r all be cleaners there is not enough mess! I’ve no idea what you do fir a living. But if you took a pay cut to 1/10th of current would you still dk what you do? Would you still have invested all the time it tool to reach your current position? | |||
| |||
"How about passing a law so that the top dog in any buisness can only be paid ten times more than the lowest in a company Think cleaner on £10 per hr and the fat cat at the top no more than £100 per hr If the boss wants more then he has to pay more to everyone on lower wages in his company and this should include shares and pensions This flies against everything the UK government represents. If they even thought this for a second, their party would lose all its funding quicker than the blink of the eye. I wonder how many would vote for that in a referendum? Not enough. The money always wins. Do people seriously expect “professionals” to train hard to a decade and the only earn 10x what a cleaner earns? How long does it take to learn how to clean a floor with a mop and push a hoover around? An hour or a day or two at most. How long does it take to train ti be an accountant or engineer or learn how to run a company? 5 to 10 years in most cases I expect. What would motivate those individuals? I DO get that the low paid are exploited too much, but do we honestly think society would be better off by curtailing drive and ambition so much? A citizen income - probably in tokens for some sort of rations - so that all qualifying individuals receive basic food, energy units and shelter. Then get to earn from whatever job would be better. The answer, I suspect, would be to do something to change how we all think, like to have a maximum price on things. Like a car, or a house, or a fridge or whatever. To shift the aim in life from being making as much money as possible, to being as happy as possible. I realise that this isn't a realistic solution, for a million and one reasons. I just used it to try to illustrate an idea. There’s probably some merit in diversifying the metrics by which people are rewarded and by which evaluate success. But happiness is very subjective. One person may be quite happy sitting on a sofa watching tv all day, and have basic needs. Others might have very expensive hobbies and reward their hard work with indulgence in such things. So how do we balance contribution to society against the reward? I completely understand that we’re at a somewhat skewed place right now where some are rewarded a lot for doing not so much and others that work hard are effectively on their knees - but how do we deliver the happiness to all? Are we saying give everyone the same and define happiness as the lowest common denominator? Or do we give everyone whatever they want for doing as little or as much as the can be bothered in return? If you need to "incentivise" your start to do their job, then you have the wrong people. Everyone contributes to success or failure with some bonus for going over and above. Lots of metrics can measure that. CEOs are only employees, the same as anyone else. Entrepreneurs take a financial risk. What they are paid is up to them. Happiness is transient. Contentment longer lasting. We aren't very good at distinguishing the two. Horseshit. People need to earn a living and most people are incentivised ti strive for better when they see there are greater rewards. It should by in means be the only lever, but it is certainly part of the toolkit. BTW you missed the point. It was not incentivise staff to do their job. It was incentivise people to train hard for a particular skill set. We can’r all be cleaners there is not enough mess! I’ve no idea what you do fir a living. But if you took a pay cut to 1/10th of current would you still dk what you do? Would you still have invested all the time it tool to reach your current position? " You shouldn't need to be incentivised to do your job. I noted a bonus for going above and beyond. You expect people to be lazy unless paid extra? Particularly the most well paid leadership in the company who get highest pay anyway should be able to receive multiples of that salary? They are just employees.It just happens that they decide how the pay structure works yet they are richly rewarded for medicore performance and failure. I have no problem with pay differentials. Even large ones. However, a system warped less towards financial and supporting services and senior management allow money and talent to move towards jobs that enhance society. Thousands of people finish their education and then jobs with no connection to what could be a very expensive STEM or other degree because of the pull of money. | |||
"How about passing a law so that the top dog in any buisness can only be paid ten times more than the lowest in a company Think cleaner on £10 per hr and the fat cat at the top no more than £100 per hr If the boss wants more then he has to pay more to everyone on lower wages in his company and this should include shares and pensions This flies against everything the UK government represents. If they even thought this for a second, their party would lose all its funding quicker than the blink of the eye. I wonder how many would vote for that in a referendum? Not enough. The money always wins. Do people seriously expect “professionals” to train hard to a decade and the only earn 10x what a cleaner earns? How long does it take to learn how to clean a floor with a mop and push a hoover around? An hour or a day or two at most. How long does it take to train ti be an accountant or engineer or learn how to run a company? 5 to 10 years in most cases I expect. What would motivate those individuals? I DO get that the low paid are exploited too much, but do we honestly think society would be better off by curtailing drive and ambition so much? A citizen income - probably in tokens for some sort of rations - so that all qualifying individuals receive basic food, energy units and shelter. Then get to earn from whatever job would be better. The answer, I suspect, would be to do something to change how we all think, like to have a maximum price on things. Like a car, or a house, or a fridge or whatever. To shift the aim in life from being making as much money as possible, to being as happy as possible. I realise that this isn't a realistic solution, for a million and one reasons. I just used it to try to illustrate an idea. There’s probably some merit in diversifying the metrics by which people are rewarded and by which evaluate success. But happiness is very subjective. One person may be quite happy sitting on a sofa watching tv all day, and have basic needs. Others might have very expensive hobbies and reward their hard work with indulgence in such things. So how do we balance contribution to society against the reward? I completely understand that we’re at a somewhat skewed place right now where some are rewarded a lot for doing not so much and others that work hard are effectively on their knees - but how do we deliver the happiness to all? Are we saying give everyone the same and define happiness as the lowest common denominator? Or do we give everyone whatever they want for doing as little or as much as the can be bothered in return? If you need to "incentivise" your start to do their job, then you have the wrong people. Everyone contributes to success or failure with some bonus for going over and above. Lots of metrics can measure that. CEOs are only employees, the same as anyone else. Entrepreneurs take a financial risk. What they are paid is up to them. Happiness is transient. Contentment longer lasting. We aren't very good at distinguishing the two. Horseshit. People need to earn a living and most people are incentivised ti strive for better when they see there are greater rewards. It should by in means be the only lever, but it is certainly part of the toolkit. BTW you missed the point. It was not incentivise staff to do their job. It was incentivise people to train hard for a particular skill set. We can’r all be cleaners there is not enough mess! I’ve no idea what you do fir a living. But if you took a pay cut to 1/10th of current would you still dk what you do? Would you still have invested all the time it tool to reach your current position? " Just for clarity, being paid 10 times the lowest salary (which was an arbitrary number someone used as an example not a considered proposal) is not the same as cutting a salary to 10% of what it was. Even if we took current minimum wage that would put the salary of the highest paid employee in the company at about £160k. Too little? If they don't like it they can, of course leave. Over the past few years executive pay has soared and salaries in other grades have stagnated. Company performance has not tracked the pay of executives by a big margin. | |||
"How about passing a law so that the top dog in any buisness can only be paid ten times more than the lowest in a company Think cleaner on £10 per hr and the fat cat at the top no more than £100 per hr If the boss wants more then he has to pay more to everyone on lower wages in his company and this should include shares and pensions This flies against everything the UK government represents. If they even thought this for a second, their party would lose all its funding quicker than the blink of the eye. I wonder how many would vote for that in a referendum? Not enough. The money always wins. Do people seriously expect “professionals” to train hard to a decade and the only earn 10x what a cleaner earns? How long does it take to learn how to clean a floor with a mop and push a hoover around? An hour or a day or two at most. How long does it take to train ti be an accountant or engineer or learn how to run a company? 5 to 10 years in most cases I expect. What would motivate those individuals? I DO get that the low paid are exploited too much, but do we honestly think society would be better off by curtailing drive and ambition so much? A citizen income - probably in tokens for some sort of rations - so that all qualifying individuals receive basic food, energy units and shelter. Then get to earn from whatever job would be better. The answer, I suspect, would be to do something to change how we all think, like to have a maximum price on things. Like a car, or a house, or a fridge or whatever. To shift the aim in life from being making as much money as possible, to being as happy as possible. I realise that this isn't a realistic solution, for a million and one reasons. I just used it to try to illustrate an idea. There’s probably some merit in diversifying the metrics by which people are rewarded and by which evaluate success. But happiness is very subjective. One person may be quite happy sitting on a sofa watching tv all day, and have basic needs. Others might have very expensive hobbies and reward their hard work with indulgence in such things. So how do we balance contribution to society against the reward? I completely understand that we’re at a somewhat skewed place right now where some are rewarded a lot for doing not so much and others that work hard are effectively on their knees - but how do we deliver the happiness to all? Are we saying give everyone the same and define happiness as the lowest common denominator? Or do we give everyone whatever they want for doing as little or as much as the can be bothered in return? If you need to "incentivise" your start to do their job, then you have the wrong people. Everyone contributes to success or failure with some bonus for going over and above. Lots of metrics can measure that. CEOs are only employees, the same as anyone else. Entrepreneurs take a financial risk. What they are paid is up to them. Happiness is transient. Contentment longer lasting. We aren't very good at distinguishing the two. Horseshit. People need to earn a living and most people are incentivised ti strive for better when they see there are greater rewards. It should by in means be the only lever, but it is certainly part of the toolkit. BTW you missed the point. It was not incentivise staff to do their job. It was incentivise people to train hard for a particular skill set. We can’r all be cleaners there is not enough mess! I’ve no idea what you do fir a living. But if you took a pay cut to 1/10th of current would you still dk what you do? Would you still have invested all the time it tool to reach your current position? Just for clarity, being paid 10 times the lowest salary (which was an arbitrary number someone used as an example not a considered proposal) is not the same as cutting a salary to 10% of what it was. Even if we took current minimum wage that would put the salary of the highest paid employee in the company at about £160k. Too little? If they don't like it they can, of course leave. Over the past few years executive pay has soared and salaries in other grades have stagnated. Company performance has not tracked the pay of executives by a big margin." i agree we wouldn't have wages cut by 90pc. But there would need to be wage cuts across the board to fit everyone into the scale. Wages will be squeezed together. Would you be happier to do the same work for less ? Given the gap between you and your reports will be less. Is there a point your say fuck it, the additional work, hours, responsibilities are not worth it? That said, I wonder if guidance does help. The pay gal is being addressed by shame. Could we take the same approach here ? | |||
| |||
"How about passing a law so that the top dog in any buisness can only be paid ten times more than the lowest in a company Think cleaner on £10 per hr and the fat cat at the top no more than £100 per hr If the boss wants more then he has to pay more to everyone on lower wages in his company and this should include shares and pensions This flies against everything the UK government represents. If they even thought this for a second, their party would lose all its funding quicker than the blink of the eye. I wonder how many would vote for that in a referendum? Not enough. The money always wins. Do people seriously expect “professionals” to train hard to a decade and the only earn 10x what a cleaner earns? How long does it take to learn how to clean a floor with a mop and push a hoover around? An hour or a day or two at most. How long does it take to train ti be an accountant or engineer or learn how to run a company? 5 to 10 years in most cases I expect. What would motivate those individuals? I DO get that the low paid are exploited too much, but do we honestly think society would be better off by curtailing drive and ambition so much? A citizen income - probably in tokens for some sort of rations - so that all qualifying individuals receive basic food, energy units and shelter. Then get to earn from whatever job would be better. The answer, I suspect, would be to do something to change how we all think, like to have a maximum price on things. Like a car, or a house, or a fridge or whatever. To shift the aim in life from being making as much money as possible, to being as happy as possible. I realise that this isn't a realistic solution, for a million and one reasons. I just used it to try to illustrate an idea. There’s probably some merit in diversifying the metrics by which people are rewarded and by which evaluate success. But happiness is very subjective. One person may be quite happy sitting on a sofa watching tv all day, and have basic needs. Others might have very expensive hobbies and reward their hard work with indulgence in such things. So how do we balance contribution to society against the reward? I completely understand that we’re at a somewhat skewed place right now where some are rewarded a lot for doing not so much and others that work hard are effectively on their knees - but how do we deliver the happiness to all? Are we saying give everyone the same and define happiness as the lowest common denominator? Or do we give everyone whatever they want for doing as little or as much as the can be bothered in return? If you need to "incentivise" your start to do their job, then you have the wrong people. Everyone contributes to success or failure with some bonus for going over and above. Lots of metrics can measure that. CEOs are only employees, the same as anyone else. Entrepreneurs take a financial risk. What they are paid is up to them. Happiness is transient. Contentment longer lasting. We aren't very good at distinguishing the two. Horseshit. People need to earn a living and most people are incentivised ti strive for better when they see there are greater rewards. It should by in means be the only lever, but it is certainly part of the toolkit. BTW you missed the point. It was not incentivise staff to do their job. It was incentivise people to train hard for a particular skill set. We can’r all be cleaners there is not enough mess! I’ve no idea what you do fir a living. But if you took a pay cut to 1/10th of current would you still dk what you do? Would you still have invested all the time it tool to reach your current position? Just for clarity, being paid 10 times the lowest salary (which was an arbitrary number someone used as an example not a considered proposal) is not the same as cutting a salary to 10% of what it was. Even if we took current minimum wage that would put the salary of the highest paid employee in the company at about £160k. Too little? If they don't like it they can, of course leave. Over the past few years executive pay has soared and salaries in other grades have stagnated. Company performance has not tracked the pay of executives by a big margin." 160k does not even come close to many middle and senior managers or professional rates, never mind senior exec and CEO. So yes it is the same as taking a pay cut to 10% probably closet to 5% of the very top dogs. They are hardly going to start paying the cleaner £45k are they? Anyway this is cloud cuckoo land so a bit pointless discussing. 160 after tax is not that much, are we also advocating that the tax bands are cut as the 160k salary 1/2 would go in tax. Remember that the allowance is lost and there’s a higher rate if Ani and tax above something like £150k Whilst the lowest would pay next to fk all. Are you seriously think that in real take home terms that there should only be 4x to 5x between the top and the bottom? So a cleaner who trains for 1wk should have a lifestyle of 20% of a consultant doctor who’s trained hard for over a decade? And you still think there will be no need to incentivise more challenging careers that add real value. Anybody can clean. We could all do our own cleaning if we had too. Could we all do our own eye surgery or heart surgery? If you think we can then please set an example. | |||
"There are some really interesting questions here which all seem to come back to what a person is worth to a business versus their value to society. In education we have seen the rise of academies and academy trusts in particular where headteachers who were previously on good 5 figure salaries are suddenly on very good six figure salaries and the only change in the schools has been taking on increased debt due to expansion and modernisation of premises plus longer working hours for the majority of staff. This has also been a massive problem in universities too (Bath uni for instance). I wonder if this is progress or not as it seems that people are having to work harder for the same money unless they are lucky enough to be higher up the food chain and can reward themselves with impunity. So how much is fair? I wonder?" incentives can create bad behaviour. Imo many board issues come from stock options. Nice idea to allignment with shareholders, but they haven't got the time frame alligned. Feels like your teacher example is similar. They are rewarded for taking on debt and size. So do. Where the work itself delivers intrinsic rewards we need to not lose that side. I can see why teachers either drop out or chase money... The joy of teaching appears to be less and less. That is probably a different question from the more financially incentivesed private roles. | |||
"How about passing a law so that the top dog in any buisness can only be paid ten times more than the lowest in a company Think cleaner on £10 per hr and the fat cat at the top no more than £100 per hr If the boss wants more then he has to pay more to everyone on lower wages in his company and this should include shares and pensions This flies against everything the UK government represents. If they even thought this for a second, their party would lose all its funding quicker than the blink of the eye. I wonder how many would vote for that in a referendum? Not enough. The money always wins. Do people seriously expect “professionals” to train hard to a decade and the only earn 10x what a cleaner earns? How long does it take to learn how to clean a floor with a mop and push a hoover around? An hour or a day or two at most. How long does it take to train ti be an accountant or engineer or learn how to run a company? 5 to 10 years in most cases I expect. What would motivate those individuals? I DO get that the low paid are exploited too much, but do we honestly think society would be better off by curtailing drive and ambition so much? A citizen income - probably in tokens for some sort of rations - so that all qualifying individuals receive basic food, energy units and shelter. Then get to earn from whatever job would be better. The answer, I suspect, would be to do something to change how we all think, like to have a maximum price on things. Like a car, or a house, or a fridge or whatever. To shift the aim in life from being making as much money as possible, to being as happy as possible. I realise that this isn't a realistic solution, for a million and one reasons. I just used it to try to illustrate an idea. There’s probably some merit in diversifying the metrics by which people are rewarded and by which evaluate success. But happiness is very subjective. One person may be quite happy sitting on a sofa watching tv all day, and have basic needs. Others might have very expensive hobbies and reward their hard work with indulgence in such things. So how do we balance contribution to society against the reward? I completely understand that we’re at a somewhat skewed place right now where some are rewarded a lot for doing not so much and others that work hard are effectively on their knees - but how do we deliver the happiness to all? Are we saying give everyone the same and define happiness as the lowest common denominator? Or do we give everyone whatever they want for doing as little or as much as the can be bothered in return? If you need to "incentivise" your start to do their job, then you have the wrong people. Everyone contributes to success or failure with some bonus for going over and above. Lots of metrics can measure that. CEOs are only employees, the same as anyone else. Entrepreneurs take a financial risk. What they are paid is up to them. Happiness is transient. Contentment longer lasting. We aren't very good at distinguishing the two. Horseshit. People need to earn a living and most people are incentivised ti strive for better when they see there are greater rewards. It should by in means be the only lever, but it is certainly part of the toolkit. BTW you missed the point. It was not incentivise staff to do their job. It was incentivise people to train hard for a particular skill set. We can’r all be cleaners there is not enough mess! I’ve no idea what you do fir a living. But if you took a pay cut to 1/10th of current would you still dk what you do? Would you still have invested all the time it tool to reach your current position? Just for clarity, being paid 10 times the lowest salary (which was an arbitrary number someone used as an example not a considered proposal) is not the same as cutting a salary to 10% of what it was. Even if we took current minimum wage that would put the salary of the highest paid employee in the company at about £160k. Too little? If they don't like it they can, of course leave. Over the past few years executive pay has soared and salaries in other grades have stagnated. Company performance has not tracked the pay of executives by a big margin. 160k does not even come close to many middle and senior managers or professional rates, never mind senior exec and CEO. So yes it is the same as taking a pay cut to 10% probably closet to 5% of the very top dogs. They are hardly going to start paying the cleaner £45k are they? Anyway this is cloud cuckoo land so a bit pointless discussing. 160 after tax is not that much, are we also advocating that the tax bands are cut as the 160k salary 1/2 would go in tax. Remember that the allowance is lost and there’s a higher rate if Ani and tax above something like £150k Whilst the lowest would pay next to fk all. Are you seriously think that in real take home terms that there should only be 4x to 5x between the top and the bottom? So a cleaner who trains for 1wk should have a lifestyle of 20% of a consultant doctor who’s trained hard for over a decade? And you still think there will be no need to incentivise more challenging careers that add real value. Anybody can clean. We could all do our own cleaning if we had too. Could we all do our own eye surgery or heart surgery? If you think we can then please set an example. " Anyone can clean but not everybody will... It's as important as any other part of a crew so why shouldn't the cleaners be paid enough to live?? Nobody is asking for the fucking moon... Just enough to be able to have the things we need... A life is part of that! | |||
| |||
| |||
"The crux of the tread is how to make the system fairer for all. I don’t personally think that artificially constraining the top is the way. Certainly not to the degree that is being proposed - even if those proposals are simply for the purpose of debate and not realistic propositions. The biggest challenge “at the bottom” is the lowest common denominator that everyone needs to cover the basics: shelter, healthy food, clothing, a modicum of entertainment and of course energy. All paid work should provide enough for those who undertake it to be able to afford that as well as make some savings provision for their future. Taxing and managing regulation to enable that should be the focus - not trying to artificially constrain the most ambitious and capable in society. Everyone deserves a fair chance and the basic standard of living. But those who work harder and are capable of (fairly) working smarter should not have to miss out. Equal opportunity will never ensure equal outcome as we’re not all identikit clones. " my knee jerk reaction is to have a state safety net on the essentials. But somehow not constrain private enterprise for the many. Eg a (scaled) means tested access to GB Energy. Not food banks, but a GB supermarket chain. Less of a range. All nurtitious but affordable even if subsidised. I'd also do rejig of what school needs to teach us. Financial education, empathy, questioning not answering. | |||
"Minimum wage is your bosses way of telling you they would pay you less if they could get away with it! " Question is why do people stay in such jobs? Why do they not strive to get qualifications and skills that mean they can get off the NMW first rung of the ladder? There was a tv show recently that showed an immigrant from a very poor country so probably had an even worse start in life than some of the poorest here. Yet within 5 or 6 years had qualified as a bricklayer and was buying his first house. So it can be done. Nobody’s forced to stay on NMW forever are they? Or am I missing something? | |||
"There are some really interesting questions here which all seem to come back to what a person is worth to a business versus their value to society. In education we have seen the rise of academies and academy trusts in particular where headteachers who were previously on good 5 figure salaries are suddenly on very good six figure salaries and the only change in the schools has been taking on increased debt due to expansion and modernisation of premises plus longer working hours for the majority of staff. This has also been a massive problem in universities too (Bath uni for instance). I wonder if this is progress or not as it seems that people are having to work harder for the same money unless they are lucky enough to be higher up the food chain and can reward themselves with impunity. So how much is fair? I wonder?incentives can create bad behaviour. Imo many board issues come from stock options. Nice idea to allignment with shareholders, but they haven't got the time frame alligned. Feels like your teacher example is similar. They are rewarded for taking on debt and size. So do. Where the work itself delivers intrinsic rewards we need to not lose that side. I can see why teachers either drop out or chase money... The joy of teaching appears to be less and less. That is probably a different question from the more financially incentivesed private roles. " I think teachers are out off by three factors: (1) Reduced pay in real terms over the last few decades. Certainly compared to some comparable professions. (2) hugely increased admin workload who h means they spend far less time teaching. And have to spend more and more time tackling an ever growing workload. (3) In many schools( not all or course) an increasingly challenging environment with more violence, abuse and general anti social behaviour from the scumbag elements. As most teachers are very dedicated and passionate about their subject - I suspect point 3 is the biggest issue. Decent people don’t really want to mix with the scum bags. It may be snobby. But that’s life. Those who can avoid them like the plague whether it is moving schools, moving areas or moving street. | |||
| |||
"If wages increase costs increase in line with wage increase, if I decide to invest money in a business I do so for a return on my investment, if costs increase either wages, energy,or flour in the bakery, well then what is charged for the cake must go up . " I metric I often use to judge affordability and help teach the kids the value kf money and hard work… how ling would I have to work to pay for this? A trinket or snack? - a few minuets? A family meal out? A few hours? A holiday! A few days or weeks Something more substantial Like a car or some artwork a few weeks/months. Etc etc. But then when you assess it in terms if the hours people work ti afford the things they produce - for many it makes the basics unaffordable. Treated the family to breakfast out this morning. Ok there were 8 of us as some extended family, but someone working minimum wage at the cafe would have had to work nearly 2 days to afford the meal. Question is - is that a fair deal for society? Can the backer afford to buy their own bread? Henry Ford apparently paid his staff enough that they could buy what came off the production line. | |||
"If wages increase costs increase in line with wage increase, if I decide to invest money in a business I do so for a return on my investment, if costs increase either wages, energy,or flour in the bakery, well then what is charged for the cake must go up . I metric I often use to judge affordability and help teach the kids the value kf money and hard work… how ling would I have to work to pay for this? A trinket or snack? - a few minuets? A family meal out? A few hours? A holiday! A few days or weeks Something more substantial Like a car or some artwork a few weeks/months. Etc etc. But then when you assess it in terms if the hours people work ti afford the things they produce - for many it makes the basics unaffordable. Treated the family to breakfast out this morning. Ok there were 8 of us as some extended family, but someone working minimum wage at the cafe would have had to work nearly 2 days to afford the meal. Question is - is that a fair deal for society? Can the backer afford to buy their own bread? Henry Ford apparently paid his staff enough that they could buy what came off the production line. " how much was that breakfast? It's an interesting thought experiment of how much should I able to afford to palve business where I work ... | |||
"If wages increase costs increase in line with wage increase, if I decide to invest money in a business I do so for a return on my investment, if costs increase either wages, energy,or flour in the bakery, well then what is charged for the cake must go up . I metric I often use to judge affordability and help teach the kids the value kf money and hard work… how ling would I have to work to pay for this? A trinket or snack? - a few minuets? A family meal out? A few hours? A holiday! A few days or weeks Something more substantial Like a car or some artwork a few weeks/months. Etc etc. But then when you assess it in terms if the hours people work ti afford the things they produce - for many it makes the basics unaffordable. Treated the family to breakfast out this morning. Ok there were 8 of us as some extended family, but someone working minimum wage at the cafe would have had to work nearly 2 days to afford the meal. Question is - is that a fair deal for society? Can the backer afford to buy their own bread? Henry Ford apparently paid his staff enough that they could buy what came off the production line. how much was that breakfast? It's an interesting thought experiment of how much should I able to afford to palve business where I work ... " Think it was about £100 or so plus tip. | |||
"Minimum wage is your bosses way of telling you they would pay you less if they could get away with it! Question is why do people stay in such jobs? Why do they not strive to get qualifications and skills that mean they can get off the NMW first rung of the ladder? There was a tv show recently that showed an immigrant from a very poor country so probably had an even worse start in life than some of the poorest here. Yet within 5 or 6 years had qualified as a bricklayer and was buying his first house. So it can be done. Nobody’s forced to stay on NMW forever are they? Or am I missing something? " I like my "unskilled" job... Why should I have to fo that to be paid enough to live? That should be basic minimum... I don't want nor need a fortune, nor a different job... I like the one I have! My basic job and basic life are fucking brilliant, I should be able to afford the basics doing that! | |||
"How about passing a law so that the top dog in any buisness can only be paid ten times more than the lowest in a company Think cleaner on £10 per hr and the fat cat at the top no more than £100 per hr If the boss wants more then he has to pay more to everyone on lower wages in his company and this should include shares and pensions This flies against everything the UK government represents. If they even thought this for a second, their party would lose all its funding quicker than the blink of the eye. I wonder how many would vote for that in a referendum? Not enough. The money always wins. Do people seriously expect “professionals” to train hard to a decade and the only earn 10x what a cleaner earns? How long does it take to learn how to clean a floor with a mop and push a hoover around? An hour or a day or two at most. How long does it take to train ti be an accountant or engineer or learn how to run a company? 5 to 10 years in most cases I expect. What would motivate those individuals? I DO get that the low paid are exploited too much, but do we honestly think society would be better off by curtailing drive and ambition so much? A citizen income - probably in tokens for some sort of rations - so that all qualifying individuals receive basic food, energy units and shelter. Then get to earn from whatever job would be better. The answer, I suspect, would be to do something to change how we all think, like to have a maximum price on things. Like a car, or a house, or a fridge or whatever. To shift the aim in life from being making as much money as possible, to being as happy as possible. I realise that this isn't a realistic solution, for a million and one reasons. I just used it to try to illustrate an idea. There’s probably some merit in diversifying the metrics by which people are rewarded and by which evaluate success. But happiness is very subjective. One person may be quite happy sitting on a sofa watching tv all day, and have basic needs. Others might have very expensive hobbies and reward their hard work with indulgence in such things. So how do we balance contribution to society against the reward? I completely understand that we’re at a somewhat skewed place right now where some are rewarded a lot for doing not so much and others that work hard are effectively on their knees - but how do we deliver the happiness to all? Are we saying give everyone the same and define happiness as the lowest common denominator? Or do we give everyone whatever they want for doing as little or as much as the can be bothered in return? If you need to "incentivise" your start to do their job, then you have the wrong people. Everyone contributes to success or failure with some bonus for going over and above. Lots of metrics can measure that. CEOs are only employees, the same as anyone else. Entrepreneurs take a financial risk. What they are paid is up to them. Happiness is transient. Contentment longer lasting. We aren't very good at distinguishing the two. Horseshit. People need to earn a living and most people are incentivised ti strive for better when they see there are greater rewards. It should by in means be the only lever, but it is certainly part of the toolkit. BTW you missed the point. It was not incentivise staff to do their job. It was incentivise people to train hard for a particular skill set. We can’r all be cleaners there is not enough mess! I’ve no idea what you do fir a living. But if you took a pay cut to 1/10th of current would you still dk what you do? Would you still have invested all the time it tool to reach your current position? Just for clarity, being paid 10 times the lowest salary (which was an arbitrary number someone used as an example not a considered proposal) is not the same as cutting a salary to 10% of what it was. Even if we took current minimum wage that would put the salary of the highest paid employee in the company at about £160k. Too little? If they don't like it they can, of course leave. Over the past few years executive pay has soared and salaries in other grades have stagnated. Company performance has not tracked the pay of executives by a big margin. 160k does not even come close to many middle and senior managers or professional rates, never mind senior exec and CEO. So yes it is the same as taking a pay cut to 10% probably closet to 5% of the very top dogs. They are hardly going to start paying the cleaner £45k are they? Anyway this is cloud cuckoo land so a bit pointless discussing. 160 after tax is not that much, are we also advocating that the tax bands are cut as the 160k salary 1/2 would go in tax. Remember that the allowance is lost and there’s a higher rate if Ani and tax above something like £150k Whilst the lowest would pay next to fk all. Are you seriously think that in real take home terms that there should only be 4x to 5x between the top and the bottom? So a cleaner who trains for 1wk should have a lifestyle of 20% of a consultant doctor who’s trained hard for over a decade? And you still think there will be no need to incentivise more challenging careers that add real value. Anybody can clean. We could all do our own cleaning if we had too. Could we all do our own eye surgery or heart surgery? If you think we can then please set an example. " From the IFS calculator £160k is: "With a household after tax income of £3028 per week, you have a higher income than around 99% of the population - equivalent to about 65 million individuals." "In conclusion, Your income is so high that you lie beyond the far right hand side of the chart." This is less than "most" senior and middle managers earn? Really? I think that you are a little untethered from reality. Have a look on Indeed or Glassdoor and see how many jobs come in at £160k. If this is 10% then you must think that a salary of £1.6m for an employee is reasonable. It is not. Again,this salary inflation at the top has only happened over the last 10-20 years and has not correlated with any improvement in company performance. There is no rationale for it other than they can set their own pay and their mates decide if it's reasonable. There is lots and lots of data on this. Also, I have stated pretty clearly that the 10x value was a figure proposed by someone else arbitrarily. Why should a cleaner not have a life"style" 20% that of a doctor? What about a carer? Tube drivers earn more than some hospital registrars.. is that a meaningful comparison? Will a doctor not want to become a doctor because they don't earn enough above a cleaner to feel adequately rewarded? If this system is universal then they will not find any jobs that satisfy their financial snobbery so by your logic they will do nothing as money is the only significant driver. If you can only see the world through today's parameters then you are where you are and we stay where we do. | |||
"If wages increase costs increase in line with wage increase, if I decide to invest money in a business I do so for a return on my investment, if costs increase either wages, energy,or flour in the bakery, well then what is charged for the cake must go up . " If costs increase and productivity increases? Then what? What if lower skilled salaries increase and high paid management salaries fall commensurately? | |||
"If wages increase costs increase in line with wage increase, if I decide to invest money in a business I do so for a return on my investment, if costs increase either wages, energy,or flour in the bakery, well then what is charged for the cake must go up . If costs increase and productivity increases? Then what? What if lower skilled salaries increase and high paid management salaries fall commensurately?" Is it altruism or jealousy that drives you to want those who’ve worked hard to achieve their earnings to magically give up so much? | |||
"If wages increase costs increase in line with wage increase, if I decide to invest money in a business I do so for a return on my investment, if costs increase either wages, energy,or flour in the bakery, well then what is charged for the cake must go up . If costs increase and productivity increases? Then what? What if lower skilled salaries increase and high paid management salaries fall commensurately? Is it altruism or jealousy that drives you to want those who’ve worked hard to achieve their earnings to magically give up so much? " Altruism. Some basic understanding that a more equal society leads to less instability and fear and envy. It doesn't have to happen on one day. It can feed in over time. Again, this references those who are salaried employees, not entrepreneurs who risk their own money to build something themselves. You can really see no other way to live? | |||
"How about passing a law so that the top dog in any buisness can only be paid ten times more than the lowest in a company Think cleaner on £10 per hr and the fat cat at the top no more than £100 per hr If the boss wants more then he has to pay more to everyone on lower wages in his company and this should include shares and pensions This flies against everything the UK government represents. If they even thought this for a second, their party would lose all its funding quicker than the blink of the eye. I wonder how many would vote for that in a referendum? Not enough. The money always wins. Do people seriously expect “professionals” to train hard to a decade and the only earn 10x what a cleaner earns? How long does it take to learn how to clean a floor with a mop and push a hoover around? An hour or a day or two at most. How long does it take to train ti be an accountant or engineer or learn how to run a company? 5 to 10 years in most cases I expect. What would motivate those individuals? I DO get that the low paid are exploited too much, but do we honestly think society would be better off by curtailing drive and ambition so much? A citizen income - probably in tokens for some sort of rations - so that all qualifying individuals receive basic food, energy units and shelter. Then get to earn from whatever job would be better. The answer, I suspect, would be to do something to change how we all think, like to have a maximum price on things. Like a car, or a house, or a fridge or whatever. To shift the aim in life from being making as much money as possible, to being as happy as possible. I realise that this isn't a realistic solution, for a million and one reasons. I just used it to try to illustrate an idea. There’s probably some merit in diversifying the metrics by which people are rewarded and by which evaluate success. But happiness is very subjective. One person may be quite happy sitting on a sofa watching tv all day, and have basic needs. Others might have very expensive hobbies and reward their hard work with indulgence in such things. So how do we balance contribution to society against the reward? I completely understand that we’re at a somewhat skewed place right now where some are rewarded a lot for doing not so much and others that work hard are effectively on their knees - but how do we deliver the happiness to all? Are we saying give everyone the same and define happiness as the lowest common denominator? Or do we give everyone whatever they want for doing as little or as much as the can be bothered in return? If you need to "incentivise" your start to do their job, then you have the wrong people. Everyone contributes to success or failure with some bonus for going over and above. Lots of metrics can measure that. CEOs are only employees, the same as anyone else. Entrepreneurs take a financial risk. What they are paid is up to them. Happiness is transient. Contentment longer lasting. We aren't very good at distinguishing the two. Horseshit. People need to earn a living and most people are incentivised ti strive for better when they see there are greater rewards. It should by in means be the only lever, but it is certainly part of the toolkit. BTW you missed the point. It was not incentivise staff to do their job. It was incentivise people to train hard for a particular skill set. We can’r all be cleaners there is not enough mess! I’ve no idea what you do fir a living. But if you took a pay cut to 1/10th of current would you still dk what you do? Would you still have invested all the time it tool to reach your current position? Just for clarity, being paid 10 times the lowest salary (which was an arbitrary number someone used as an example not a considered proposal) is not the same as cutting a salary to 10% of what it was. Even if we took current minimum wage that would put the salary of the highest paid employee in the company at about £160k. Too little? If they don't like it they can, of course leave. Over the past few years executive pay has soared and salaries in other grades have stagnated. Company performance has not tracked the pay of executives by a big margin. 160k does not even come close to many middle and senior managers or professional rates, never mind senior exec and CEO. So yes it is the same as taking a pay cut to 10% probably closet to 5% of the very top dogs. They are hardly going to start paying the cleaner £45k are they? Anyway this is cloud cuckoo land so a bit pointless discussing. 160 after tax is not that much, are we also advocating that the tax bands are cut as the 160k salary 1/2 would go in tax. Remember that the allowance is lost and there’s a higher rate if Ani and tax above something like £150k Whilst the lowest would pay next to fk all. Are you seriously think that in real take home terms that there should only be 4x to 5x between the top and the bottom? So a cleaner who trains for 1wk should have a lifestyle of 20% of a consultant doctor who’s trained hard for over a decade? And you still think there will be no need to incentivise more challenging careers that add real value. Anybody can clean. We could all do our own cleaning if we had too. Could we all do our own eye surgery or heart surgery? If you think we can then please set an example. From the IFS calculator £160k is: "With a household after tax income of £3028 per week, you have a higher income than around 99% of the population - equivalent to about 65 million individuals." "In conclusion, Your income is so high that you lie beyond the far right hand side of the chart." This is less than "most" senior and middle managers earn? Really? I think that you are a little untethered from reality. Have a look on Indeed or Glassdoor and see how many jobs come in at £160k. If this is 10% then you must think that a salary of £1.6m for an employee is reasonable. It is not. Again,this salary inflation at the top has only happened over the last 10-20 years and has not correlated with any improvement in company performance. There is no rationale for it other than they can set their own pay and their mates decide if it's reasonable. There is lots and lots of data on this. Also, I have stated pretty clearly that the 10x value was a figure proposed by someone else arbitrarily. Why should a cleaner not have a life"style" 20% that of a doctor? What about a carer? Tube drivers earn more than some hospital registrars.. is that a meaningful comparison? Will a doctor not want to become a doctor because they don't earn enough above a cleaner to feel adequately rewarded? If this system is universal then they will not find any jobs that satisfy their financial snobbery so by your logic they will do nothing as money is the only significant driver. If you can only see the world through today's parameters then you are where you are and we stay where we do." the other extreme is would doctors become doctors if they earned the same as the cleaner? Financial snobbery is throughout our system. How do we resolve the fact some jobs do need more investment, come with more responsibility etc if it's not financial reward? Am I a snob financial snob because I'd look to get paid more for working in shitty conditions than Starbucks ? Pure capitalism doesn't work. It leaves people behind. Pure communism doesn't work either. Were is the middle ground? | |||
"How about passing a law so that the top dog in any buisness can only be paid ten times more than the lowest in a company Think cleaner on £10 per hr and the fat cat at the top no more than £100 per hr If the boss wants more then he has to pay more to everyone on lower wages in his company and this should include shares and pensions This flies against everything the UK government represents. If they even thought this for a second, their party would lose all its funding quicker than the blink of the eye. I wonder how many would vote for that in a referendum? Not enough. The money always wins. Do people seriously expect “professionals” to train hard to a decade and the only earn 10x what a cleaner earns? How long does it take to learn how to clean a floor with a mop and push a hoover around? An hour or a day or two at most. How long does it take to train ti be an accountant or engineer or learn how to run a company? 5 to 10 years in most cases I expect. What would motivate those individuals? I DO get that the low paid are exploited too much, but do we honestly think society would be better off by curtailing drive and ambition so much? A citizen income - probably in tokens for some sort of rations - so that all qualifying individuals receive basic food, energy units and shelter. Then get to earn from whatever job would be better. The answer, I suspect, would be to do something to change how we all think, like to have a maximum price on things. Like a car, or a house, or a fridge or whatever. To shift the aim in life from being making as much money as possible, to being as happy as possible. I realise that this isn't a realistic solution, for a million and one reasons. I just used it to try to illustrate an idea. There’s probably some merit in diversifying the metrics by which people are rewarded and by which evaluate success. But happiness is very subjective. One person may be quite happy sitting on a sofa watching tv all day, and have basic needs. Others might have very expensive hobbies and reward their hard work with indulgence in such things. So how do we balance contribution to society against the reward? I completely understand that we’re at a somewhat skewed place right now where some are rewarded a lot for doing not so much and others that work hard are effectively on their knees - but how do we deliver the happiness to all? Are we saying give everyone the same and define happiness as the lowest common denominator? Or do we give everyone whatever they want for doing as little or as much as the can be bothered in return? If you need to "incentivise" your start to do their job, then you have the wrong people. Everyone contributes to success or failure with some bonus for going over and above. Lots of metrics can measure that. CEOs are only employees, the same as anyone else. Entrepreneurs take a financial risk. What they are paid is up to them. Happiness is transient. Contentment longer lasting. We aren't very good at distinguishing the two. Horseshit. People need to earn a living and most people are incentivised ti strive for better when they see there are greater rewards. It should by in means be the only lever, but it is certainly part of the toolkit. BTW you missed the point. It was not incentivise staff to do their job. It was incentivise people to train hard for a particular skill set. We can’r all be cleaners there is not enough mess! I’ve no idea what you do fir a living. But if you took a pay cut to 1/10th of current would you still dk what you do? Would you still have invested all the time it tool to reach your current position? Just for clarity, being paid 10 times the lowest salary (which was an arbitrary number someone used as an example not a considered proposal) is not the same as cutting a salary to 10% of what it was. Even if we took current minimum wage that would put the salary of the highest paid employee in the company at about £160k. Too little? If they don't like it they can, of course leave. Over the past few years executive pay has soared and salaries in other grades have stagnated. Company performance has not tracked the pay of executives by a big margin. 160k does not even come close to many middle and senior managers or professional rates, never mind senior exec and CEO. So yes it is the same as taking a pay cut to 10% probably closet to 5% of the very top dogs. They are hardly going to start paying the cleaner £45k are they? Anyway this is cloud cuckoo land so a bit pointless discussing. 160 after tax is not that much, are we also advocating that the tax bands are cut as the 160k salary 1/2 would go in tax. Remember that the allowance is lost and there’s a higher rate if Ani and tax above something like £150k Whilst the lowest would pay next to fk all. Are you seriously think that in real take home terms that there should only be 4x to 5x between the top and the bottom? So a cleaner who trains for 1wk should have a lifestyle of 20% of a consultant doctor who’s trained hard for over a decade? And you still think there will be no need to incentivise more challenging careers that add real value. Anybody can clean. We could all do our own cleaning if we had too. Could we all do our own eye surgery or heart surgery? If you think we can then please set an example. From the IFS calculator £160k is: "With a household after tax income of £3028 per week, you have a higher income than around 99% of the population - equivalent to about 65 million individuals." "In conclusion, Your income is so high that you lie beyond the far right hand side of the chart." This is less than "most" senior and middle managers earn? Really? I think that you are a little untethered from reality. Have a look on Indeed or Glassdoor and see how many jobs come in at £160k. If this is 10% then you must think that a salary of £1.6m for an employee is reasonable. It is not. Again,this salary inflation at the top has only happened over the last 10-20 years and has not correlated with any improvement in company performance. There is no rationale for it other than they can set their own pay and their mates decide if it's reasonable. There is lots and lots of data on this. Also, I have stated pretty clearly that the 10x value was a figure proposed by someone else arbitrarily. Why should a cleaner not have a life"style" 20% that of a doctor? What about a carer? Tube drivers earn more than some hospital registrars.. is that a meaningful comparison? Will a doctor not want to become a doctor because they don't earn enough above a cleaner to feel adequately rewarded? If this system is universal then they will not find any jobs that satisfy their financial snobbery so by your logic they will do nothing as money is the only significant driver. If you can only see the world through today's parameters then you are where you are and we stay where we do." So this system would have to be introduce across the entire globe to work? Do you think that is realistic given the disparity in economies, skill levels and wages across the planet. We tell a young medic they need to take on in excess of 100k of debt. Work hard for 8 to 10 years - longer if they want to specialise. And yet AFTER TAX according to your theory they’ll only earn about 4x of someone who’s not had to bother with uni, work horrendous hours during junior positions, study hard and take on huge debt to do so. Might a few not say fk it I’ll just buy a Dyson and a mop? Improving education and skills is the key - to drag everyone up. That involves high earners paying tax to fund the rest. (Fox the loopholes by all means, that’s a completely different argument). But don’t forget that someone kn 160k per year pays about 66K in taxes. That’s how many more times tax than someone on minimum wage? So if the pay is shrunk and the tax base shrinks then how would that impact the taxation of the lower quartiles? Oh I suppose the tax base would not need to be as high? As everything would magically drop in price accordingly and then tax burdens could stay the same. If at the same time you’re advocating a flst rate if tax so that everyone contributes equally (since they can aford all things and don’t need to be subsidised) then maybe the proposition has a little more merit, but so far you’ve only advocated the punitive aspect of this to those funding it. You need to do a better job of selling the idea I think.  | |||
" Pure capitalism doesn't work. It leaves people behind. Pure communism doesn't work either. Were is the middle ground?" I thought that is where socialism came in. Progressive taxation that provides both a safety net and a reasonably level playing field of opportunity. It has been skewed too far in favour of the rich in recent times. We have a very corrupt form of capitalism with an undermining if the socialist element of (UK) society. | |||
"How about passing a law so that the top dog in any buisness can only be paid ten times more than the lowest in a company Think cleaner on £10 per hr and the fat cat at the top no more than £100 per hr If the boss wants more then he has to pay more to everyone on lower wages in his company and this should include shares and pensions This flies against everything the UK government represents. If they even thought this for a second, their party would lose all its funding quicker than the blink of the eye. I wonder how many would vote for that in a referendum? Not enough. The money always wins. Do people seriously expect “professionals” to train hard to a decade and the only earn 10x what a cleaner earns? How long does it take to learn how to clean a floor with a mop and push a hoover around? An hour or a day or two at most. How long does it take to train ti be an accountant or engineer or learn how to run a company? 5 to 10 years in most cases I expect. What would motivate those individuals? I DO get that the low paid are exploited too much, but do we honestly think society would be better off by curtailing drive and ambition so much? A citizen income - probably in tokens for some sort of rations - so that all qualifying individuals receive basic food, energy units and shelter. Then get to earn from whatever job would be better. The answer, I suspect, would be to do something to change how we all think, like to have a maximum price on things. Like a car, or a house, or a fridge or whatever. To shift the aim in life from being making as much money as possible, to being as happy as possible. I realise that this isn't a realistic solution, for a million and one reasons. I just used it to try to illustrate an idea. There’s probably some merit in diversifying the metrics by which people are rewarded and by which evaluate success. But happiness is very subjective. One person may be quite happy sitting on a sofa watching tv all day, and have basic needs. Others might have very expensive hobbies and reward their hard work with indulgence in such things. So how do we balance contribution to society against the reward? I completely understand that we’re at a somewhat skewed place right now where some are rewarded a lot for doing not so much and others that work hard are effectively on their knees - but how do we deliver the happiness to all? Are we saying give everyone the same and define happiness as the lowest common denominator? Or do we give everyone whatever they want for doing as little or as much as the can be bothered in return? If you need to "incentivise" your start to do their job, then you have the wrong people. Everyone contributes to success or failure with some bonus for going over and above. Lots of metrics can measure that. CEOs are only employees, the same as anyone else. Entrepreneurs take a financial risk. What they are paid is up to them. Happiness is transient. Contentment longer lasting. We aren't very good at distinguishing the two. Horseshit. People need to earn a living and most people are incentivised ti strive for better when they see there are greater rewards. It should by in means be the only lever, but it is certainly part of the toolkit. BTW you missed the point. It was not incentivise staff to do their job. It was incentivise people to train hard for a particular skill set. We can’r all be cleaners there is not enough mess! I’ve no idea what you do fir a living. But if you took a pay cut to 1/10th of current would you still dk what you do? Would you still have invested all the time it tool to reach your current position? Just for clarity, being paid 10 times the lowest salary (which was an arbitrary number someone used as an example not a considered proposal) is not the same as cutting a salary to 10% of what it was. Even if we took current minimum wage that would put the salary of the highest paid employee in the company at about £160k. Too little? If they don't like it they can, of course leave. Over the past few years executive pay has soared and salaries in other grades have stagnated. Company performance has not tracked the pay of executives by a big margin. 160k does not even come close to many middle and senior managers or professional rates, never mind senior exec and CEO. So yes it is the same as taking a pay cut to 10% probably closet to 5% of the very top dogs. They are hardly going to start paying the cleaner £45k are they? Anyway this is cloud cuckoo land so a bit pointless discussing. 160 after tax is not that much, are we also advocating that the tax bands are cut as the 160k salary 1/2 would go in tax. Remember that the allowance is lost and there’s a higher rate if Ani and tax above something like £150k Whilst the lowest would pay next to fk all. Are you seriously think that in real take home terms that there should only be 4x to 5x between the top and the bottom? So a cleaner who trains for 1wk should have a lifestyle of 20% of a consultant doctor who’s trained hard for over a decade? And you still think there will be no need to incentivise more challenging careers that add real value. Anybody can clean. We could all do our own cleaning if we had too. Could we all do our own eye surgery or heart surgery? If you think we can then please set an example. From the IFS calculator £160k is: "With a household after tax income of £3028 per week, you have a higher income than around 99% of the population - equivalent to about 65 million individuals." "In conclusion, Your income is so high that you lie beyond the far right hand side of the chart." This is less than "most" senior and middle managers earn? Really? I think that you are a little untethered from reality. Have a look on Indeed or Glassdoor and see how many jobs come in at £160k. If this is 10% then you must think that a salary of £1.6m for an employee is reasonable. It is not. Again,this salary inflation at the top has only happened over the last 10-20 years and has not correlated with any improvement in company performance. There is no rationale for it other than they can set their own pay and their mates decide if it's reasonable. There is lots and lots of data on this. Also, I have stated pretty clearly that the 10x value was a figure proposed by someone else arbitrarily. Why should a cleaner not have a life"style" 20% that of a doctor? What about a carer? Tube drivers earn more than some hospital registrars.. is that a meaningful comparison? Will a doctor not want to become a doctor because they don't earn enough above a cleaner to feel adequately rewarded? If this system is universal then they will not find any jobs that satisfy their financial snobbery so by your logic they will do nothing as money is the only significant driver. If you can only see the world through today's parameters then you are where you are and we stay where we do.the other extreme is would doctors become doctors if they earned the same as the cleaner? Financial snobbery is throughout our system. How do we resolve the fact some jobs do need more investment, come with more responsibility etc if it's not financial reward? Am I a snob financial snob because I'd look to get paid more for working in shitty conditions than Starbucks ? Pure capitalism doesn't work. It leaves people behind. Pure communism doesn't work either. Were is the middle ground?" There is no expectation of identical pay, just a narrower range based on how to get the lowest paid to a reasonable standard of living whilst returning the very high paid to historically reasonable levels of more wealth than they can spend. Isn't the exclusive pursuit of financial gain rather than an at least equal emphasis on societal benefit one of the major problems right now? I'm sure the OP has opinions on the value of "influencers" and " celebrities"... | |||
" You can really see no other way to live?" Of course I can. And you know this. I’ve suggested many other options in this and other threads. It is obvious something has to change. And i know that you know that I know this. I simply don’t agree with the capping you have stated. You want some better ideas : remove the differences between income from capitol and labour. We all have the same 24h but some have better access to funds than others. So tax everything the same. Then allow employees to claim some relief on their costs. Then have a proper debate in society on what the state should fund and what people should have to fund themselves. Then collect the taxes accordingly. No loopholes or offshore bullshit, collect every fucking dime! But don’t cap aspiration, innovation or hard work. There should be no limits - but the options to renege on the social contract that enables some of that success should be removed. Offshore trusts, hidden ownership, IP/Loan schemes etc. Everyone should have the basics covered. But why should everyone have to settle for mediocracy? Personally regardless of what measures are out in pace I’ll always find a way to work harder and smarter to get ahead. Brexit, 60% tax, whatever. Bring it on. It is all in the game. | |||
" I'm sure the OP has opinions on the value of "influencers" and " celebrities"..." I do. I think they are probably overpaid, like many sports stars. But i’m not jealous of their success to the extent that I want to remove their ability to do so. I may well think that a YouTuber making millions giving ‘glowup’ tutorials or streaming their gaming tips ridiculous. But if they have spotted a gap, worked to create content and a following and people are happy to pay or watch adverts to fund them then who am I to say that is wrong. And yes I nnow a nurse should be paid more! But - assuming the youtuber pays their fair taxes then they help to fund many many nursers. Same for footballers. A salary of 250k a week may be ridiculous - but without loopholes that’s 125k a week give or take in tax. Now we could dedicate another thread to how tax revenue is wasted - that’s a whole other debate. But the ‘lets reduce inequality’ brigade don’t seem to like ultra low tax economies either. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Insulate the low paid and poor with a basic citizen salary that covers credits for some basic essentials, that way nobody would starve, go cold or want for shelter. | |||
"How about passing a law so that the top dog in any buisness can only be paid ten times more than the lowest in a company Think cleaner on £10 per hr and the fat cat at the top no more than £100 per hr If the boss wants more then he has to pay more to everyone on lower wages in his company and this should include shares and pensions This flies against everything the UK government represents. If they even thought this for a second, their party would lose all its funding quicker than the blink of the eye. I wonder how many would vote for that in a referendum? Not enough. The money always wins. Do people seriously expect “professionals” to train hard to a decade and the only earn 10x what a cleaner earns? How long does it take to learn how to clean a floor with a mop and push a hoover around? An hour or a day or two at most. How long does it take to train ti be an accountant or engineer or learn how to run a company? 5 to 10 years in most cases I expect. What would motivate those individuals? I DO get that the low paid are exploited too much, but do we honestly think society would be better off by curtailing drive and ambition so much? A citizen income - probably in tokens for some sort of rations - so that all qualifying individuals receive basic food, energy units and shelter. Then get to earn from whatever job would be better. The answer, I suspect, would be to do something to change how we all think, like to have a maximum price on things. Like a car, or a house, or a fridge or whatever. To shift the aim in life from being making as much money as possible, to being as happy as possible. I realise that this isn't a realistic solution, for a million and one reasons. I just used it to try to illustrate an idea. There’s probably some merit in diversifying the metrics by which people are rewarded and by which evaluate success. But happiness is very subjective. One person may be quite happy sitting on a sofa watching tv all day, and have basic needs. Others might have very expensive hobbies and reward their hard work with indulgence in such things. So how do we balance contribution to society against the reward? I completely understand that we’re at a somewhat skewed place right now where some are rewarded a lot for doing not so much and others that work hard are effectively on their knees - but how do we deliver the happiness to all? Are we saying give everyone the same and define happiness as the lowest common denominator? Or do we give everyone whatever they want for doing as little or as much as the can be bothered in return? If you need to "incentivise" your start to do their job, then you have the wrong people. Everyone contributes to success or failure with some bonus for going over and above. Lots of metrics can measure that. CEOs are only employees, the same as anyone else. Entrepreneurs take a financial risk. What they are paid is up to them. Happiness is transient. Contentment longer lasting. We aren't very good at distinguishing the two. Horseshit. People need to earn a living and most people are incentivised ti strive for better when they see there are greater rewards. It should by in means be the only lever, but it is certainly part of the toolkit. BTW you missed the point. It was not incentivise staff to do their job. It was incentivise people to train hard for a particular skill set. We can’r all be cleaners there is not enough mess! I’ve no idea what you do fir a living. But if you took a pay cut to 1/10th of current would you still dk what you do? Would you still have invested all the time it tool to reach your current position? Just for clarity, being paid 10 times the lowest salary (which was an arbitrary number someone used as an example not a considered proposal) is not the same as cutting a salary to 10% of what it was. Even if we took current minimum wage that would put the salary of the highest paid employee in the company at about £160k. Too little? If they don't like it they can, of course leave. Over the past few years executive pay has soared and salaries in other grades have stagnated. Company performance has not tracked the pay of executives by a big margin. 160k does not even come close to many middle and senior managers or professional rates, never mind senior exec and CEO. So yes it is the same as taking a pay cut to 10% probably closet to 5% of the very top dogs. They are hardly going to start paying the cleaner £45k are they? Anyway this is cloud cuckoo land so a bit pointless discussing. 160 after tax is not that much, are we also advocating that the tax bands are cut as the 160k salary 1/2 would go in tax. Remember that the allowance is lost and there’s a higher rate if Ani and tax above something like £150k Whilst the lowest would pay next to fk all. Are you seriously think that in real take home terms that there should only be 4x to 5x between the top and the bottom? So a cleaner who trains for 1wk should have a lifestyle of 20% of a consultant doctor who’s trained hard for over a decade? And you still think there will be no need to incentivise more challenging careers that add real value. Anybody can clean. We could all do our own cleaning if we had too. Could we all do our own eye surgery or heart surgery? If you think we can then please set an example. From the IFS calculator £160k is: "With a household after tax income of £3028 per week, you have a higher income than around 99% of the population - equivalent to about 65 million individuals." "In conclusion, Your income is so high that you lie beyond the far right hand side of the chart." This is less than "most" senior and middle managers earn? Really? I think that you are a little untethered from reality. Have a look on Indeed or Glassdoor and see how many jobs come in at £160k. If this is 10% then you must think that a salary of £1.6m for an employee is reasonable. It is not. Again,this salary inflation at the top has only happened over the last 10-20 years and has not correlated with any improvement in company performance. There is no rationale for it other than they can set their own pay and their mates decide if it's reasonable. There is lots and lots of data on this. Also, I have stated pretty clearly that the 10x value was a figure proposed by someone else arbitrarily. Why should a cleaner not have a life"style" 20% that of a doctor? What about a carer? Tube drivers earn more than some hospital registrars.. is that a meaningful comparison? Will a doctor not want to become a doctor because they don't earn enough above a cleaner to feel adequately rewarded? If this system is universal then they will not find any jobs that satisfy their financial snobbery so by your logic they will do nothing as money is the only significant driver. If you can only see the world through today's parameters then you are where you are and we stay where we do. So this system would have to be introduce across the entire globe to work? Do you think that is realistic given the disparity in economies, skill levels and wages across the planet. We tell a young medic they need to take on in excess of 100k of debt. Work hard for 8 to 10 years - longer if they want to specialise. And yet AFTER TAX according to your theory they’ll only earn about 4x of someone who’s not had to bother with uni, work horrendous hours during junior positions, study hard and take on huge debt to do so. Might a few not say fk it I’ll just buy a Dyson and a mop? Improving education and skills is the key - to drag everyone up. That involves high earners paying tax to fund the rest. (Fox the loopholes by all means, that’s a completely different argument). But don’t forget that someone kn 160k per year pays about 66K in taxes. That’s how many more times tax than someone on minimum wage? So if the pay is shrunk and the tax base shrinks then how would that impact the taxation of the lower quartiles? Oh I suppose the tax base would not need to be as high? As everything would magically drop in price accordingly and then tax burdens could stay the same. If at the same time you’re advocating a flst rate if tax so that everyone contributes equally (since they can aford all things and don’t need to be subsidised) then maybe the proposition has a little more merit, but so far you’ve only advocated the punitive aspect of this to those funding it. You need to do a better job of selling the idea I think. "Despite you starting the thread, it seems that the status quo suits you. No suggestions for change are suitable because you view them as "punitive". Do people get what they deserve? The poor are poor because they are lazy? There are a finite number of higher skilled jobs and of people with the talent, skill or vocation to do them. I certainly agree that everyone should have the opportunity to achieve what they have the potential to. A social worker will have £30k of debt when they start their job. As will a teacher and a nurse. Is the problem the salary or the the fact that we charge so much for education? Do we keep treating the symptoms? The tax base does not need to be so high if you no longer have to subsidise the lower paid to have a reasonable existence. Still unsure why you are using the taxes of people way into the top 1% and off the IFS calculator as some sort of a baseline. Do you still believe that "most" middle and senior managers earn this much? You have tacked on a number of additional points on the end which you've made up yourself, so I'll leave you to that. Companies are not voluntarily improving pay to reasonable levels. As C-suite managers have been skewing pay to themselves and marking their own homework that isn't going to change. Perhaps it is punitive. Perhaps it should be for those who have been lining their own pockets whilst screwing their staff and failing their companies? Perhaps they should continue to receive rich rewards? All that I'm proposing is a gradual return to more reasonable pay differentials. That doesn't have to be limited to the lowest paid, but also to those in-between. What's your solution as you have only proposed conjuring more money for better education, which I am pretty sure is regularly our national priority... | |||
" You can really see no other way to live? Of course I can. And you know this. I’ve suggested many other options in this and other threads. It is obvious something has to change. And i know that you know that I know this. I simply don’t agree with the capping you have stated. You want some better ideas : remove the differences between income from capitol and labour. We all have the same 24h but some have better access to funds than others. So tax everything the same. Then allow employees to claim some relief on their costs. Then have a proper debate in society on what the state should fund and what people should have to fund themselves. Then collect the taxes accordingly. No loopholes or offshore bullshit, collect every fucking dime! But don’t cap aspiration, innovation or hard work. There should be no limits - but the options to renege on the social contract that enables some of that success should be removed. Offshore trusts, hidden ownership, IP/Loan schemes etc. Everyone should have the basics covered. But why should everyone have to settle for mediocracy? Personally regardless of what measures are out in pace I’ll always find a way to work harder and smarter to get ahead. Brexit, 60% tax, whatever. Bring it on. It is all in the game. " Please don't accuse me of tosh when you state this. Nobody has suggested a cap on aspiration, innovation or hard work. I have stated countless times that any caps are on the high paid employees who run companies and set their own pay. Are you able to acknowledge this? Nobody has disagreed with closing tax loopholes but that, apparently, requires the entire planet to agree. So no point starting, right? Also, what happens to all of those aspirational accountants and tax lawyers who have studied so hard to aspire to their £160k middle manager salaries? If you are only able to associate success with income then that's a pretty sad indictment of where society is. I am delighted that you have the "optimistic", "no nonsense", "on your bike" attitude that Norman Tebitt (the airline pilot shop steward) advocated all those years ago. However, as that has not proved hugely successful, how about something else? | |||
| |||
| |||
" I'm sure the OP has opinions on the value of "influencers" and " celebrities"... I do. I think they are probably overpaid, like many sports stars. But i’m not jealous of their success to the extent that I want to remove their ability to do so. I may well think that a YouTuber making millions giving ‘glowup’ tutorials or streaming their gaming tips ridiculous. But if they have spotted a gap, worked to create content and a following and people are happy to pay or watch adverts to fund them then who am I to say that is wrong. And yes I nnow a nurse should be paid more! But - assuming the youtuber pays their fair taxes then they help to fund many many nursers. Same for footballers. A salary of 250k a week may be ridiculous - but without loopholes that’s 125k a week give or take in tax. Now we could dedicate another thread to how tax revenue is wasted - that’s a whole other debate. But the ‘lets reduce inequality’ brigade don’t seem to like ultra low tax economies either. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Insulate the low paid and poor with a basic citizen salary that covers credits for some basic essentials, that way nobody would starve, go cold or want for shelter. " Nobody has said anything about financial equality. You have projected that argument. Fairness of opportunity we do not disagree on, although that is skewed by the wealthy and their networks. Especially when education has a high cost to the recipient. It's your thread and it's about providing a living wage. That should be a living wage without government subsidy. You seem to think that the state should ensure that a companies paying less than a person can live on should continue in business. I do not, especially if those who manage them are handsomely remunerated. You seem to feel that those paying themselves huge sums for failure and greed deserve what they get. I don't. Perhaps that's the only other main point of divergence other than your certainty that aspiration=salary. You like the status quo. It works for you. Understood. | |||
"How are you proposing we get there easy? Was it the pay ratio suggestion? " He’s admitted before he has no real answers. Just hopes and dreams and that others will figure it out. He’s happy to give up 9/10 of his salary apparently  | |||
" It's your thread and it's about providing a living wage. That should be a living wage without government subsidy. You seem to think that the state should ensure that a companies paying less than a person can live on should continue in business. " Where have I ever said that. I’ve stated out capitalism is currently corrupt. A capitalist system would demand that an inefficient entity go bust. I have no problem with that at all. You’re making that bit up, or at least drawing some incorrect conclusion by joining 1/2 the dots. Nowhere have I said that people should not be paid what they need to live on. I simply disagree that the way to achieve pulling ip the bottom is by pulling down the top to the extent advocated - and the straw man that that is a fictional ratio for sake of argument is just the issue. The ratio dies not work with today’s model unless a lot of other things change too - none of which have been advocated as part of a package of measures. So a system with far ekss reward and an equal burden is not something I’d support other than to up sticks to another jurisdiction - which handily due to Brexit now have multiple passport options | |||
"If wages increase costs increase in line with wage increase, if I decide to invest money in a business I do so for a return on my investment, if costs increase either wages, energy,or flour in the bakery, well then what is charged for the cake must go up . If costs increase and productivity increases? Then what? What if lower skilled salaries increase and high paid management salaries fall commensurately? Is it altruism or jealousy that drives you to want those who’ve worked hard to achieve their earnings to magically give up so much? " So the unskilled don't work as hard?? We work twice as hard because it's the bottom of the ladder that is understaffed aswell as underpaid so we work at least twice as hard, so the higher earners get more! | |||
"How are you proposing we get there easy? Was it the pay ratio suggestion? " There are all sorts of ways if you put your mind to it. Obviously, actually pursue taxes and close loopholes. Don't allow CEOs to set their own pay. Incentivise behaviour that increases low pay (direct and sub contract) with a pay ratio that gives shareholders, not Board members, tax benefits. Privately owned companies will have to behave similarly to attract staff. Salary competition with the state is reduced. Senior public sector salaries will be competitive so that it is easier to attract and maintain talent. Pay, hopefully, becomes less of a driver of behaviour and other factors like societal benefit, or cultural value or scientific and engineering advancement and recognition become as important to the wider population. If you really want to earn money you have to go and create something new and put something on the line, which does drive inovation. The benefit of managers trying to skew the game in their favour is drastically reduced... | |||
"How are you proposing we get there easy? Was it the pay ratio suggestion? He’s admitted before he has no real answers. Just hopes and dreams and that others will figure it out. He’s happy to give up 9/10 of his salary apparently "I have openly said that I do not have a complete answer not "admitted" to not knowing something that I previously claimed. How does a (notional) 10x salary difference (suggested by someone else) equate to a 10% pay cut? Why claim this as someone mathematically literate? | |||
| |||
"How are you proposing we get there easy? Was it the pay ratio suggestion? There are all sorts of ways if you put your mind to it. Obviously, actually pursue taxes and close loopholes. Don't allow CEOs to set their own pay. Incentivise behaviour that increases low pay (direct and sub contract) with a pay ratio that gives shareholders, not Board members, tax benefits. Privately owned companies will have to behave similarly to attract staff. Salary competition with the state is reduced. Senior public sector salaries will be competitive so that it is easier to attract and maintain talent. Pay, hopefully, becomes less of a driver of behaviour and other factors like societal benefit, or cultural value or scientific and engineering advancement and recognition become as important to the wider population. If you really want to earn money you have to go and create something new and put something on the line, which does drive inovation. The benefit of managers trying to skew the game in their favour is drastically reduced..." don't shareholders vote for directors pay? I'm not sure how you incentivese this change in behaviour. What's your thinking here? This subject all feels to me like being stuck in traffic. You are not stuck on traffic, you are the traffic. If we choose companies that have values, then that becomes the driver for CEOs et al. While we all chase the pay rise (and many do) we encourage the bad behaviour. | |||
" It's your thread and it's about providing a living wage. That should be a living wage without government subsidy. You seem to think that the state should ensure that a companies paying less than a person can live on should continue in business. Where have I ever said that. I’ve stated out capitalism is currently corrupt. A capitalist system would demand that an inefficient entity go bust. I have no problem with that at all. You’re making that bit up, or at least drawing some incorrect conclusion by joining 1/2 the dots. Nowhere have I said that people should not be paid what they need to live on. I simply disagree that the way to achieve pulling ip the bottom is by pulling down the top to the extent advocated - and the straw man that that is a fictional ratio for sake of argument is just the issue. The ratio dies not work with today’s model unless a lot of other things change too - none of which have been advocated as part of a package of measures. So a system with far ekss reward and an equal burden is not something I’d support other than to up sticks to another jurisdiction - which handily due to Brexit now have multiple passport options "Change today's model. It does not work. Enron to the 2008 financial crisis and all that has come from it are a demonstration of that. I didn't realise that what you actually expected from this thread on a swingwrs site were fully structured policies with complete costings and economic and social models that completely align with your views. Silly me, I was just making some reasonable suggestions to make life a bit better for some and make it a bit less easy for those with power and little responsibility to tilt the table in their favour. | |||
"Can get on board with most of that. A future society (centuries from now) would in my imagination be a bit like an episode of star trek. Or at least the crew, their intellect, creativity and egalitarian contribution to an advanced mission and common goal. It would take quite a bit of evolution and social re-engineering to get there though. There won’t be many wasters in space. " Who's lacking in aspiration now then? | |||
"How are you proposing we get there easy? Was it the pay ratio suggestion? There are all sorts of ways if you put your mind to it. Obviously, actually pursue taxes and close loopholes. Don't allow CEOs to set their own pay. Incentivise behaviour that increases low pay (direct and sub contract) with a pay ratio that gives shareholders, not Board members, tax benefits. Privately owned companies will have to behave similarly to attract staff. Salary competition with the state is reduced. Senior public sector salaries will be competitive so that it is easier to attract and maintain talent. Pay, hopefully, becomes less of a driver of behaviour and other factors like societal benefit, or cultural value or scientific and engineering advancement and recognition become as important to the wider population. If you really want to earn money you have to go and create something new and put something on the line, which does drive inovation. The benefit of managers trying to skew the game in their favour is drastically reduced...don't shareholders vote for directors pay? I'm not sure how you incentivese this change in behaviour. What's your thinking here? This subject all feels to me like being stuck in traffic. You are not stuck on traffic, you are the traffic. If we choose companies that have values, then that becomes the driver for CEOs et al. While we all chase the pay rise (and many do) we encourage the bad behaviour. " They do, bit the majority of shareholders are institutional and guess what their Board members want? Higher pay. Who sits on remuneration boards? Other wealthy directors. Etc. etc. etc. They mark their own homework. It is only recently that investor activism is starting to have an effect. I agree with your conclusion. So the question is how do you reward positive behaviour? Not just the system as it is but with better education and collecting some more tax, surely? | |||
"How are you proposing we get there easy? Was it the pay ratio suggestion? He’s admitted before he has no real answers. Just hopes and dreams and that others will figure it out. He’s happy to give up 9/10 of his salary apparently
I have openly said that I do not have a complete answer not "admitted" to not knowing something that I previously claimed.
How does a (notional) 10x salary difference (suggested by someone else) equate to a 10% pay cut?
Why claim this as someone mathematically literate?"It was not 10% it was 90%. It was tongue in cheek. You then extrapolated nmw to a 160k cap (I think). Then you pointed out i was delusional suggesting that was not an uncommon wage for senior and middle Management, pointing me at glass door. But it is quite a low number in corporate and professional services world and nowhere near the bracket for CEOs. So lets agree to disagree on some points. At the end of the day we’ll all di what we need to for ourselves and our own. It is all made up meaningless bullshit anyway so might as well have as much fun doing jt as we can. And arguing in fab will change not a jot. I wish you all the best.  | |||
| |||
"Can get on board with most of that. A future society (centuries from now) would in my imagination be a bit like an episode of star trek. Or at least the crew, their intellect, creativity and egalitarian contribution to an advanced mission and common goal. It would take quite a bit of evolution and social re-engineering to get there though. There won’t be many wasters in space. Who's lacking in aspiration now then?" All those who’s low “IQ” means they have no place on the ship and are engineered out - replaced in the world by AI and robots. They might be lacking aspiration at this stage. The rest are evolved beyond our wildest dreams. Elon Musk will probably be there to tweet about it though | |||
"If wages increase costs increase in line with wage increase, if I decide to invest money in a business I do so for a return on my investment, if costs increase either wages, energy,or flour in the bakery, well then what is charged for the cake must go up . If costs increase and productivity increases? Then what? What if lower skilled salaries increase and high paid management salaries fall commensurately?" If lower paid jobs get wage increase and higher management jobs get reduced , why to hell should I take responsibility for management, | |||
"Can get on board with most of that. A future society (centuries from now) would in my imagination be a bit like an episode of star trek. Or at least the crew, their intellect, creativity and egalitarian contribution to an advanced mission and common goal. It would take quite a bit of evolution and social re-engineering to get there though. There won’t be many wasters in space. Who's lacking in aspiration now then? All those who’s low “IQ” means they have no place on the ship and are engineered out - replaced in the world by AI and robots. They might be lacking aspiration at this stage. The rest are evolved beyond our wildest dreams. Elon Musk will probably be there to tweet about it though "Greed has no link to IQ... Neither does job choice | |||
"Can get on board with most of that. A future society (centuries from now) would in my imagination be a bit like an episode of star trek. Or at least the crew, their intellect, creativity and egalitarian contribution to an advanced mission and common goal. It would take quite a bit of evolution and social re-engineering to get there though. There won’t be many wasters in space. Who's lacking in aspiration now then? All those who’s low “IQ” means they have no place on the ship and are engineered out - replaced in the world by AI and robots. They might be lacking aspiration at this stage. The rest are evolved beyond our wildest dreams. Elon Musk will probably be there to tweet about it though
Greed has no link to IQ... Neither does job choice "Agreed. Not sure what part of that imaginary scenario based on a fictitious mission into space gave you the impression that it was a connection being made. It was a comment about need. Whilst of course someone with a high IQ could choose to doss and do a simple more menial job, there would be no need for them to do so aboard the spacecraft….. therefore they’d be left back on earth rather than carried as a spare part. | |||
"How are you proposing we get there easy? Was it the pay ratio suggestion? He’s admitted before he has no real answers. Just hopes and dreams and that others will figure it out. He’s happy to give up 9/10 of his salary apparently
I have openly said that I do not have a complete answer not "admitted" to not knowing something that I previously claimed.
How does a (notional) 10x salary difference (suggested by someone else) equate to a 10% pay cut?
Why claim this as someone mathematically literate?
It was not 10% it was 90%. It was tongue in cheek. You then extrapolated nmw to a 160k cap (I think). Then you pointed out i was delusional suggesting that was not an uncommon wage for senior and middle Management, pointing me at glass door. But it is quite a low number in corporate and professional services world and nowhere near the bracket for CEOs.
So lets agree to disagree on some points. At the end of the day we’ll all di what we need to for ourselves and our own. It is all made up meaningless bullshit anyway so might as well have as much fun doing jt as we can. And arguing in fab will change not a jot.
I wish you all the best.
"You are demonstrating the lack of correlation between salaries in the real world and those attached to finance. CEOs are not worth what they are being paid. The data corroborates that. They are not "middle management" positions at £160k. Top 1%. Middle management? Get a grip. Abuse always makes good arguments | |||
"If wages increase costs increase in line with wage increase, if I decide to invest money in a business I do so for a return on my investment, if costs increase either wages, energy,or flour in the bakery, well then what is charged for the cake must go up . If costs increase and productivity increases? Then what? What if lower skilled salaries increase and high paid management salaries fall commensurately? If lower paid jobs get wage increase and higher management jobs get reduced , why to hell should I take responsibility for management," Because you will still be earning many multiples of lower paid workers. The clue is in the adjective. Are you one of the horde of £160k middle managers? | |||
"How are you proposing we get there easy? Was it the pay ratio suggestion? He’s admitted before he has no real answers. Just hopes and dreams and that others will figure it out. He’s happy to give up 9/10 of his salary apparently
I have openly said that I do not have a complete answer not "admitted" to not knowing something that I previously claimed.
How does a (notional) 10x salary difference (suggested by someone else) equate to a 10% pay cut?
Why claim this as someone mathematically literate?
It was not 10% it was 90%. It was tongue in cheek. You then extrapolated nmw to a 160k cap (I think). Then you pointed out i was delusional suggesting that was not an uncommon wage for senior and middle Management, pointing me at glass door. But it is quite a low number in corporate and professional services world and nowhere near the bracket for CEOs.
So lets agree to disagree on some points. At the end of the day we’ll all di what we need to for ourselves and our own. It is all made up meaningless bullshit anyway so might as well have as much fun doing jt as we can. And arguing in fab will change not a jot.
I wish you all the best.
You are demonstrating the lack of correlation between salaries in the real world and those attached to finance. CEOs are not worth what they are being paid. The data corroborates that.
They are not "middle management" positions at £160k.
Top 1%. Middle management?
Get a grip.
Abuse always makes good arguments "You’re right about everything. All the best | |||
"How are you proposing we get there easy? Was it the pay ratio suggestion? He’s admitted before he has no real answers. Just hopes and dreams and that others will figure it out. He’s happy to give up 9/10 of his salary apparently
I have openly said that I do not have a complete answer not "admitted" to not knowing something that I previously claimed.
How does a (notional) 10x salary difference (suggested by someone else) equate to a 10% pay cut?
Why claim this as someone mathematically literate?
It was not 10% it was 90%. It was tongue in cheek. You then extrapolated nmw to a 160k cap (I think). Then you pointed out i was delusional suggesting that was not an uncommon wage for senior and middle Management, pointing me at glass door. But it is quite a low number in corporate and professional services world and nowhere near the bracket for CEOs.
So lets agree to disagree on some points. At the end of the day we’ll all di what we need to for ourselves and our own. It is all made up meaningless bullshit anyway so might as well have as much fun doing jt as we can. And arguing in fab will change not a jot.
I wish you all the best.
You are demonstrating the lack of correlation between salaries in the real world and those attached to finance. CEOs are not worth what they are being paid. The data corroborates that.
They are not "middle management" positions at £160k.
Top 1%. Middle management?
Get a grip.
Abuse always makes good arguments
You’re right about everything.
All the best "Why start a thread if you're going to get angry about any opinion but your own? | |||
"How are you proposing we get there easy? Was it the pay ratio suggestion? He’s admitted before he has no real answers. Just hopes and dreams and that others will figure it out. He’s happy to give up 9/10 of his salary apparently
I have openly said that I do not have a complete answer not "admitted" to not knowing something that I previously claimed.
How does a (notional) 10x salary difference (suggested by someone else) equate to a 10% pay cut?
Why claim this as someone mathematically literate?
It was not 10% it was 90%. It was tongue in cheek. You then extrapolated nmw to a 160k cap (I think). Then you pointed out i was delusional suggesting that was not an uncommon wage for senior and middle Management, pointing me at glass door. But it is quite a low number in corporate and professional services world and nowhere near the bracket for CEOs.
So lets agree to disagree on some points. At the end of the day we’ll all di what we need to for ourselves and our own. It is all made up meaningless bullshit anyway so might as well have as much fun doing jt as we can. And arguing in fab will change not a jot.
I wish you all the best.
You are demonstrating the lack of correlation between salaries in the real world and those attached to finance. CEOs are not worth what they are being paid. The data corroborates that.
They are not "middle management" positions at £160k.
Top 1%. Middle management?
Get a grip.
Abuse always makes good arguments
You’re right about everything.
All the best
Why start a thread if you're going to get angry about any opinion but your own?"Whatever gave you the impression it was anger? Boredom maybe. Points have been made. There was common ground, there were other points not agreed upon. Much like most things in business. A compromise then when negotiations reach their natural conclusion you move on. But there is no emotion. For emotion it would have to be something very personal that mattered. This is just debate in the abstract. Not even any real deliverable or jeopardy. So there is certainly no anger or animosity whatsoever. Until the next topic | |||
| |||
| |||
"Feels to me we need to agree what middle management is. But the point (I believe) was 160k pa is probably a tenth (less even) than a CEO pay. So to get CEOs pay down by 90pc, most people will need to have similar reductions. It probably scales (it has to). Now, will prices reduce by a tenth ... Probably not. " Senior management pay doesn't have to fall at all. It's a ratio to maintain. It's just deciding where the money to increase the salaries of the low paid to a point that the state is not subsidising them. That's a problem that CEOs are paid the big bucks to solve, isn't it? | |||
| |||
"We end up going full circle here. Just to be clear, my point was senior Mgmt salaries would need to reduce if there is salary cap. Without a salary cap, it becomes the market to solve. This could be CEOs, but there leagal responsibility is to shareholders. So imo shareholders have to care. Which is us albeit via institutions. Or it is us via our choice where we work. My concern is we ate socially responsible until it costs us personally. But I'd welcome a fund having a clear social impact rating. This could other factors. Eg Tesla is green but has a huge discrimination case against it. Should this be a share a responsible person invests in. " It is not a salary cap. It's a salary ratio. Top salaries have no limit, but the lowest salaries have to be pulled up with them. Everyone is doing the work if profits are rising to justify mega pay increases at the top. It's up to senior management to decide how to balance that with their salary allocation. As indicated, shareholders can be incentivised with tax breaks for fairer pay distribution, which puts more pressure on leadership. In fact, their bonus could have that as a factor. You incentivise good social behaviour in capitalism with costs for harm (such as carbon) or benefits for good (such as tax breaks). None of this is impossible. It will be gamed, as all rules are, but that's what financial regulators are for. | |||
"We end up going full circle here. Just to be clear, my point was senior Mgmt salaries would need to reduce if there is salary cap. Without a salary cap, it becomes the market to solve. This could be CEOs, but there leagal responsibility is to shareholders. So imo shareholders have to care. Which is us albeit via institutions. Or it is us via our choice where we work. My concern is we ate socially responsible until it costs us personally. But I'd welcome a fund having a clear social impact rating. This could other factors. Eg Tesla is green but has a huge discrimination case against it. Should this be a share a responsible person invests in. It is not a salary cap. It's a salary ratio. Top salaries have no limit, but the lowest salaries have to be pulled up with them. Everyone is doing the work if profits are rising to justify mega pay increases at the top. It's up to senior management to decide how to balance that with their salary allocation. As indicated, shareholders can be incentivised with tax breaks for fairer pay distribution, which puts more pressure on leadership. In fact, their bonus could have that as a factor. You incentivise good social behaviour in capitalism with costs for harm (such as carbon) or benefits for good (such as tax breaks). None of this is impossible. It will be gamed, as all rules are, but that's what financial regulators are for." I'm a little lost. For a given pay pot, to pay some people more, you have to pay others less. I can't see how a salary ratio doesn't create some pay cuts. Sounds like we agree shareholders have the power here. Its how to motivate them. I'm not clear what the tax subsidies would be and how they work, but it's an option. | |||
"We end up going full circle here. Just to be clear, my point was senior Mgmt salaries would need to reduce if there is salary cap. Without a salary cap, it becomes the market to solve. This could be CEOs, but there leagal responsibility is to shareholders. So imo shareholders have to care. Which is us albeit via institutions. Or it is us via our choice where we work. My concern is we ate socially responsible until it costs us personally. But I'd welcome a fund having a clear social impact rating. This could other factors. Eg Tesla is green but has a huge discrimination case against it. Should this be a share a responsible person invests in. It is not a salary cap. It's a salary ratio. Top salaries have no limit, but the lowest salaries have to be pulled up with them. Everyone is doing the work if profits are rising to justify mega pay increases at the top. It's up to senior management to decide how to balance that with their salary allocation. As indicated, shareholders can be incentivised with tax breaks for fairer pay distribution, which puts more pressure on leadership. In fact, their bonus could have that as a factor. You incentivise good social behaviour in capitalism with costs for harm (such as carbon) or benefits for good (such as tax breaks). None of this is impossible. It will be gamed, as all rules are, but that's what financial regulators are for.I'm a little lost. For a given pay pot, to pay some people more, you have to pay others less. I can't see how a salary ratio doesn't create some pay cuts. Sounds like we agree shareholders have the power here. Its how to motivate them. I'm not clear what the tax subsidies would be and how they work, but it's an option. " It doesn't have to a "given pay pot". The money to increase low wages and maintain a maximum ratio to the highest paid can come from any sources. Lower costs, increased efficiency, and lower executive pay. It stops government subsidies of big companies through income support and reduces inequality from the crazy levels reached. I don't know exactly what the tax incentives and/or penalties would be either, but it's a common system used to drive spending and capital allocation from alcohol tax to R&D credits. It's nota new concept, just a new application. | |||
"We end up going full circle here. Just to be clear, my point was senior Mgmt salaries would need to reduce if there is salary cap. Without a salary cap, it becomes the market to solve. This could be CEOs, but there leagal responsibility is to shareholders. So imo shareholders have to care. Which is us albeit via institutions. Or it is us via our choice where we work. My concern is we ate socially responsible until it costs us personally. But I'd welcome a fund having a clear social impact rating. This could other factors. Eg Tesla is green but has a huge discrimination case against it. Should this be a share a responsible person invests in. It is not a salary cap. It's a salary ratio. Top salaries have no limit, but the lowest salaries have to be pulled up with them. Everyone is doing the work if profits are rising to justify mega pay increases at the top. It's up to senior management to decide how to balance that with their salary allocation. As indicated, shareholders can be incentivised with tax breaks for fairer pay distribution, which puts more pressure on leadership. In fact, their bonus could have that as a factor. You incentivise good social behaviour in capitalism with costs for harm (such as carbon) or benefits for good (such as tax breaks). None of this is impossible. It will be gamed, as all rules are, but that's what financial regulators are for.I'm a little lost. For a given pay pot, to pay some people more, you have to pay others less. I can't see how a salary ratio doesn't create some pay cuts. Sounds like we agree shareholders have the power here. Its how to motivate them. I'm not clear what the tax subsidies would be and how they work, but it's an option. It doesn't have to a "given pay pot". The money to increase low wages and maintain a maximum ratio to the highest paid can come from any sources. Lower costs, increased efficiency, and lower executive pay. It stops government subsidies of big companies through income support and reduces inequality from the crazy levels reached. I don't know exactly what the tax incentives and/or penalties would be either, but it's a common system used to drive spending and capital allocation from alcohol tax to R&D credits. It's nota new concept, just a new application." okay. I took balancing a slaray allocation as being a set allocation. Yes, you could find ways of creating a bigger pot. Although we are back to cost savings are shared with employees rather than shareholders. Tax breaks to support higher pay are interesting. Rather than subsides low pay directly, we will compensate shareholders for loss of profit, so that the company can pay for higher salaries. Feels like we are spending the same money but in a different way. To be clear, I want the gap reduced. I'm not there that a salary ration is a solution. I'm not sure I see how subsidies work here if the reason is to remove subsidising pay. My starting point is to make minimum wage one that shouldn't need subsidies for the average person and households. . We also need to get more people to give a shit. And to continue to give a shit when it may hit their pocket. That's hard. | |||
"We end up going full circle here. Just to be clear, my point was senior Mgmt salaries would need to reduce if there is salary cap. Without a salary cap, it becomes the market to solve. This could be CEOs, but there leagal responsibility is to shareholders. So imo shareholders have to care. Which is us albeit via institutions. Or it is us via our choice where we work. My concern is we ate socially responsible until it costs us personally. But I'd welcome a fund having a clear social impact rating. This could other factors. Eg Tesla is green but has a huge discrimination case against it. Should this be a share a responsible person invests in. It is not a salary cap. It's a salary ratio. Top salaries have no limit, but the lowest salaries have to be pulled up with them. Everyone is doing the work if profits are rising to justify mega pay increases at the top. It's up to senior management to decide how to balance that with their salary allocation. As indicated, shareholders can be incentivised with tax breaks for fairer pay distribution, which puts more pressure on leadership. In fact, their bonus could have that as a factor. You incentivise good social behaviour in capitalism with costs for harm (such as carbon) or benefits for good (such as tax breaks). None of this is impossible. It will be gamed, as all rules are, but that's what financial regulators are for.I'm a little lost. For a given pay pot, to pay some people more, you have to pay others less. I can't see how a salary ratio doesn't create some pay cuts. Sounds like we agree shareholders have the power here. Its how to motivate them. I'm not clear what the tax subsidies would be and how they work, but it's an option. It doesn't have to a "given pay pot". The money to increase low wages and maintain a maximum ratio to the highest paid can come from any sources. Lower costs, increased efficiency, and lower executive pay. It stops government subsidies of big companies through income support and reduces inequality from the crazy levels reached. I don't know exactly what the tax incentives and/or penalties would be either, but it's a common system used to drive spending and capital allocation from alcohol tax to R&D credits. It's nota new concept, just a new application.okay. I took balancing a slaray allocation as being a set allocation. Yes, you could find ways of creating a bigger pot. Although we are back to cost savings are shared with employees rather than shareholders. Tax breaks to support higher pay are interesting. Rather than subsides low pay directly, we will compensate shareholders for loss of profit, so that the company can pay for higher salaries. Feels like we are spending the same money but in a different way. To be clear, I want the gap reduced. I'm not there that a salary ration is a solution. I'm not sure I see how subsidies work here if the reason is to remove subsidising pay. My starting point is to make minimum wage one that shouldn't need subsidies for the average person and households. . We also need to get more people to give a shit. And to continue to give a shit when it may hit their pocket. That's hard. " The reality is relatively simple in wage structure, the more common the skill the lower the wage. It is supply and demand, there is a huge supply of low skilled staff and the market does not need to pay well because they know there are too many people, and on a global level. Having said that, all business is sale based, no sales no business and everyone contributes. When selling a product or service, salaries drive up or down the price of the product or service. If people are not prepared to pay the cost of the service or product, it isn't as simple as lowering the price, it often means losing jobs to lower paid locations and people. We have become a world that wants high quality for a low price, it can't continue on that path, it is not sustainable. | |||
| |||
"Wages go up, prices go up, zero benefit, snd in fact usually interest rates also go up to reduce inflation so person ends up much worse off. You would think someone would notice " but do prices go up as much as wages? You may also find not all wages go up as much so at an individual level you are a winner. | |||
"We end up going full circle here. Just to be clear, my point was senior Mgmt salaries would need to reduce if there is salary cap. Without a salary cap, it becomes the market to solve. This could be CEOs, but there leagal responsibility is to shareholders. So imo shareholders have to care. Which is us albeit via institutions. Or it is us via our choice where we work. My concern is we ate socially responsible until it costs us personally. But I'd welcome a fund having a clear social impact rating. This could other factors. Eg Tesla is green but has a huge discrimination case against it. Should this be a share a responsible person invests in. It is not a salary cap. It's a salary ratio. Top salaries have no limit, but the lowest salaries have to be pulled up with them. Everyone is doing the work if profits are rising to justify mega pay increases at the top. It's up to senior management to decide how to balance that with their salary allocation. As indicated, shareholders can be incentivised with tax breaks for fairer pay distribution, which puts more pressure on leadership. In fact, their bonus could have that as a factor. You incentivise good social behaviour in capitalism with costs for harm (such as carbon) or benefits for good (such as tax breaks). None of this is impossible. It will be gamed, as all rules are, but that's what financial regulators are for.I'm a little lost. For a given pay pot, to pay some people more, you have to pay others less. I can't see how a salary ratio doesn't create some pay cuts. Sounds like we agree shareholders have the power here. Its how to motivate them. I'm not clear what the tax subsidies would be and how they work, but it's an option. It doesn't have to a "given pay pot". The money to increase low wages and maintain a maximum ratio to the highest paid can come from any sources. Lower costs, increased efficiency, and lower executive pay. It stops government subsidies of big companies through income support and reduces inequality from the crazy levels reached. I don't know exactly what the tax incentives and/or penalties would be either, but it's a common system used to drive spending and capital allocation from alcohol tax to R&D credits. It's nota new concept, just a new application.okay. I took balancing a slaray allocation as being a set allocation. Yes, you could find ways of creating a bigger pot. Although we are back to cost savings are shared with employees rather than shareholders. Tax breaks to support higher pay are interesting. Rather than subsides low pay directly, we will compensate shareholders for loss of profit, so that the company can pay for higher salaries. Feels like we are spending the same money but in a different way. To be clear, I want the gap reduced. I'm not there that a salary ration is a solution. I'm not sure I see how subsidies work here if the reason is to remove subsidising pay. My starting point is to make minimum wage one that shouldn't need subsidies for the average person and households. . We also need to get more people to give a shit. And to continue to give a shit when it may hit their pocket. That's hard. " The tax break to shareholders doesn't have to match the government marginal cost of benefits and the other social problems that result. Spending only some of the same money. It puts pressure on management to solve the problems themselves. That's what capitalism and a well paid Board are supposed to do. Have you got any options? | |||
"Wages go up, prices go up, zero benefit, snd in fact usually interest rates also go up to reduce inflation so person ends up much worse off. You would think someone would notice " Not necessarily. Only if supply cannot keep up. Covid and the war have caused the major part of that problem currently. Brexit started it and has exacerbated it. However, it will reduce. Pay can go up by a small amount for many of the poor if it falls for a large amount of the wealthy too. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I've shared options early in a thread but I will repeat. I would increase the minimum wage to something higher. We don't need companies that are only profitable due to to pay ing low wages. There will be some short-term consequences of this and some companies may liquidate. So we can't beat up the government if that is a short-term increase in unemployment. I would change the education system to move away from answering questions that have already been answered, and towards getting people to be able to finding better questions and problem solving. I believe these are the skills that businesses desire and this will make more people more employable. as such the the supply to the lower end jobs will reduce which may help the unemployment issue mentioned above. I would add more skill based training to the education system such as financial education. Things like budgeting and the vicious circle of debt compound the issues those on low no wages face. I agree that shareholders need to be interested in order for there to be a different behaviour at company level. I agree that tax incentives could have this effect but I would see this as being a short term thing that would only last whilst there is the tax incentive. I'm also not convinced that it is applying the subsidy at the right level and therefore may not have the biggest bang for buck. I also thought you wanted to avoid subsidies. Instead I want shareholders to to care about this because we care about it. This may be similar to esg. Indeed if we as a society, rather than a government, thought a sensible range was 40x then that maybe a factor in whether a company is included in an esg index. The final piece is for us to care more. I don't know about you but I probably don't consider what the the company's Gino ratio when applying for a job and therefore maybe I am part of the problem. More information here would be valuable, for example a a detailed document of pay distribution. This may actually help things like the gender gap as well (because I don't believe a single number actually add much value to changing behaviours and may end up see companies make unhelpful decisions as what gets measured gets managed)" The approach of increasing wages does not work on a large scale. Increasing wages at the minimum is more than likely where the majority of cash flow is spent. This approach will come with consequences, lower quality products and services provided by the business or increased cost of the end product and service. Everything from the cost of wages, to the logistics, energy and so on, has a knock on to the cost of the product or services being made or delivered. Shareholders, do not need to invest their money, they have no social responsibility by investing their money, they are investing their money in the belief the business is being run correctly, has a plan to deliver and a good idea of the return. If you interfere with this setup from a government perspective you will upset the balance that businesses rely on when they need the money shareholders are investing to grow and progress. Shareholders will simply not risk their money on a low return. The idea of increasing educational standards to make people more employable and reduce the supply to lower paid jobs, is not feasible in practice. The lower skilled jobs will not go away, there is a need for this type of role and people. Simply paying someone more to the same job because they are better educated, isn't a thing, nor will it be. Simply raising the bar at the bottom, raises the bar for the middle and top. | |||
"I've shared options early in a thread but I will repeat. I would increase the minimum wage to something higher. We don't need companies that are only profitable due to to pay ing low wages. There will be some short-term consequences of this and some companies may liquidate. So we can't beat up the government if that is a short-term increase in unemployment. I would change the education system to move away from answering questions that have already been answered, and towards getting people to be able to finding better questions and problem solving. I believe these are the skills that businesses desire and this will make more people more employable. as such the the supply to the lower end jobs will reduce which may help the unemployment issue mentioned above. I would add more skill based training to the education system such as financial education. Things like budgeting and the vicious circle of debt compound the issues those on low no wages face. I agree that shareholders need to be interested in order for there to be a different behaviour at company level. I agree that tax incentives could have this effect but I would see this as being a short term thing that would only last whilst there is the tax incentive. I'm also not convinced that it is applying the subsidy at the right level and therefore may not have the biggest bang for buck. I also thought you wanted to avoid subsidies. Instead I want shareholders to to care about this because we care about it. This may be similar to esg. Indeed if we as a society, rather than a government, thought a sensible range was 40x then that maybe a factor in whether a company is included in an esg index. The final piece is for us to care more. I don't know about you but I probably don't consider what the the company's Gino ratio when applying for a job and therefore maybe I am part of the problem. More information here would be valuable, for example a a detailed document of pay distribution. This may actually help things like the gender gap as well (because I don't believe a single number actually add much value to changing behaviours and may end up see companies make unhelpful decisions as what gets measured gets managed) The approach of increasing wages does not work on a large scale. Increasing wages at the minimum is more than likely where the majority of cash flow is spent. This approach will come with consequences, lower quality products and services provided by the business or increased cost of the end product and service. Everything from the cost of wages, to the logistics, energy and so on, has a knock on to the cost of the product or services being made or delivered. Shareholders, do not need to invest their money, they have no social responsibility by investing their money, they are investing their money in the belief the business is being run correctly, has a plan to deliver and a good idea of the return. If you interfere with this setup from a government perspective you will upset the balance that businesses rely on when they need the money shareholders are investing to grow and progress. Shareholders will simply not risk their money on a low return. The idea of increasing educational standards to make people more employable and reduce the supply to lower paid jobs, is not feasible in practice. The lower skilled jobs will not go away, there is a need for this type of role and people. Simply paying someone more to the same job because they are better educated, isn't a thing, nor will it be. Simply raising the bar at the bottom, raises the bar for the middle and top." Interestingly James Dyson (the UK’s second largest farm owner) is working on automating his farms in order to remove the need for low skilled labour - clever but what will those people do in the future? | |||
"I've shared options early in a thread but I will repeat. I would increase the minimum wage to something higher. We don't need companies that are only profitable due to to pay ing low wages. There will be some short-term consequences of this and some companies may liquidate. So we can't beat up the government if that is a short-term increase in unemployment. I would change the education system to move away from answering questions that have already been answered, and towards getting people to be able to finding better questions and problem solving. I believe these are the skills that businesses desire and this will make more people more employable. as such the the supply to the lower end jobs will reduce which may help the unemployment issue mentioned above. I would add more skill based training to the education system such as financial education. Things like budgeting and the vicious circle of debt compound the issues those on low no wages face. I agree that shareholders need to be interested in order for there to be a different behaviour at company level. I agree that tax incentives could have this effect but I would see this as being a short term thing that would only last whilst there is the tax incentive. I'm also not convinced that it is applying the subsidy at the right level and therefore may not have the biggest bang for buck. I also thought you wanted to avoid subsidies. Instead I want shareholders to to care about this because we care about it. This may be similar to esg. Indeed if we as a society, rather than a government, thought a sensible range was 40x then that maybe a factor in whether a company is included in an esg index. The final piece is for us to care more. I don't know about you but I probably don't consider what the the company's Gino ratio when applying for a job and therefore maybe I am part of the problem. More information here would be valuable, for example a a detailed document of pay distribution. This may actually help things like the gender gap as well (because I don't believe a single number actually add much value to changing behaviours and may end up see companies make unhelpful decisions as what gets measured gets managed) The approach of increasing wages does not work on a large scale. Increasing wages at the minimum is more than likely where the majority of cash flow is spent. This approach will come with consequences, lower quality products and services provided by the business or increased cost of the end product and service. Everything from the cost of wages, to the logistics, energy and so on, has a knock on to the cost of the product or services being made or delivered. Shareholders, do not need to invest their money, they have no social responsibility by investing their money, they are investing their money in the belief the business is being run correctly, has a plan to deliver and a good idea of the return. If you interfere with this setup from a government perspective you will upset the balance that businesses rely on when they need the money shareholders are investing to grow and progress. Shareholders will simply not risk their money on a low return. The idea of increasing educational standards to make people more employable and reduce the supply to lower paid jobs, is not feasible in practice. The lower skilled jobs will not go away, there is a need for this type of role and people. Simply paying someone more to the same job because they are better educated, isn't a thing, nor will it be. Simply raising the bar at the bottom, raises the bar for the middle and top. Interestingly James Dyson (the UK’s second largest farm owner) is working on automating his farms in order to remove the need for low skilled labour - clever but what will those people do in the future?" The strategy of automation is happening everywhere, call centres for insurance, holidays, gov, communications, fruit picking and so on. Automated cars, vans and drivers will remove the need for delivery drivers, taxi drivers. The largest cost to any business is the people and automating those tasks has been on the agenda for years. Technology is moving fast and we are in the middle of that revolution, jobs will change, society will change. It might not change in the way we think, it could be a huge divide between the have and have not, or it could be a slowing down of global product and services. It will however balance itself out, it wont be perfect because nothing is. | |||
"I've shared options early in a thread but I will repeat. I would increase the minimum wage to something higher. We don't need companies that are only profitable due to to pay ing low wages. There will be some short-term consequences of this and some companies may liquidate. So we can't beat up the government if that is a short-term increase in unemployment. I would change the education system to move away from answering questions that have already been answered, and towards getting people to be able to finding better questions and problem solving. I believe these are the skills that businesses desire and this will make more people more employable. as such the the supply to the lower end jobs will reduce which may help the unemployment issue mentioned above. I would add more skill based training to the education system such as financial education. Things like budgeting and the vicious circle of debt compound the issues those on low no wages face. I agree that shareholders need to be interested in order for there to be a different behaviour at company level. I agree that tax incentives could have this effect but I would see this as being a short term thing that would only last whilst there is the tax incentive. I'm also not convinced that it is applying the subsidy at the right level and therefore may not have the biggest bang for buck. I also thought you wanted to avoid subsidies. Instead I want shareholders to to care about this because we care about it. This may be similar to esg. Indeed if we as a society, rather than a government, thought a sensible range was 40x then that maybe a factor in whether a company is included in an esg index. The final piece is for us to care more. I don't know about you but I probably don't consider what the the company's Gino ratio when applying for a job and therefore maybe I am part of the problem. More information here would be valuable, for example a a detailed document of pay distribution. This may actually help things like the gender gap as well (because I don't believe a single number actually add much value to changing behaviours and may end up see companies make unhelpful decisions as what gets measured gets managed) The approach of increasing wages does not work on a large scale. Increasing wages at the minimum is more than likely where the majority of cash flow is spent. This approach will come with consequences, lower quality products and services provided by the business or increased cost of the end product and service. Everything from the cost of wages, to the logistics, energy and so on, has a knock on to the cost of the product or services being made or delivered. Shareholders, do not need to invest their money, they have no social responsibility by investing their money, they are investing their money in the belief the business is being run correctly, has a plan to deliver and a good idea of the return. If you interfere with this setup from a government perspective you will upset the balance that businesses rely on when they need the money shareholders are investing to grow and progress. Shareholders will simply not risk their money on a low return. The idea of increasing educational standards to make people more employable and reduce the supply to lower paid jobs, is not feasible in practice. The lower skilled jobs will not go away, there is a need for this type of role and people. Simply paying someone more to the same job because they are better educated, isn't a thing, nor will it be. Simply raising the bar at the bottom, raises the bar for the middle and top. Interestingly James Dyson (the UK’s second largest farm owner) is working on automating his farms in order to remove the need for low skilled labour - clever but what will those people do in the future? The strategy of automation is happening everywhere, call centres for insurance, holidays, gov, communications, fruit picking and so on. Automated cars, vans and drivers will remove the need for delivery drivers, taxi drivers. The largest cost to any business is the people and automating those tasks has been on the agenda for years. Technology is moving fast and we are in the middle of that revolution, jobs will change, society will change. It might not change in the way we think, it could be a huge divide between the have and have not, or it could be a slowing down of global product and services. It will however balance itself out, it wont be perfect because nothing is. " So do you think we will ever be in a position where a basic annual wage is paid to everyone whether they work or not? I know it’s been tried in a few places already but if automation really takes off it might be the only way of keeping sanity, either that or we all go mad and society collapses! | |||
"I've shared options early in a thread but I will repeat. I would increase the minimum wage to something higher. We don't need companies that are only profitable due to to pay ing low wages. There will be some short-term consequences of this and some companies may liquidate. So we can't beat up the government if that is a short-term increase in unemployment. I would change the education system to move away from answering questions that have already been answered, and towards getting people to be able to finding better questions and problem solving. I believe these are the skills that businesses desire and this will make more people more employable. as such the the supply to the lower end jobs will reduce which may help the unemployment issue mentioned above. I would add more skill based training to the education system such as financial education. Things like budgeting and the vicious circle of debt compound the issues those on low no wages face. I agree that shareholders need to be interested in order for there to be a different behaviour at company level. I agree that tax incentives could have this effect but I would see this as being a short term thing that would only last whilst there is the tax incentive. I'm also not convinced that it is applying the subsidy at the right level and therefore may not have the biggest bang for buck. I also thought you wanted to avoid subsidies. Instead I want shareholders to to care about this because we care about it. This may be similar to esg. Indeed if we as a society, rather than a government, thought a sensible range was 40x then that maybe a factor in whether a company is included in an esg index. The final piece is for us to care more. I don't know about you but I probably don't consider what the the company's Gino ratio when applying for a job and therefore maybe I am part of the problem. More information here would be valuable, for example a a detailed document of pay distribution. This may actually help things like the gender gap as well (because I don't believe a single number actually add much value to changing behaviours and may end up see companies make unhelpful decisions as what gets measured gets managed) The approach of increasing wages does not work on a large scale. Increasing wages at the minimum is more than likely where the majority of cash flow is spent. This approach will come with consequences, lower quality products and services provided by the business or increased cost of the end product and service. Everything from the cost of wages, to the logistics, energy and so on, has a knock on to the cost of the product or services being made or delivered. Shareholders, do not need to invest their money, they have no social responsibility by investing their money, they are investing their money in the belief the business is being run correctly, has a plan to deliver and a good idea of the return. If you interfere with this setup from a government perspective you will upset the balance that businesses rely on when they need the money shareholders are investing to grow and progress. Shareholders will simply not risk their money on a low return. The idea of increasing educational standards to make people more employable and reduce the supply to lower paid jobs, is not feasible in practice. The lower skilled jobs will not go away, there is a need for this type of role and people. Simply paying someone more to the same job because they are better educated, isn't a thing, nor will it be. Simply raising the bar at the bottom, raises the bar for the middle and top. Interestingly James Dyson (the UK’s second largest farm owner) is working on automating his farms in order to remove the need for low skilled labour - clever but what will those people do in the future? The strategy of automation is happening everywhere, call centres for insurance, holidays, gov, communications, fruit picking and so on. Automated cars, vans and drivers will remove the need for delivery drivers, taxi drivers. The largest cost to any business is the people and automating those tasks has been on the agenda for years. Technology is moving fast and we are in the middle of that revolution, jobs will change, society will change. It might not change in the way we think, it could be a huge divide between the have and have not, or it could be a slowing down of global product and services. It will however balance itself out, it wont be perfect because nothing is. So do you think we will ever be in a position where a basic annual wage is paid to everyone whether they work or not? I know it’s been tried in a few places already but if automation really takes off it might be the only way of keeping sanity, either that or we all go mad and society collapses!" The short answer is no. People need to be motivated, need to be engaged, 24 x 7 x 365 x X is a long time. Jobs will change, like they have over time, so many jobs not being done today that were done in the past. The entrepreneur will keep thinking and will keep creating opportunities to allow some to gain more than others, that is how the world works. The need to be occupied, the need to be doing better drives capitalism that drives growth. | |||
"I've shared options early in a thread but I will repeat. I would increase the minimum wage to something higher. We don't need companies that are only profitable due to to pay ing low wages. There will be some short-term consequences of this and some companies may liquidate. So we can't beat up the government if that is a short-term increase in unemployment. I would change the education system to move away from answering questions that have already been answered, and towards getting people to be able to finding better questions and problem solving. I believe these are the skills that businesses desire and this will make more people more employable. as such the the supply to the lower end jobs will reduce which may help the unemployment issue mentioned above. I would add more skill based training to the education system such as financial education. Things like budgeting and the vicious circle of debt compound the issues those on low no wages face. I agree that shareholders need to be interested in order for there to be a different behaviour at company level. I agree that tax incentives could have this effect but I would see this as being a short term thing that would only last whilst there is the tax incentive. I'm also not convinced that it is applying the subsidy at the right level and therefore may not have the biggest bang for buck. I also thought you wanted to avoid subsidies. Instead I want shareholders to to care about this because we care about it. This may be similar to esg. Indeed if we as a society, rather than a government, thought a sensible range was 40x then that maybe a factor in whether a company is included in an esg index. The final piece is for us to care more. I don't know about you but I probably don't consider what the the company's Gino ratio when applying for a job and therefore maybe I am part of the problem. More information here would be valuable, for example a a detailed document of pay distribution. This may actually help things like the gender gap as well (because I don't believe a single number actually add much value to changing behaviours and may end up see companies make unhelpful decisions as what gets measured gets managed) The approach of increasing wages does not work on a large scale. Increasing wages at the minimum is more than likely where the majority of cash flow is spent. This approach will come with consequences, lower quality products and services provided by the business or increased cost of the end product and service. Everything from the cost of wages, to the logistics, energy and so on, has a knock on to the cost of the product or services being made or delivered. Shareholders, do not need to invest their money, they have no social responsibility by investing their money, they are investing their money in the belief the business is being run correctly, has a plan to deliver and a good idea of the return. If you interfere with this setup from a government perspective you will upset the balance that businesses rely on when they need the money shareholders are investing to grow and progress. Shareholders will simply not risk their money on a low return. The idea of increasing educational standards to make people more employable and reduce the supply to lower paid jobs, is not feasible in practice. The lower skilled jobs will not go away, there is a need for this type of role and people. Simply paying someone more to the same job because they are better educated, isn't a thing, nor will it be. Simply raising the bar at the bottom, raises the bar for the middle and top." I agree that increasing the minimum wage could cause price inflation. But if the minimum wage went up by 10% and prices went up 1% then that's a good result in my mind. Even if that means for many of us there is a slight reduction in disposable income. I've not explain myself well enough on education. I'm not saying we should pay cleaners more just because they have have a higher level of education. However if we can make more people able to add value to a company and create profits etc then they can better cover the cost of their higher wages. But what this also means is there are fewer people that need to look at the lower end jobs such as cleaners and that this reduction in supply will help increase their wages. I agree that are always going to be these roles and I suspect there are are always going to be be some people where it is not due to a failure of the education system that means they are more suitable for these roles. Shareholders are always incentivised by returns or they the esg experience may suggest that they are starting to look at factors beyond just pure return. But even if they look purely at investment returns, if we start only li-ning two companies who are responsible then this will have an effect. If the best of the best only go to responsible companies then shareholders will demand and that their board make the companies responsible. | |||
"I've shared options early in a thread but I will repeat. I would increase the minimum wage to something higher. We don't need companies that are only profitable due to to pay ing low wages. There will be some short-term consequences of this and some companies may liquidate. So we can't beat up the government if that is a short-term increase in unemployment. I would change the education system to move away from answering questions that have already been answered, and towards getting people to be able to finding better questions and problem solving. I believe these are the skills that businesses desire and this will make more people more employable. as such the the supply to the lower end jobs will reduce which may help the unemployment issue mentioned above. I would add more skill based training to the education system such as financial education. Things like budgeting and the vicious circle of debt compound the issues those on low no wages face. I agree that shareholders need to be interested in order for there to be a different behaviour at company level. I agree that tax incentives could have this effect but I would see this as being a short term thing that would only last whilst there is the tax incentive. I'm also not convinced that it is applying the subsidy at the right level and therefore may not have the biggest bang for buck. I also thought you wanted to avoid subsidies. Instead I want shareholders to to care about this because we care about it. This may be similar to esg. Indeed if we as a society, rather than a government, thought a sensible range was 40x then that maybe a factor in whether a company is included in an esg index. The final piece is for us to care more. I don't know about you but I probably don't consider what the the company's Gino ratio when applying for a job and therefore maybe I am part of the problem. More information here would be valuable, for example a a detailed document of pay distribution. This may actually help things like the gender gap as well (because I don't believe a single number actually add much value to changing behaviours and may end up see companies make unhelpful decisions as what gets measured gets managed) The approach of increasing wages does not work on a large scale. Increasing wages at the minimum is more than likely where the majority of cash flow is spent. This approach will come with consequences, lower quality products and services provided by the business or increased cost of the end product and service. Everything from the cost of wages, to the logistics, energy and so on, has a knock on to the cost of the product or services being made or delivered. Shareholders, do not need to invest their money, they have no social responsibility by investing their money, they are investing their money in the belief the business is being run correctly, has a plan to deliver and a good idea of the return. If you interfere with this setup from a government perspective you will upset the balance that businesses rely on when they need the money shareholders are investing to grow and progress. Shareholders will simply not risk their money on a low return. The idea of increasing educational standards to make people more employable and reduce the supply to lower paid jobs, is not feasible in practice. The lower skilled jobs will not go away, there is a need for this type of role and people. Simply paying someone more to the same job because they are better educated, isn't a thing, nor will it be. Simply raising the bar at the bottom, raises the bar for the middle and top." I don't follow this. If the state now has to make up the difference for someone to have enough money to survive on, then there will be no more money spent by those individuals. In your thesis the business model that would be "upset" is one that counts on underpaying some staff and the state providing the difference. This difference goes into their profit. Should this be maintained? A lot of the discussion is that pay at the top of companies is out of control and does not reflect the contribution of these individuals. There is no correlation with company performance. There is plenty of room to transfer pay to the bottom with no detrimental effect. That will also reduce income differentials which has been clearly connected to social unrest. Do we want the state to subsidise working people survive whilst their employers make profits? Do we want large wealth discrepancies with rewards of employees not tied to performance? | |||
"I've shared options early in a thread but I will repeat. I would increase the minimum wage to something higher. We don't need companies that are only profitable due to to pay ing low wages. There will be some short-term consequences of this and some companies may liquidate. So we can't beat up the government if that is a short-term increase in unemployment. I would change the education system to move away from answering questions that have already been answered, and towards getting people to be able to finding better questions and problem solving. I believe these are the skills that businesses desire and this will make more people more employable. as such the the supply to the lower end jobs will reduce which may help the unemployment issue mentioned above. I would add more skill based training to the education system such as financial education. Things like budgeting and the vicious circle of debt compound the issues those on low no wages face. I agree that shareholders need to be interested in order for there to be a different behaviour at company level. I agree that tax incentives could have this effect but I would see this as being a short term thing that would only last whilst there is the tax incentive. I'm also not convinced that it is applying the subsidy at the right level and therefore may not have the biggest bang for buck. I also thought you wanted to avoid subsidies. Instead I want shareholders to to care about this because we care about it. This may be similar to esg. Indeed if we as a society, rather than a government, thought a sensible range was 40x then that maybe a factor in whether a company is included in an esg index. The final piece is for us to care more. I don't know about you but I probably don't consider what the the company's Gino ratio when applying for a job and therefore maybe I am part of the problem. More information here would be valuable, for example a a detailed document of pay distribution. This may actually help things like the gender gap as well (because I don't believe a single number actually add much value to changing behaviours and may end up see companies make unhelpful decisions as what gets measured gets managed)" You cannot legislate to "make people care". Those with money have neglected the poor forever. Individuals may care, or profess to, bit once hidden behind organisations and with bonuses pushing in another direction, these ideas slip into the background. With good education this aspiration may become real, but we still struggle to teach basics. ESG funding switched because of global regulation, not altruism. Unless there is a cost to companies in the short-term their is no change because reporting is quarterly and dividends annual. | |||
"I've shared options early in a thread but I will repeat. I would increase the minimum wage to something higher. We don't need companies that are only profitable due to to pay ing low wages. There will be some short-term consequences of this and some companies may liquidate. So we can't beat up the government if that is a short-term increase in unemployment. I would change the education system to move away from answering questions that have already been answered, and towards getting people to be able to finding better questions and problem solving. I believe these are the skills that businesses desire and this will make more people more employable. as such the the supply to the lower end jobs will reduce which may help the unemployment issue mentioned above. I would add more skill based training to the education system such as financial education. Things like budgeting and the vicious circle of debt compound the issues those on low no wages face. I agree that shareholders need to be interested in order for there to be a different behaviour at company level. I agree that tax incentives could have this effect but I would see this as being a short term thing that would only last whilst there is the tax incentive. I'm also not convinced that it is applying the subsidy at the right level and therefore may not have the biggest bang for buck. I also thought you wanted to avoid subsidies. Instead I want shareholders to to care about this because we care about it. This may be similar to esg. Indeed if we as a society, rather than a government, thought a sensible range was 40x then that maybe a factor in whether a company is included in an esg index. The final piece is for us to care more. I don't know about you but I probably don't consider what the the company's Gino ratio when applying for a job and therefore maybe I am part of the problem. More information here would be valuable, for example a a detailed document of pay distribution. This may actually help things like the gender gap as well (because I don't believe a single number actually add much value to changing behaviours and may end up see companies make unhelpful decisions as what gets measured gets managed) The approach of increasing wages does not work on a large scale. Increasing wages at the minimum is more than likely where the majority of cash flow is spent. This approach will come with consequences, lower quality products and services provided by the business or increased cost of the end product and service. Everything from the cost of wages, to the logistics, energy and so on, has a knock on to the cost of the product or services being made or delivered. Shareholders, do not need to invest their money, they have no social responsibility by investing their money, they are investing their money in the belief the business is being run correctly, has a plan to deliver and a good idea of the return. If you interfere with this setup from a government perspective you will upset the balance that businesses rely on when they need the money shareholders are investing to grow and progress. Shareholders will simply not risk their money on a low return. The idea of increasing educational standards to make people more employable and reduce the supply to lower paid jobs, is not feasible in practice. The lower skilled jobs will not go away, there is a need for this type of role and people. Simply paying someone more to the same job because they are better educated, isn't a thing, nor will it be. Simply raising the bar at the bottom, raises the bar for the middle and top. I don't follow this. If the state now has to make up the difference for someone to have enough money to survive on, then there will be no more money spent by those individuals. In your thesis the business model that would be "upset" is one that counts on underpaying some staff and the state providing the difference. This difference goes into their profit. Should this be maintained? A lot of the discussion is that pay at the top of companies is out of control and does not reflect the contribution of these individuals. There is no correlation with company performance. There is plenty of room to transfer pay to the bottom with no detrimental effect. That will also reduce income differentials which has been clearly connected to social unrest. Do we want the state to subsidise working people survive whilst their employers make profits? Do we want large wealth discrepancies with rewards of employees not tied to performance? " The money paid to the top tier of an organisation is extremely low compared to the payments made to the lower tiers, dependant on the size of the business. I think there is a misconception that the person or people at the top earning the fat cat salaries are not worth the money they are being paid. The reality is somewhat different in my opinion, and if the they do not meet the business objectives they will be gone in a flash. If we consider that a proportion of people do engage in employment that offers no sick pay, minimum wage and poor working conditions, I question why they do this? Nobody is forcing people to do this, yet they do. The private sector, needs no interference from government, other than to ensure employment laws are adhered too. I'm sure subsidies already exist for low income families and people, are those subsidies fit for purpose? In my opinion, this is the area the government should be concentrating on, not forcing an increase in salary through the workplace, which will then have a knock on effect to everyone. | |||
"I've shared options early in a thread but I will repeat. I would increase the minimum wage to something higher. We don't need companies that are only profitable due to to pay ing low wages. There will be some short-term consequences of this and some companies may liquidate. So we can't beat up the government if that is a short-term increase in unemployment. I would change the education system to move away from answering questions that have already been answered, and towards getting people to be able to finding better questions and problem solving. I believe these are the skills that businesses desire and this will make more people more employable. as such the the supply to the lower end jobs will reduce which may help the unemployment issue mentioned above. I would add more skill based training to the education system such as financial education. Things like budgeting and the vicious circle of debt compound the issues those on low no wages face. I agree that shareholders need to be interested in order for there to be a different behaviour at company level. I agree that tax incentives could have this effect but I would see this as being a short term thing that would only last whilst there is the tax incentive. I'm also not convinced that it is applying the subsidy at the right level and therefore may not have the biggest bang for buck. I also thought you wanted to avoid subsidies. Instead I want shareholders to to care about this because we care about it. This may be similar to esg. Indeed if we as a society, rather than a government, thought a sensible range was 40x then that maybe a factor in whether a company is included in an esg index. The final piece is for us to care more. I don't know about you but I probably don't consider what the the company's Gino ratio when applying for a job and therefore maybe I am part of the problem. More information here would be valuable, for example a a detailed document of pay distribution. This may actually help things like the gender gap as well (because I don't believe a single number actually add much value to changing behaviours and may end up see companies make unhelpful decisions as what gets measured gets managed) The approach of increasing wages does not work on a large scale. Increasing wages at the minimum is more than likely where the majority of cash flow is spent. This approach will come with consequences, lower quality products and services provided by the business or increased cost of the end product and service. Everything from the cost of wages, to the logistics, energy and so on, has a knock on to the cost of the product or services being made or delivered. Shareholders, do not need to invest their money, they have no social responsibility by investing their money, they are investing their money in the belief the business is being run correctly, has a plan to deliver and a good idea of the return. If you interfere with this setup from a government perspective you will upset the balance that businesses rely on when they need the money shareholders are investing to grow and progress. Shareholders will simply not risk their money on a low return. The idea of increasing educational standards to make people more employable and reduce the supply to lower paid jobs, is not feasible in practice. The lower skilled jobs will not go away, there is a need for this type of role and people. Simply paying someone more to the same job because they are better educated, isn't a thing, nor will it be. Simply raising the bar at the bottom, raises the bar for the middle and top. I don't follow this. If the state now has to make up the difference for someone to have enough money to survive on, then there will be no more money spent by those individuals. In your thesis the business model that would be "upset" is one that counts on underpaying some staff and the state providing the difference. This difference goes into their profit. Should this be maintained? A lot of the discussion is that pay at the top of companies is out of control and does not reflect the contribution of these individuals. There is no correlation with company performance. There is plenty of room to transfer pay to the bottom with no detrimental effect. That will also reduce income differentials which has been clearly connected to social unrest. Do we want the state to subsidise working people survive whilst their employers make profits? Do we want large wealth discrepancies with rewards of employees not tied to performance? The money paid to the top tier of an organisation is extremely low compared to the payments made to the lower tiers, dependant on the size of the business. I think there is a misconception that the person or people at the top earning the fat cat salaries are not worth the money they are being paid. The reality is somewhat different in my opinion, and if the they do not meet the business objectives they will be gone in a flash. If we consider that a proportion of people do engage in employment that offers no sick pay, minimum wage and poor working conditions, I question why they do this? Nobody is forcing people to do this, yet they do. The private sector, needs no interference from government, other than to ensure employment laws are adhered too. I'm sure subsidies already exist for low income families and people, are those subsidies fit for purpose? In my opinion, this is the area the government should be concentrating on, not forcing an increase in salary through the workplace, which will then have a knock on effect to everyone. " Interesting point as having been self-employed for years I often wonder how clients of mine who are salaried with company pensions can waste so much of my time getting quotes, trying to knock me down on price and then haggling over the bill at the end. Real term wages for the construction industry are lower than they were 20 years ago and I personally cannot wait to cash in my chips and move to somewhere warmer and cheaper as there are too many middle managers paid far too much for what they bring to businesses in this country. Ooh that’s better….rant over!!! | |||
"I've shared options early in a thread but I will repeat. I would increase the minimum wage to something higher. We don't need companies that are only profitable due to to pay ing low wages. There will be some short-term consequences of this and some companies may liquidate. So we can't beat up the government if that is a short-term increase in unemployment. I would change the education system to move away from answering questions that have already been answered, and towards getting people to be able to finding better questions and problem solving. I believe these are the skills that businesses desire and this will make more people more employable. as such the the supply to the lower end jobs will reduce which may help the unemployment issue mentioned above. I would add more skill based training to the education system such as financial education. Things like budgeting and the vicious circle of debt compound the issues those on low no wages face. I agree that shareholders need to be interested in order for there to be a different behaviour at company level. I agree that tax incentives could have this effect but I would see this as being a short term thing that would only last whilst there is the tax incentive. I'm also not convinced that it is applying the subsidy at the right level and therefore may not have the biggest bang for buck. I also thought you wanted to avoid subsidies. Instead I want shareholders to to care about this because we care about it. This may be similar to esg. Indeed if we as a society, rather than a government, thought a sensible range was 40x then that maybe a factor in whether a company is included in an esg index. The final piece is for us to care more. I don't know about you but I probably don't consider what the the company's Gino ratio when applying for a job and therefore maybe I am part of the problem. More information here would be valuable, for example a a detailed document of pay distribution. This may actually help things like the gender gap as well (because I don't believe a single number actually add much value to changing behaviours and may end up see companies make unhelpful decisions as what gets measured gets managed) The approach of increasing wages does not work on a large scale. Increasing wages at the minimum is more than likely where the majority of cash flow is spent. This approach will come with consequences, lower quality products and services provided by the business or increased cost of the end product and service. Everything from the cost of wages, to the logistics, energy and so on, has a knock on to the cost of the product or services being made or delivered. Shareholders, do not need to invest their money, they have no social responsibility by investing their money, they are investing their money in the belief the business is being run correctly, has a plan to deliver and a good idea of the return. If you interfere with this setup from a government perspective you will upset the balance that businesses rely on when they need the money shareholders are investing to grow and progress. Shareholders will simply not risk their money on a low return. The idea of increasing educational standards to make people more employable and reduce the supply to lower paid jobs, is not feasible in practice. The lower skilled jobs will not go away, there is a need for this type of role and people. Simply paying someone more to the same job because they are better educated, isn't a thing, nor will it be. Simply raising the bar at the bottom, raises the bar for the middle and top. I don't follow this. If the state now has to make up the difference for someone to have enough money to survive on, then there will be no more money spent by those individuals. In your thesis the business model that would be "upset" is one that counts on underpaying some staff and the state providing the difference. This difference goes into their profit. Should this be maintained? A lot of the discussion is that pay at the top of companies is out of control and does not reflect the contribution of these individuals. There is no correlation with company performance. There is plenty of room to transfer pay to the bottom with no detrimental effect. That will also reduce income differentials which has been clearly connected to social unrest. Do we want the state to subsidise working people survive whilst their employers make profits? Do we want large wealth discrepancies with rewards of employees not tied to performance? The money paid to the top tier of an organisation is extremely low compared to the payments made to the lower tiers, dependant on the size of the business. I think there is a misconception that the person or people at the top earning the fat cat salaries are not worth the money they are being paid. The reality is somewhat different in my opinion, and if the they do not meet the business objectives they will be gone in a flash. If we consider that a proportion of people do engage in employment that offers no sick pay, minimum wage and poor working conditions, I question why they do this? Nobody is forcing people to do this, yet they do. The private sector, needs no interference from government, other than to ensure employment laws are adhered too. I'm sure subsidies already exist for low income families and people, are those subsidies fit for purpose? In my opinion, this is the area the government should be concentrating on, not forcing an increase in salary through the workplace, which will then have a knock on effect to everyone. " It's not one guy at the top earning a huge amount. It's several. It may not be quite enough to increase the incomes of everyone at the bottom, but it will make a dent. It will,also, visibly reduce extreme employee wealth inequality. All of the data shows that senior management wage inflation has not been correlated with better company performance. They just don't deserve it, but it's become normalised. Why should society directly subsidise investor profits by artificially reducing their wage costs? The knock on effect is that people get paid properly by their employers and companies make slightly less money. If the only reason that you remain in business is that you underpay your staff then you shouldn't be there. | |||
"I've shared options early in a thread but I will repeat. I would increase the minimum wage to something higher. We don't need companies that are only profitable due to to pay ing low wages. There will be some short-term consequences of this and some companies may liquidate. So we can't beat up the government if that is a short-term increase in unemployment. I would change the education system to move away from answering questions that have already been answered, and towards getting people to be able to finding better questions and problem solving. I believe these are the skills that businesses desire and this will make more people more employable. as such the the supply to the lower end jobs will reduce which may help the unemployment issue mentioned above. I would add more skill based training to the education system such as financial education. Things like budgeting and the vicious circle of debt compound the issues those on low no wages face. I agree that shareholders need to be interested in order for there to be a different behaviour at company level. I agree that tax incentives could have this effect but I would see this as being a short term thing that would only last whilst there is the tax incentive. I'm also not convinced that it is applying the subsidy at the right level and therefore may not have the biggest bang for buck. I also thought you wanted to avoid subsidies. Instead I want shareholders to to care about this because we care about it. This may be similar to esg. Indeed if we as a society, rather than a government, thought a sensible range was 40x then that maybe a factor in whether a company is included in an esg index. The final piece is for us to care more. I don't know about you but I probably don't consider what the the company's Gino ratio when applying for a job and therefore maybe I am part of the problem. More information here would be valuable, for example a a detailed document of pay distribution. This may actually help things like the gender gap as well (because I don't believe a single number actually add much value to changing behaviours and may end up see companies make unhelpful decisions as what gets measured gets managed) The approach of increasing wages does not work on a large scale. Increasing wages at the minimum is more than likely where the majority of cash flow is spent. This approach will come with consequences, lower quality products and services provided by the business or increased cost of the end product and service. Everything from the cost of wages, to the logistics, energy and so on, has a knock on to the cost of the product or services being made or delivered. Shareholders, do not need to invest their money, they have no social responsibility by investing their money, they are investing their money in the belief the business is being run correctly, has a plan to deliver and a good idea of the return. If you interfere with this setup from a government perspective you will upset the balance that businesses rely on when they need the money shareholders are investing to grow and progress. Shareholders will simply not risk their money on a low return. The idea of increasing educational standards to make people more employable and reduce the supply to lower paid jobs, is not feasible in practice. The lower skilled jobs will not go away, there is a need for this type of role and people. Simply paying someone more to the same job because they are better educated, isn't a thing, nor will it be. Simply raising the bar at the bottom, raises the bar for the middle and top. I don't follow this. If the state now has to make up the difference for someone to have enough money to survive on, then there will be no more money spent by those individuals. In your thesis the business model that would be "upset" is one that counts on underpaying some staff and the state providing the difference. This difference goes into their profit. Should this be maintained? A lot of the discussion is that pay at the top of companies is out of control and does not reflect the contribution of these individuals. There is no correlation with company performance. There is plenty of room to transfer pay to the bottom with no detrimental effect. That will also reduce income differentials which has been clearly connected to social unrest. Do we want the state to subsidise working people survive whilst their employers make profits? Do we want large wealth discrepancies with rewards of employees not tied to performance? The money paid to the top tier of an organisation is extremely low compared to the payments made to the lower tiers, dependant on the size of the business. I think there is a misconception that the person or people at the top earning the fat cat salaries are not worth the money they are being paid. The reality is somewhat different in my opinion, and if the they do not meet the business objectives they will be gone in a flash. If we consider that a proportion of people do engage in employment that offers no sick pay, minimum wage and poor working conditions, I question why they do this? Nobody is forcing people to do this, yet they do. The private sector, needs no interference from government, other than to ensure employment laws are adhered too. I'm sure subsidies already exist for low income families and people, are those subsidies fit for purpose? In my opinion, this is the area the government should be concentrating on, not forcing an increase in salary through the workplace, which will then have a knock on effect to everyone. It's not one guy at the top earning a huge amount. It's several. It may not be quite enough to increase the incomes of everyone at the bottom, but it will make a dent. It will,also, visibly reduce extreme employee wealth inequality. All of the data shows that senior management wage inflation has not been correlated with better company performance. They just don't deserve it, but it's become normalised. Why should society directly subsidise investor profits by artificially reducing their wage costs? The knock on effect is that people get paid properly by their employers and companies make slightly less money. If the only reason that you remain in business is that you underpay your staff then you shouldn't be there." I'm not for one moment suggesting employers should under pay their employees, but that often happens to meet the demand of customers who are generally not prepared to pay more for goods and services. The last point is the crux of the issue, are you prepared to pay more for your goods and services? Would you be happy for a x% increase on all things, not just on the things you think are worth it, everything? The sympathy and for the good of society boat, will sail long before the majority of the general public will accept increases. No matter how you shuffle the deck a private enterprise is only functioning whilst it is clearly able to bring returns that investors think are worth taking a risk on, and no amount of social reasoning will change that. The outcome of such policy would drive the money out and closure of the business, to an investor it is simply not worth it. | |||
| |||
"I've shared options early in a thread but I will repeat. I would increase the minimum wage to something higher. We don't need companies that are only profitable due to to pay ing low wages. There will be some short-term consequences of this and some companies may liquidate. So we can't beat up the government if that is a short-term increase in unemployment. I would change the education system to move away from answering questions that have already been answered, and towards getting people to be able to finding better questions and problem solving. I believe these are the skills that businesses desire and this will make more people more employable. as such the the supply to the lower end jobs will reduce which may help the unemployment issue mentioned above. I would add more skill based training to the education system such as financial education. Things like budgeting and the vicious circle of debt compound the issues those on low no wages face. I agree that shareholders need to be interested in order for there to be a different behaviour at company level. I agree that tax incentives could have this effect but I would see this as being a short term thing that would only last whilst there is the tax incentive. I'm also not convinced that it is applying the subsidy at the right level and therefore may not have the biggest bang for buck. I also thought you wanted to avoid subsidies. Instead I want shareholders to to care about this because we care about it. This may be similar to esg. Indeed if we as a society, rather than a government, thought a sensible range was 40x then that maybe a factor in whether a company is included in an esg index. The final piece is for us to care more. I don't know about you but I probably don't consider what the the company's Gino ratio when applying for a job and therefore maybe I am part of the problem. More information here would be valuable, for example a a detailed document of pay distribution. This may actually help things like the gender gap as well (because I don't believe a single number actually add much value to changing behaviours and may end up see companies make unhelpful decisions as what gets measured gets managed) The approach of increasing wages does not work on a large scale. Increasing wages at the minimum is more than likely where the majority of cash flow is spent. This approach will come with consequences, lower quality products and services provided by the business or increased cost of the end product and service. Everything from the cost of wages, to the logistics, energy and so on, has a knock on to the cost of the product or services being made or delivered. Shareholders, do not need to invest their money, they have no social responsibility by investing their money, they are investing their money in the belief the business is being run correctly, has a plan to deliver and a good idea of the return. If you interfere with this setup from a government perspective you will upset the balance that businesses rely on when they need the money shareholders are investing to grow and progress. Shareholders will simply not risk their money on a low return. The idea of increasing educational standards to make people more employable and reduce the supply to lower paid jobs, is not feasible in practice. The lower skilled jobs will not go away, there is a need for this type of role and people. Simply paying someone more to the same job because they are better educated, isn't a thing, nor will it be. Simply raising the bar at the bottom, raises the bar for the middle and top. I don't follow this. If the state now has to make up the difference for someone to have enough money to survive on, then there will be no more money spent by those individuals. In your thesis the business model that would be "upset" is one that counts on underpaying some staff and the state providing the difference. This difference goes into their profit. Should this be maintained? A lot of the discussion is that pay at the top of companies is out of control and does not reflect the contribution of these individuals. There is no correlation with company performance. There is plenty of room to transfer pay to the bottom with no detrimental effect. That will also reduce income differentials which has been clearly connected to social unrest. Do we want the state to subsidise working people survive whilst their employers make profits? Do we want large wealth discrepancies with rewards of employees not tied to performance? The money paid to the top tier of an organisation is extremely low compared to the payments made to the lower tiers, dependant on the size of the business. I think there is a misconception that the person or people at the top earning the fat cat salaries are not worth the money they are being paid. The reality is somewhat different in my opinion, and if the they do not meet the business objectives they will be gone in a flash. If we consider that a proportion of people do engage in employment that offers no sick pay, minimum wage and poor working conditions, I question why they do this? Nobody is forcing people to do this, yet they do. The private sector, needs no interference from government, other than to ensure employment laws are adhered too. I'm sure subsidies already exist for low income families and people, are those subsidies fit for purpose? In my opinion, this is the area the government should be concentrating on, not forcing an increase in salary through the workplace, which will then have a knock on effect to everyone. It's not one guy at the top earning a huge amount. It's several. It may not be quite enough to increase the incomes of everyone at the bottom, but it will make a dent. It will,also, visibly reduce extreme employee wealth inequality. All of the data shows that senior management wage inflation has not been correlated with better company performance. They just don't deserve it, but it's become normalised. Why should society directly subsidise investor profits by artificially reducing their wage costs? The knock on effect is that people get paid properly by their employers and companies make slightly less money. If the only reason that you remain in business is that you underpay your staff then you shouldn't be there. I'm not for one moment suggesting employers should under pay their employees, but that often happens to meet the demand of customers who are generally not prepared to pay more for goods and services. The last point is the crux of the issue, are you prepared to pay more for your goods and services? Would you be happy for a x% increase on all things, not just on the things you think are worth it, everything? The sympathy and for the good of society boat, will sail long before the majority of the general public will accept increases. No matter how you shuffle the deck a private enterprise is only functioning whilst it is clearly able to bring returns that investors think are worth taking a risk on, and no amount of social reasoning will change that. The outcome of such policy would drive the money out and closure of the business, to an investor it is simply not worth it. " Well, actually you are suggesting exactly that. Either the company pays or the taxpayer does. Why should it be the taxpayer? If the company makes a profit and the price is too high, then they have to cut their margin and find efficiencies to return them. That's actual capitalism. Am I prepared to? Yes, if that's the real price. No choice. Again, wage rises are not automatically inflation. Cut margins. This is particularly aimed at large companies. Small businesses may be given deregation, but that will lead to staff turnover unless they can get onto equal pay terms. It's still free market reality. You are saying that any company actually paying the true price for it's wages is not viable? Really? | |||
"I've shared options early in a thread but I will repeat. I would increase the minimum wage to something higher. We don't need companies that are only profitable due to to pay ing low wages. There will be some short-term consequences of this and some companies may liquidate. So we can't beat up the government if that is a short-term increase in unemployment. I would change the education system to move away from answering questions that have already been answered, and towards getting people to be able to finding better questions and problem solving. I believe these are the skills that businesses desire and this will make more people more employable. as such the the supply to the lower end jobs will reduce which may help the unemployment issue mentioned above. I would add more skill based training to the education system such as financial education. Things like budgeting and the vicious circle of debt compound the issues those on low no wages face. I agree that shareholders need to be interested in order for there to be a different behaviour at company level. I agree that tax incentives could have this effect but I would see this as being a short term thing that would only last whilst there is the tax incentive. I'm also not convinced that it is applying the subsidy at the right level and therefore may not have the biggest bang for buck. I also thought you wanted to avoid subsidies. Instead I want shareholders to to care about this because we care about it. This may be similar to esg. Indeed if we as a society, rather than a government, thought a sensible range was 40x then that maybe a factor in whether a company is included in an esg index. The final piece is for us to care more. I don't know about you but I probably don't consider what the the company's Gino ratio when applying for a job and therefore maybe I am part of the problem. More information here would be valuable, for example a a detailed document of pay distribution. This may actually help things like the gender gap as well (because I don't believe a single number actually add much value to changing behaviours and may end up see companies make unhelpful decisions as what gets measured gets managed) The approach of increasing wages does not work on a large scale. Increasing wages at the minimum is more than likely where the majority of cash flow is spent. This approach will come with consequences, lower quality products and services provided by the business or increased cost of the end product and service. Everything from the cost of wages, to the logistics, energy and so on, has a knock on to the cost of the product or services being made or delivered. Shareholders, do not need to invest their money, they have no social responsibility by investing their money, they are investing their money in the belief the business is being run correctly, has a plan to deliver and a good idea of the return. If you interfere with this setup from a government perspective you will upset the balance that businesses rely on when they need the money shareholders are investing to grow and progress. Shareholders will simply not risk their money on a low return. The idea of increasing educational standards to make people more employable and reduce the supply to lower paid jobs, is not feasible in practice. The lower skilled jobs will not go away, there is a need for this type of role and people. Simply paying someone more to the same job because they are better educated, isn't a thing, nor will it be. Simply raising the bar at the bottom, raises the bar for the middle and top. I don't follow this. If the state now has to make up the difference for someone to have enough money to survive on, then there will be no more money spent by those individuals. In your thesis the business model that would be "upset" is one that counts on underpaying some staff and the state providing the difference. This difference goes into their profit. Should this be maintained? A lot of the discussion is that pay at the top of companies is out of control and does not reflect the contribution of these individuals. There is no correlation with company performance. There is plenty of room to transfer pay to the bottom with no detrimental effect. That will also reduce income differentials which has been clearly connected to social unrest. Do we want the state to subsidise working people survive whilst their employers make profits? Do we want large wealth discrepancies with rewards of employees not tied to performance? The money paid to the top tier of an organisation is extremely low compared to the payments made to the lower tiers, dependant on the size of the business. I think there is a misconception that the person or people at the top earning the fat cat salaries are not worth the money they are being paid. The reality is somewhat different in my opinion, and if the they do not meet the business objectives they will be gone in a flash. If we consider that a proportion of people do engage in employment that offers no sick pay, minimum wage and poor working conditions, I question why they do this? Nobody is forcing people to do this, yet they do. The private sector, needs no interference from government, other than to ensure employment laws are adhered too. I'm sure subsidies already exist for low income families and people, are those subsidies fit for purpose? In my opinion, this is the area the government should be concentrating on, not forcing an increase in salary through the workplace, which will then have a knock on effect to everyone. It's not one guy at the top earning a huge amount. It's several. It may not be quite enough to increase the incomes of everyone at the bottom, but it will make a dent. It will,also, visibly reduce extreme employee wealth inequality. All of the data shows that senior management wage inflation has not been correlated with better company performance. They just don't deserve it, but it's become normalised. Why should society directly subsidise investor profits by artificially reducing their wage costs? The knock on effect is that people get paid properly by their employers and companies make slightly less money. If the only reason that you remain in business is that you underpay your staff then you shouldn't be there. I'm not for one moment suggesting employers should under pay their employees, but that often happens to meet the demand of customers who are generally not prepared to pay more for goods and services. The last point is the crux of the issue, are you prepared to pay more for your goods and services? Would you be happy for a x% increase on all things, not just on the things you think are worth it, everything? The sympathy and for the good of society boat, will sail long before the majority of the general public will accept increases. No matter how you shuffle the deck a private enterprise is only functioning whilst it is clearly able to bring returns that investors think are worth taking a risk on, and no amount of social reasoning will change that. The outcome of such policy would drive the money out and closure of the business, to an investor it is simply not worth it. Well, actually you are suggesting exactly that. Either the company pays or the taxpayer does. Why should it be the taxpayer? If the company makes a profit and the price is too high, then they have to cut their margin and find efficiencies to return them. That's actual capitalism. Am I prepared to? Yes, if that's the real price. No choice. Again, wage rises are not automatically inflation. Cut margins. This is particularly aimed at large companies. Small businesses may be given deregation, but that will lead to staff turnover unless they can get onto equal pay terms. It's still free market reality. You are saying that any company actually paying the true price for it's wages is not viable? Really?" The nature of business has developed into the capitalist model we have today and I'm advocating is the right way, for the lack of an alternative that would actually drive innovation. What are you suggesting would work better? Reading through the thread it reads like a hybrid communism model, is that the way you would describe it? | |||
"I've shared options early in a thread but I will repeat. I would increase the minimum wage to something higher. We don't need companies that are only profitable due to to pay ing low wages. There will be some short-term consequences of this and some companies may liquidate. So we can't beat up the government if that is a short-term increase in unemployment. Instead I want shareholders to to care about this because we care about it. This may be similar to esg. Indeed if we as a society, rather than a government, thought a sensible range was 40x then that maybe a factor in whether a company is included in an esg index. A lot of the discussion is that pay at the top of companies is out of control and does not reflect the contribution of these individuals. There is no correlation with company performance. There is plenty of room to transfer pay to the bottom with no detrimental effect. That will also reduce income differentials which has been clearly connected to social unrest. Do we want the state to subsidise working people survive whilst their employers make profits? Do we want large wealth discrepancies with rewards of employees not tied to performance? The money paid to the top tier of an organisation is extremely low compared to the payments made to the lower tiers, dependant on the size of the business. I think there is a misconception that the person or people at the top earning the fat cat salaries are not worth the money they are being paid. The reality is somewhat different in my opinion, and if the they do not meet the business objectives they will be gone in a flash. If we consider that a proportion of people do engage in employment that offers no sick pay, minimum wage and poor working conditions, I question why they do this? Nobody is forcing people to do this, yet they do. The private sector, needs no interference from government, other than to ensure employment laws are adhered too. I'm sure subsidies already exist for low income families and people, are those subsidies fit for purpose? In my opinion, this is the area the government should be concentrating on, not forcing an increase in salary through the workplace, which will then have a knock on effect to everyone. " I’ve cut a lot of the above to save space. Not sure I agree with your first point. When Yorkshire water was privatised the CEO’s salary was tripled. When a journalist asked the chairman why he received such a pay rise the response was we don’t want to risk such talent being poached from us. Hmmm really so why wasn’t he poached during the previous ten years whilst he was on a much lower salary? I also got involved with a take over of another business which was loosing tens of millions of pounds a year. After the takeover and a full internal review of the business, changes in the operations were made. More importantly however, was that all the directors were sacked en masse bar one. The company was turned around and breaking even within six months. No lower ranks of staff were made redundant. Being senior does not always go with having ability and in my experience there are many cases of senior staff being massively over paid for their ability. The NHS and organisations such as universities and some civil servant departments are awash with ridiculously overpaid staff at a senior level. If they fail they are given a bigger budget. In the private sector they can risk the sack but if they are smart enough to rise they are quite often smart enough to hide. If the person on the production line presses the wrong button they can be gotten rid of very quickly and relatively cheaply. Sad but true. As for your point on investors only investing in high profitability low risk big returns that’s not true in a lot of cases in both public and private. The rail franchises for example raise and lose billions because they know the government will subsidise the system and so they are more or less guaranteed dividends. It’s similar in the offshore oil business or green energy . Tax breaks funded by U.K. tax payers means huge windfalls on dividends which they know the government support . The actual truth of economic return in companies such as Nissan is that without government subsidy the company would move to a cheaper location in Europe . That again is tax payer funds pushing against the really of business so again is that good senior management on the governments part or just firefighting to gain sone time? The NHS is a terrible return on investment (unless of course you invest In selling it stuff) and it’s secure funding method along with appalling management makes it a bottomless pit, which is again subsidised by the tax payer. I’m not advocating privatisation I’m advocating accountability for returns on investment. That way money would be saved and reduce the burden on the tax payer. With unregulated markets the race is always to the bottom and wages will follow. (The negative of the thatcher years). The easiest way for senior manages to protect themselves is to cut poorer paid staff purely because they can. Protecting markets is against the capitalist mantra but a governments primary remit is to protect their citizens, therefore protectionism has its place . A free for all is bad as country’s have different styles of economy which if exploited by capitalism will destroy ours eventually. If capitalism isn’t controlled to a small level then ultimately the U.K. will lose out. Reece mogg is an example of investors moving their money through London but investing the vast majority of their cash overseas. That investment only benefits a select rich few in this country who’s funds he manages . The jobs are nowhere to be seen here. Cheap labour elsewhere gives a better return. | |||
| |||
"I've shared options early in a thread but I will repeat. I would increase the minimum wage to something higher. We don't need companies that are only profitable due to to pay ing low wages. There will be some short-term consequences of this and some companies may liquidate. So we can't beat up the government if that is a short-term increase in unemployment. Instead I want shareholders to to care about this because we care about it. This may be similar to esg. Indeed if we as a society, rather than a government, thought a sensible range was 40x then that maybe a factor in whether a company is included in an esg index. A lot of the discussion is that pay at the top of companies is out of control and does not reflect the contribution of these individuals. There is no correlation with company performance. There is plenty of room to transfer pay to the bottom with no detrimental effect. That will also reduce income differentials which has been clearly connected to social unrest. Do we want the state to subsidise working people survive whilst their employers make profits? Do we want large wealth discrepancies with rewards of employees not tied to performance? The money paid to the top tier of an organisation is extremely low compared to the payments made to the lower tiers, dependant on the size of the business. I think there is a misconception that the person or people at the top earning the fat cat salaries are not worth the money they are being paid. The reality is somewhat different in my opinion, and if the they do not meet the business objectives they will be gone in a flash. If we consider that a proportion of people do engage in employment that offers no sick pay, minimum wage and poor working conditions, I question why they do this? Nobody is forcing people to do this, yet they do. The private sector, needs no interference from government, other than to ensure employment laws are adhered too. I'm sure subsidies already exist for low income families and people, are those subsidies fit for purpose? In my opinion, this is the area the government should be concentrating on, not forcing an increase in salary through the workplace, which will then have a knock on effect to everyone. I’ve cut a lot of the above to save space. Not sure I agree with your first point. When Yorkshire water was privatised the CEO’s salary was tripled. When a journalist asked the chairman why he received such a pay rise the response was we don’t want to risk such talent being poached from us. Hmmm really so why wasn’t he poached during the previous ten years whilst he was on a much lower salary? I also got involved with a take over of another business which was loosing tens of millions of pounds a year. After the takeover and a full internal review of the business, changes in the operations were made. More importantly however, was that all the directors were sacked en masse bar one. The company was turned around and breaking even within six months. No lower ranks of staff were made redundant. Being senior does not always go with having ability and in my experience there are many cases of senior staff being massively over paid for their ability. The NHS and organisations such as universities and some civil servant departments are awash with ridiculously overpaid staff at a senior level. If they fail they are given a bigger budget. In the private sector they can risk the sack but if they are smart enough to rise they are quite often smart enough to hide. If the person on the production line presses the wrong button they can be gotten rid of very quickly and relatively cheaply. Sad but true. As for your point on investors only investing in high profitability low risk big returns that’s not true in a lot of cases in both public and private. The rail franchises for example raise and lose billions because they know the government will subsidise the system and so they are more or less guaranteed dividends. It’s similar in the offshore oil business or green energy . Tax breaks funded by U.K. tax payers means huge windfalls on dividends which they know the government support . The actual truth of economic return in companies such as Nissan is that without government subsidy the company would move to a cheaper location in Europe . That again is tax payer funds pushing against the really of business so again is that good senior management on the governments part or just firefighting to gain sone time? The NHS is a terrible return on investment (unless of course you invest In selling it stuff) and it’s secure funding method along with appalling management makes it a bottomless pit, which is again subsidised by the tax payer. I’m not advocating privatisation I’m advocating accountability for returns on investment. That way money would be saved and reduce the burden on the tax payer. With unregulated markets the race is always to the bottom and wages will follow. (The negative of the thatcher years). The easiest way for senior manages to protect themselves is to cut poorer paid staff purely because they can. Protecting markets is against the capitalist mantra but a governments primary remit is to protect their citizens, therefore protectionism has its place . A free for all is bad as country’s have different styles of economy which if exploited by capitalism will destroy ours eventually. If capitalism isn’t controlled to a small level then ultimately the U.K. will lose out. Reece mogg is an example of investors moving their money through London but investing the vast majority of their cash overseas. That investment only benefits a select rich few in this country who’s funds he manages . The jobs are nowhere to be seen here. Cheap labour elsewhere gives a better return. " I'm not disagreeing with your observations, I think the public sector is awash with incompetence and layers of bureaucracy. However there is no comparison to be had between a public sector and private sector organisation, chalk and cheese, comes to mind. With the thousands of private sector businesses in this country there will be some badly run as well as some extremely well run, which is what you have highlighted in the businesses or organisations that have not performed so well. There are plenty of great examples of businesses doing great by their employees, customers and shareholders. The CEO who was paid more to prevent him from leaving, he was paid that because someone saw the worth, everything has worth. You didn't see his worth, but there again you are not in the market for a CEO that you want to run a business for you, I assume? If someone can give me an alternative to capitalism, that is not communism I'm all ears. | |||
" The approach of increasing wages does not work on a large scale. Increasing wages at the minimum is more than likely where the majority of cash flow is spent. This approach will come with consequences, lower quality products and services provided by the business or increased cost of the end product and service. Everything from the cost of wages, to the logistics, energy and so on, has a knock on to the cost of the product or services being made or delivered. Shareholders, do not need to invest their money, they have no social responsibility by investing their money, they are investing their money in the belief the business is being run correctly, has a plan to deliver and a good idea of the return. If you interfere with this setup from a government perspective you will upset the balance that businesses rely on when they need the money shareholders are investing to grow and progress. Shareholders will simply not risk their money on a low return. The idea of increasing educational standards to make people more employable and reduce the supply to lower paid jobs, is not feasible in practice. The lower skilled jobs will not go away, there is a need for this type of role and people. Simply paying someone more to the same job because they are better educated, isn't a thing, nor will it be. Simply raising the bar at the bottom, raises the bar for the middle and top. I don't follow this. If the state now has to make up the difference for someone to have enough money to survive on, then there will be no more money spent by those individuals. In your thesis the business model that would be "upset" is one that counts on underpaying some staff and the state providing the difference. This difference goes into their profit. Should this be maintained? A lot of the discussion is that pay at the top of companies is out of control and does not reflect the contribution of these individuals. There is no correlation with company performance. There is plenty of room to transfer pay to the bottom with no detrimental effect. That will also reduce income differentials which has been clearly connected to social unrest. Do we want the state to subsidise working people survive whilst their employers make profits? Do we want large wealth discrepancies with rewards of employees not tied to performance? The money paid to the top tier of an organisation is extremely low compared to the payments made to the lower tiers, dependant on the size of the business. I think there is a misconception that the person or people at the top earning the fat cat salaries are not worth the money they are being paid. The reality is somewhat different in my opinion, and if the they do not meet the business objectives they will be gone in a flash. If we consider that a proportion of people do engage in employment that offers no sick pay, minimum wage and poor working conditions, I question why they do this? Nobody is forcing people to do this, yet they do. The private sector, needs no interference from government, other than to ensure employment laws are adhered too. I'm sure subsidies already exist for low income families and people, are those subsidies fit for purpose? In my opinion, this is the area the government should be concentrating on, not forcing an increase in salary through the workplace, which will then have a knock on effect to everyone. It's not one guy at the top earning a huge amount. It's several. It may not be quite enough to increase the incomes of everyone at the bottom, but it will make a dent. It will,also, visibly reduce extreme employee wealth inequality. All of the data shows that senior management wage inflation has not been correlated with better company performance. They just don't deserve it, but it's become normalised. Why should society directly subsidise investor profits by artificially reducing their wage costs? The knock on effect is that people get paid properly by their employers and companies make slightly less money. If the only reason that you remain in business is that you underpay your staff then you shouldn't be there. I'm not for one moment suggesting employers should under pay their employees, but that often happens to meet the demand of customers who are generally not prepared to pay more for goods and services. The last point is the crux of the issue, are you prepared to pay more for your goods and services? Would you be happy for a x% increase on all things, not just on the things you think are worth it, everything? The sympathy and for the good of society boat, will sail long before the majority of the general public will accept increases. No matter how you shuffle the deck a private enterprise is only functioning whilst it is clearly able to bring returns that investors think are worth taking a risk on, and no amount of social reasoning will change that. The outcome of such policy would drive the money out and closure of the business, to an investor it is simply not worth it. Well, actually you are suggesting exactly that. Either the company pays or the taxpayer does. Why should it be the taxpayer? If the company makes a profit and the price is too high, then they have to cut their margin and find efficiencies to return them. That's actual capitalism. Am I prepared to? Yes, if that's the real price. No choice. Again, wage rises are not automatically inflation. Cut margins. This is particularly aimed at large companies. Small businesses may be given deregation, but that will lead to staff turnover unless they can get onto equal pay terms. It's still free market reality. You are saying that any company actually paying the true price for it's wages is not viable? Really? The nature of business has developed into the capitalist model we have today and I'm advocating is the right way, for the lack of an alternative that would actually drive innovation. What are you suggesting would work better? Reading through the thread it reads like a hybrid communism model, is that the way you would describe it? " Something lost in this discussion. How are any of my suggestions "commmunist" rather than market driven? You did not directly respond to the points I raised. I am saying that the state must ensure that its citizens do not live in poverty and that society remains stable whilst minimising its effect on the market. The first part, according to almost all available data requires adequate pay and wealth differentials not being excessive. Does that make sense? I would say that if the state subsidises the salaries of the poorest such that companies take this as profit and therefore transfer wealth from poor to wealthy, that distorts both the market and society. They are not paying the true market price for wages and they increase their margin (unearned) as a result. Does that make sense? Although there is clearly a high value on good management and a strong case for linking to performance, there is nothing to justify the increase seen in executive pay relative to the rest of the population. A sensible system is possible but it is currently completely open to corruption. I cannot post links to papers, so this will have to do: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210125-why-ceos-make-so-much-money https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/27/negligible-link-between-executive-pay-and-firms-performance-says-study This also has a knock on effect of artificially inflating senior public sector pay in order to compete. The state has always had to regulate the market to level the playing field and control unfair practises. Do you agree on that? Linking executive pay to that of the rest of a company's staff could be one of them. It is, actually, a minor change to a director's responsibilities. They have to share the benefits of good company performance rather than keep it all for themselves. That will help both companies and society. | |||
" The approach of increasing wages does not work on a large scale. Increasing wages at the minimum is more than likely where the majority of cash flow is spent. This approach will come with consequences, lower quality products and services provided by the business or increased cost of the end product and service. Everything from the cost of wages, to the logistics, energy and so on, has a knock on to the cost of the product or services being made or delivered. Shareholders, do not need to invest their money, they have no social responsibility by investing their money, they are investing their money in the belief the business is being run correctly, has a plan to deliver and a good idea of the return. If you interfere with this setup from a government perspective you will upset the balance that businesses rely on when they need the money shareholders are investing to grow and progress. Shareholders will simply not risk their money on a low return. The idea of increasing educational standards to make people more employable and reduce the supply to lower paid jobs, is not feasible in practice. The lower skilled jobs will not go away, there is a need for this type of role and people. Simply paying someone more to the same job because they are better educated, isn't a thing, nor will it be. Simply raising the bar at the bottom, raises the bar for the middle and top. I don't follow this. If the state now has to make up the difference for someone to have enough money to survive on, then there will be no more money spent by those individuals. In your thesis the business model that would be "upset" is one that counts on underpaying some staff and the state providing the difference. This difference goes into their profit. Should this be maintained? A lot of the discussion is that pay at the top of companies is out of control and does not reflect the contribution of these individuals. There is no correlation with company performance. There is plenty of room to transfer pay to the bottom with no detrimental effect. That will also reduce income differentials which has been clearly connected to social unrest. Do we want the state to subsidise working people survive whilst their employers make profits? Do we want large wealth discrepancies with rewards of employees not tied to performance? The money paid to the top tier of an organisation is extremely low compared to the payments made to the lower tiers, dependant on the size of the business. I think there is a misconception that the person or people at the top earning the fat cat salaries are not worth the money they are being paid. The reality is somewhat different in my opinion, and if the they do not meet the business objectives they will be gone in a flash. If we consider that a proportion of people do engage in employment that offers no sick pay, minimum wage and poor working conditions, I question why they do this? Nobody is forcing people to do this, yet they do. The private sector, needs no interference from government, other than to ensure employment laws are adhered too. I'm sure subsidies already exist for low income families and people, are those subsidies fit for purpose? In my opinion, this is the area the government should be concentrating on, not forcing an increase in salary through the workplace, which will then have a knock on effect to everyone. It's not one guy at the top earning a huge amount. It's several. It may not be quite enough to increase the incomes of everyone at the bottom, but it will make a dent. It will,also, visibly reduce extreme employee wealth inequality. All of the data shows that senior management wage inflation has not been correlated with better company performance. They just don't deserve it, but it's become normalised. Why should society directly subsidise investor profits by artificially reducing their wage costs? The knock on effect is that people get paid properly by their employers and companies make slightly less money. If the only reason that you remain in business is that you underpay your staff then you shouldn't be there. I'm not for one moment suggesting employers should under pay their employees, but that often happens to meet the demand of customers who are generally not prepared to pay more for goods and services. The last point is the crux of the issue, are you prepared to pay more for your goods and services? Would you be happy for a x% increase on all things, not just on the things you think are worth it, everything? The sympathy and for the good of society boat, will sail long before the majority of the general public will accept increases. No matter how you shuffle the deck a private enterprise is only functioning whilst it is clearly able to bring returns that investors think are worth taking a risk on, and no amount of social reasoning will change that. The outcome of such policy would drive the money out and closure of the business, to an investor it is simply not worth it. Well, actually you are suggesting exactly that. Either the company pays or the taxpayer does. Why should it be the taxpayer? If the company makes a profit and the price is too high, then they have to cut their margin and find efficiencies to return them. That's actual capitalism. Am I prepared to? Yes, if that's the real price. No choice. Again, wage rises are not automatically inflation. Cut margins. This is particularly aimed at large companies. Small businesses may be given deregation, but that will lead to staff turnover unless they can get onto equal pay terms. It's still free market reality. You are saying that any company actually paying the true price for it's wages is not viable? Really? The nature of business has developed into the capitalist model we have today and I'm advocating is the right way, for the lack of an alternative that would actually drive innovation. What are you suggesting would work better? Reading through the thread it reads like a hybrid communism model, is that the way you would describe it? Something lost in this discussion. How are any of my suggestions "commmunist" rather than market driven? You did not directly respond to the points I raised. I am saying that the state must ensure that its citizens do not live in poverty and that society remains stable whilst minimising its effect on the market. The first part, according to almost all available data requires adequate pay and wealth differentials not being excessive. Does that make sense? I would say that if the state subsidises the salaries of the poorest such that companies take this as profit and therefore transfer wealth from poor to wealthy, that distorts both the market and society. They are not paying the true market price for wages and they increase their margin (unearned) as a result. Does that make sense? Although there is clearly a high value on good management and a strong case for linking to performance, there is nothing to justify the increase seen in executive pay relative to the rest of the population. A sensible system is possible but it is currently completely open to corruption. I cannot post links to papers, so this will have to do: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210125-why-ceos-make-so-much-money https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/27/negligible-link-between-executive-pay-and-firms-performance-says-study This also has a knock on effect of artificially inflating senior public sector pay in order to compete. The state has always had to regulate the market to level the playing field and control unfair practises. Do you agree on that? Linking executive pay to that of the rest of a company's staff could be one of them. It is, actually, a minor change to a director's responsibilities. They have to share the benefits of good company performance rather than keep it all for themselves. That will help both companies and society." You are making perfect sense, I can see the reasoning but not the practical elements playing out in the private sector as a whole. However, I could see a company such as BT, go down the route of capping their senior management salaries. I could also imagine how performance would be rewarded with healthy bonuses. Overall it would improve consumer confidence in the business, hopefully drive more sales that increase the bonuses. I might be over playing this, but that is my point, it will get played for profit. | |||
"I've shared options early in a thread but I will repeat. I would increase the minimum wage to something higher. We don't need companies that are only profitable due to to pay ing low wages. There will be some short-term consequences of this and some companies may liquidate. So we can't beat up the government if that is a short-term increase in unemployment. Instead I want shareholders to to care about this because we care about it. This may be similar to esg. Indeed if we as a society, rather than a government, thought a sensible range was 40x then that maybe a factor in whether a company is included in an esg index. A lot of the discussion is that pay at the top of companies is out of control and does not reflect the contribution of these individuals. There is no correlation with company performance. There is plenty of room to transfer pay to the bottom with no detrimental effect. That will also reduce income differentials which has been clearly connected to social unrest. Do we want the state to subsidise working people survive whilst their employers make profits? Do we want large wealth discrepancies with rewards of employees not tied to performance? The money paid to the top tier of an organisation is extremely low compared to the payments made to the lower tiers, dependant on the size of the business. I think there is a misconception that the person or people at the top earning the fat cat salaries are not worth the money they are being paid. The reality is somewhat different in my opinion, and if the they do not meet the business objectives they will be gone in a flash. If we consider that a proportion of people do engage in employment that offers no sick pay, minimum wage and poor working conditions, I question why they do this? Nobody is forcing people to do this, yet they do. The private sector, needs no interference from government, other than to ensure employment laws are adhered too. I'm sure subsidies already exist for low income families and people, are those subsidies fit for purpose? In my opinion, this is the area the government should be concentrating on, not forcing an increase in salary through the workplace, which will then have a knock on effect to everyone. I’ve cut a lot of the above to save space. Not sure I agree with your first point. When Yorkshire water was privatised the CEO’s salary was tripled. When a journalist asked the chairman why he received such a pay rise the response was we don’t want to risk such talent being poached from us. Hmmm really so why wasn’t he poached during the previous ten years whilst he was on a much lower salary? I also got involved with a take over of another business which was loosing tens of millions of pounds a year. After the takeover and a full internal review of the business, changes in the operations were made. More importantly however, was that all the directors were sacked en masse bar one. The company was turned around and breaking even within six months. No lower ranks of staff were made redundant. Being senior does not always go with having ability and in my experience there are many cases of senior staff being massively over paid for their ability. The NHS and organisations such as universities and some civil servant departments are awash with ridiculously overpaid staff at a senior level. If they fail they are given a bigger budget. In the private sector they can risk the sack but if they are smart enough to rise they are quite often smart enough to hide. If the person on the production line presses the wrong button they can be gotten rid of very quickly and relatively cheaply. Sad but true. As for your point on investors only investing in high profitability low risk big returns that’s not true in a lot of cases in both public and private. The rail franchises for example raise and lose billions because they know the government will subsidise the system and so they are more or less guaranteed dividends. It’s similar in the offshore oil business or green energy . Tax breaks funded by U.K. tax payers means huge windfalls on dividends which they know the government support . The actual truth of economic return in companies such as Nissan is that without government subsidy the company would move to a cheaper location in Europe . That again is tax payer funds pushing against the really of business so again is that good senior management on the governments part or just firefighting to gain sone time? The NHS is a terrible return on investment (unless of course you invest In selling it stuff) and it’s secure funding method along with appalling management makes it a bottomless pit, which is again subsidised by the tax payer. I’m not advocating privatisation I’m advocating accountability for returns on investment. That way money would be saved and reduce the burden on the tax payer. With unregulated markets the race is always to the bottom and wages will follow. (The negative of the thatcher years). The easiest way for senior manages to protect themselves is to cut poorer paid staff purely because they can. Protecting markets is against the capitalist mantra but a governments primary remit is to protect their citizens, therefore protectionism has its place . A free for all is bad as country’s have different styles of economy which if exploited by capitalism will destroy ours eventually. If capitalism isn’t controlled to a small level then ultimately the U.K. will lose out. Reece mogg is an example of investors moving their money through London but investing the vast majority of their cash overseas. That investment only benefits a select rich few in this country who’s funds he manages . The jobs are nowhere to be seen here. Cheap labour elsewhere gives a better return. I'm not disagreeing with your observations, I think the public sector is awash with incompetence and layers of bureaucracy. However there is no comparison to be had between a public sector and private sector organisation, chalk and cheese, comes to mind. With the thousands of private sector businesses in this country there will be some badly run as well as some extremely well run, which is what you have highlighted in the businesses or organisations that have not performed so well. There are plenty of great examples of businesses doing great by their employees, customers and shareholders. The CEO who was paid more to prevent him from leaving, he was paid that because someone saw the worth, everything has worth. You didn't see his worth, but there again you are not in the market for a CEO that you want to run a business for you, I assume? If someone can give me an alternative to capitalism, that is not communism I'm all ears." I am sure there are equally a long list of well run government departments so the awash comment of mine was in regards to the over paid in many cases which I believe is as much a structural issue than just ability but some definitely will be worth their salary, I can give a long list of incompetent CEO’s who run very successful companies despite their inability. I have seen examples of that. They tend to stay for three years. The first year is to find their way and learn. The second they use to implement their programme. The third year they are slowly exposed and their strategies torn to ribbons so they then leave by mutual agreement without a negative word spoken but a very nice bank balance. The overseeing board usually sing their praises as they don’t want to be exposed for their incompetent appointment. The point you made was they are not in your opinion overpaid. I can confirm many are. So yes some are paid well and rightly earned but many are overpaid. The U.K. has one of the worlds worst worker to boss ratios on earnings. Two months ago we interviewed for a CEO. He will be paid less than the retiring CEO as he has to prove to us his ability. So depending on that who knows we may be in the market for a new candidate. In relation to a country’s system of government it’s not a simple communism or capitalism choice. Capitalism can be beneficial for innovation as you say but capitalism without controls would result in anarchy and a bankrupt U.K. From a national security situation alone our steel Industry would not exist without government protection. As for the CEO in the utility it turns out he helped to facilitate the sale and was involved in his own remuneration levels. Corrupt basically, so nothing to do with his ability. He was sacked a few years later so obviously someone saw what others didn’t.
You are trying to simplify it to only two choices of government and I’m sorry and with respect I’m not trying to be rude but that is nonsense.
| |||
"I've shared options early in a thread but I will repeat. I would increase the minimum wage to something higher. We don't need companies that are only profitable due to to pay ing low wages. There will be some short-term consequences of this and some companies may liquidate. So we can't beat up the government if that is a short-term increase in unemployment. Instead I want shareholders to to care about this because we care about it. This may be similar to esg. Indeed if we as a society, rather than a government, thought a sensible range was 40x then that maybe a factor in whether a company is included in an esg index. A lot of the discussion is that pay at the top of companies is out of control and does not reflect the contribution of these individuals. There is no correlation with company performance. There is plenty of room to transfer pay to the bottom with no detrimental effect. That will also reduce income differentials which has been clearly connected to social unrest. Do we want the state to subsidise working people survive whilst their employers make profits? Do we want large wealth discrepancies with rewards of employees not tied to performance? The money paid to the top tier of an organisation is extremely low compared to the payments made to the lower tiers, dependant on the size of the business. I think there is a misconception that the person or people at the top earning the fat cat salaries are not worth the money they are being paid. The reality is somewhat different in my opinion, and if the they do not meet the business objectives they will be gone in a flash. If we consider that a proportion of people do engage in employment that offers no sick pay, minimum wage and poor working conditions, I question why they do this? Nobody is forcing people to do this, yet they do. The private sector, needs no interference from government, other than to ensure employment laws are adhered too. I'm sure subsidies already exist for low income families and people, are those subsidies fit for purpose? In my opinion, this is the area the government should be concentrating on, not forcing an increase in salary through the workplace, which will then have a knock on effect to everyone. I’ve cut a lot of the above to save space. Not sure I agree with your first point. When Yorkshire water was privatised the CEO’s salary was tripled. When a journalist asked the chairman why he received such a pay rise the response was we don’t want to risk such talent being poached from us. Hmmm really so why wasn’t he poached during the previous ten years whilst he was on a much lower salary? I also got involved with a take over of another business which was loosing tens of millions of pounds a year. After the takeover and a full internal review of the business, changes in the operations were made. More importantly however, was that all the directors were sacked en masse bar one. The company was turned around and breaking even within six months. No lower ranks of staff were made redundant. Being senior does not always go with having ability and in my experience there are many cases of senior staff being massively over paid for their ability. The NHS and organisations such as universities and some civil servant departments are awash with ridiculously overpaid staff at a senior level. If they fail they are given a bigger budget. In the private sector they can risk the sack but if they are smart enough to rise they are quite often smart enough to hide. If the person on the production line presses the wrong button they can be gotten rid of very quickly and relatively cheaply. Sad but true. As for your point on investors only investing in high profitability low risk big returns that’s not true in a lot of cases in both public and private. The rail franchises for example raise and lose billions because they know the government will subsidise the system and so they are more or less guaranteed dividends. It’s similar in the offshore oil business or green energy . Tax breaks funded by U.K. tax payers means huge windfalls on dividends which they know the government support . The actual truth of economic return in companies such as Nissan is that without government subsidy the company would move to a cheaper location in Europe . That again is tax payer funds pushing against the really of business so again is that good senior management on the governments part or just firefighting to gain sone time? The NHS is a terrible return on investment (unless of course you invest In selling it stuff) and it’s secure funding method along with appalling management makes it a bottomless pit, which is again subsidised by the tax payer. I’m not advocating privatisation I’m advocating accountability for returns on investment. That way money would be saved and reduce the burden on the tax payer. With unregulated markets the race is always to the bottom and wages will follow. (The negative of the thatcher years). The easiest way for senior manages to protect themselves is to cut poorer paid staff purely because they can. Protecting markets is against the capitalist mantra but a governments primary remit is to protect their citizens, therefore protectionism has its place . A free for all is bad as country’s have different styles of economy which if exploited by capitalism will destroy ours eventually. If capitalism isn’t controlled to a small level then ultimately the U.K. will lose out. Reece mogg is an example of investors moving their money through London but investing the vast majority of their cash overseas. That investment only benefits a select rich few in this country who’s funds he manages . The jobs are nowhere to be seen here. Cheap labour elsewhere gives a better return. I'm not disagreeing with your observations, I think the public sector is awash with incompetence and layers of bureaucracy. However there is no comparison to be had between a public sector and private sector organisation, chalk and cheese, comes to mind. With the thousands of private sector businesses in this country there will be some badly run as well as some extremely well run, which is what you have highlighted in the businesses or organisations that have not performed so well. There are plenty of great examples of businesses doing great by their employees, customers and shareholders. The CEO who was paid more to prevent him from leaving, he was paid that because someone saw the worth, everything has worth. You didn't see his worth, but there again you are not in the market for a CEO that you want to run a business for you, I assume? If someone can give me an alternative to capitalism, that is not communism I'm all ears. I am sure there are equally a long list of well run government departments so the awash comment of mine was in regards to the over paid in many cases which I believe is as much a structural issue than just ability but some definitely will be worth their salary, I can give a long list of incompetent CEO’s who run very successful companies despite their inability. I have seen examples of that. They tend to stay for three years. The first year is to find their way and learn. The second they use to implement their programme. The third year they are slowly exposed and their strategies torn to ribbons so they then leave by mutual agreement without a negative word spoken but a very nice bank balance. The overseeing board usually sing their praises as they don’t want to be exposed for their incompetent appointment. The point you made was they are not in your opinion overpaid. I can confirm many are. So yes some are paid well and rightly earned but many are overpaid. The U.K. has one of the worlds worst worker to boss ratios on earnings. Two months ago we interviewed for a CEO. He will be paid less than the retiring CEO as he has to prove to us his ability. So depending on that who knows we may be in the market for a new candidate. In relation to a country’s system of government it’s not a simple communism or capitalism choice. Capitalism can be beneficial for innovation as you say but capitalism without controls would result in anarchy and a bankrupt U.K. From a national security situation alone our steel Industry would not exist without government protection. As for the CEO in the utility it turns out he helped to facilitate the sale and was involved in his own remuneration levels. Corrupt basically, so nothing to do with his ability. He was sacked a few years later so obviously someone saw what others didn’t.
You are trying to simplify it to only two choices of government and I’m sorry and with respect I’m not trying to be rude but that is nonsense.
"Give me meaningful alternatives | |||
" The approach of increasing wages does not work on a large scale. Increasing wages at the minimum is more than likely where the majority of cash flow is spent. This approach will come with consequences, lower quality products and services provided by the business or increased cost of the end product and service. Everything from the cost of wages, to the logistics, energy and so on, has a knock on to the cost of the product or services being made or delivered. Shareholders, do not need to invest their money, they have no social responsibility by investing their money, they are investing their money in the belief the business is being run correctly, has a plan to deliver and a good idea of the return. If you interfere with this setup from a government perspective you will upset the balance that businesses rely on when they need the money shareholders are investing to grow and progress. Shareholders will simply not risk their money on a low return. The idea of increasing educational standards to make people more employable and reduce the supply to lower paid jobs, is not feasible in practice. The lower skilled jobs will not go away, there is a need for this type of role and people. Simply paying someone more to the same job because they are better educated, isn't a thing, nor will it be. Simply raising the bar at the bottom, raises the bar for the middle and top. I don't follow this. If the state now has to make up the difference for someone to have enough money to survive on, then there will be no more money spent by those individuals. In your thesis the business model that would be "upset" is one that counts on underpaying some staff and the state providing the difference. This difference goes into their profit. Should this be maintained? A lot of the discussion is that pay at the top of companies is out of control and does not reflect the contribution of these individuals. There is no correlation with company performance. There is plenty of room to transfer pay to the bottom with no detrimental effect. That will also reduce income differentials which has been clearly connected to social unrest. Do we want the state to subsidise working people survive whilst their employers make profits? Do we want large wealth discrepancies with rewards of employees not tied to performance? The money paid to the top tier of an organisation is extremely low compared to the payments made to the lower tiers, dependant on the size of the business. I think there is a misconception that the person or people at the top earning the fat cat salaries are not worth the money they are being paid. The reality is somewhat different in my opinion, and if the they do not meet the business objectives they will be gone in a flash. If we consider that a proportion of people do engage in employment that offers no sick pay, minimum wage and poor working conditions, I question why they do this? Nobody is forcing people to do this, yet they do. The private sector, needs no interference from government, other than to ensure employment laws are adhered too. I'm sure subsidies already exist for low income families and people, are those subsidies fit for purpose? In my opinion, this is the area the government should be concentrating on, not forcing an increase in salary through the workplace, which will then have a knock on effect to everyone. It's not one guy at the top earning a huge amount. It's several. It may not be quite enough to increase the incomes of everyone at the bottom, but it will make a dent. It will,also, visibly reduce extreme employee wealth inequality. All of the data shows that senior management wage inflation has not been correlated with better company performance. They just don't deserve it, but it's become normalised. Why should society directly subsidise investor profits by artificially reducing their wage costs? The knock on effect is that people get paid properly by their employers and companies make slightly less money. If the only reason that you remain in business is that you underpay your staff then you shouldn't be there. I'm not for one moment suggesting employers should under pay their employees, but that often happens to meet the demand of customers who are generally not prepared to pay more for goods and services. The last point is the crux of the issue, are you prepared to pay more for your goods and services? Would you be happy for a x% increase on all things, not just on the things you think are worth it, everything? The sympathy and for the good of society boat, will sail long before the majority of the general public will accept increases. No matter how you shuffle the deck a private enterprise is only functioning whilst it is clearly able to bring returns that investors think are worth taking a risk on, and no amount of social reasoning will change that. The outcome of such policy would drive the money out and closure of the business, to an investor it is simply not worth it. Well, actually you are suggesting exactly that. Either the company pays or the taxpayer does. Why should it be the taxpayer? If the company makes a profit and the price is too high, then they have to cut their margin and find efficiencies to return them. That's actual capitalism. Am I prepared to? Yes, if that's the real price. No choice. Again, wage rises are not automatically inflation. Cut margins. This is particularly aimed at large companies. Small businesses may be given deregation, but that will lead to staff turnover unless they can get onto equal pay terms. It's still free market reality. You are saying that any company actually paying the true price for it's wages is not viable? Really? The nature of business has developed into the capitalist model we have today and I'm advocating is the right way, for the lack of an alternative that would actually drive innovation. What are you suggesting would work better? Reading through the thread it reads like a hybrid communism model, is that the way you would describe it? Something lost in this discussion. How are any of my suggestions "commmunist" rather than market driven? You did not directly respond to the points I raised. I am saying that the state must ensure that its citizens do not live in poverty and that society remains stable whilst minimising its effect on the market. The first part, according to almost all available data requires adequate pay and wealth differentials not being excessive. Does that make sense? I would say that if the state subsidises the salaries of the poorest such that companies take this as profit and therefore transfer wealth from poor to wealthy, that distorts both the market and society. They are not paying the true market price for wages and they increase their margin (unearned) as a result. Does that make sense? Although there is clearly a high value on good management and a strong case for linking to performance, there is nothing to justify the increase seen in executive pay relative to the rest of the population. A sensible system is possible but it is currently completely open to corruption. I cannot post links to papers, so this will have to do: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210125-why-ceos-make-so-much-money https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/27/negligible-link-between-executive-pay-and-firms-performance-says-study This also has a knock on effect of artificially inflating senior public sector pay in order to compete. The state has always had to regulate the market to level the playing field and control unfair practises. Do you agree on that? Linking executive pay to that of the rest of a company's staff could be one of them. It is, actually, a minor change to a director's responsibilities. They have to share the benefits of good company performance rather than keep it all for themselves. That will help both companies and society. You are making perfect sense, I can see the reasoning but not the practical elements playing out in the private sector as a whole. However, I could see a company such as BT, go down the route of capping their senior management salaries. I could also imagine how performance would be rewarded with healthy bonuses. Overall it would improve consumer confidence in the business, hopefully drive more sales that increase the bonuses. I might be over playing this, but that is my point, it will get played for profit. " So there is nothing that you disagree with, but you don't see how it would work? I've suggested a range of options from Py ratios (not caps) to tax breaks for socially good behaviours. All aligned with the market with a goal to achieve that can be reached however the company chooses. I thought that you wanted everything to be played for profit? It is now, but the taxpayer subsidises it. I would like to to delete that element and make better use of the money. Education as has been widely suggested, for instance. | |||
" The approach of increasing wages does not work on a large scale. Increasing wages at the minimum is more than likely where the majority of cash flow is spent. This approach will come with consequences, lower quality products and services provided by the business or increased cost of the end product and service. Everything from the cost of wages, to the logistics, energy and so on, has a knock on to the cost of the product or services being made or delivered. Shareholders, do not need to invest their money, they have no social responsibility by investing their money, they are investing their money in the belief the business is being run correctly, has a plan to deliver and a good idea of the return. If you interfere with this setup from a government perspective you will upset the balance that businesses rely on when they need the money shareholders are investing to grow and progress. Shareholders will simply not risk their money on a low return. The idea of increasing educational standards to make people more employable and reduce the supply to lower paid jobs, is not feasible in practice. The lower skilled jobs will not go away, there is a need for this type of role and people. Simply paying someone more to the same job because they are better educated, isn't a thing, nor will it be. Simply raising the bar at the bottom, raises the bar for the middle and top. I don't follow this. If the state now has to make up the difference for someone to have enough money to survive on, then there will be no more money spent by those individuals. In your thesis the business model that would be "upset" is one that counts on underpaying some staff and the state providing the difference. This difference goes into their profit. Should this be maintained? A lot of the discussion is that pay at the top of companies is out of control and does not reflect the contribution of these individuals. There is no correlation with company performance. There is plenty of room to transfer pay to the bottom with no detrimental effect. That will also reduce income differentials which has been clearly connected to social unrest. Do we want the state to subsidise working people survive whilst their employers make profits? Do we want large wealth discrepancies with rewards of employees not tied to performance? The money paid to the top tier of an organisation is extremely low compared to the payments made to the lower tiers, dependant on the size of the business. I think there is a misconception that the person or people at the top earning the fat cat salaries are not worth the money they are being paid. The reality is somewhat different in my opinion, and if the they do not meet the business objectives they will be gone in a flash. If we consider that a proportion of people do engage in employment that offers no sick pay, minimum wage and poor working conditions, I question why they do this? Nobody is forcing people to do this, yet they do. The private sector, needs no interference from government, other than to ensure employment laws are adhered too. I'm sure subsidies already exist for low income families and people, are those subsidies fit for purpose? In my opinion, this is the area the government should be concentrating on, not forcing an increase in salary through the workplace, which will then have a knock on effect to everyone. It's not one guy at the top earning a huge amount. It's several. It may not be quite enough to increase the incomes of everyone at the bottom, but it will make a dent. It will,also, visibly reduce extreme employee wealth inequality. All of the data shows that senior management wage inflation has not been correlated with better company performance. They just don't deserve it, but it's become normalised. Why should society directly subsidise investor profits by artificially reducing their wage costs? The knock on effect is that people get paid properly by their employers and companies make slightly less money. If the only reason that you remain in business is that you underpay your staff then you shouldn't be there. I'm not for one moment suggesting employers should under pay their employees, but that often happens to meet the demand of customers who are generally not prepared to pay more for goods and services. The last point is the crux of the issue, are you prepared to pay more for your goods and services? Would you be happy for a x% increase on all things, not just on the things you think are worth it, everything? The sympathy and for the good of society boat, will sail long before the majority of the general public will accept increases. No matter how you shuffle the deck a private enterprise is only functioning whilst it is clearly able to bring returns that investors think are worth taking a risk on, and no amount of social reasoning will change that. The outcome of such policy would drive the money out and closure of the business, to an investor it is simply not worth it. Well, actually you are suggesting exactly that. Either the company pays or the taxpayer does. Why should it be the taxpayer? If the company makes a profit and the price is too high, then they have to cut their margin and find efficiencies to return them. That's actual capitalism. Am I prepared to? Yes, if that's the real price. No choice. Again, wage rises are not automatically inflation. Cut margins. This is particularly aimed at large companies. Small businesses may be given deregation, but that will lead to staff turnover unless they can get onto equal pay terms. It's still free market reality. You are saying that any company actually paying the true price for it's wages is not viable? Really? The nature of business has developed into the capitalist model we have today and I'm advocating is the right way, for the lack of an alternative that would actually drive innovation. What are you suggesting would work better? Reading through the thread it reads like a hybrid communism model, is that the way you would describe it? Something lost in this discussion. How are any of my suggestions "commmunist" rather than market driven? You did not directly respond to the points I raised. I am saying that the state must ensure that its citizens do not live in poverty and that society remains stable whilst minimising its effect on the market. The first part, according to almost all available data requires adequate pay and wealth differentials not being excessive. Does that make sense? I would say that if the state subsidises the salaries of the poorest such that companies take this as profit and therefore transfer wealth from poor to wealthy, that distorts both the market and society. They are not paying the true market price for wages and they increase their margin (unearned) as a result. Does that make sense? Although there is clearly a high value on good management and a strong case for linking to performance, there is nothing to justify the increase seen in executive pay relative to the rest of the population. A sensible system is possible but it is currently completely open to corruption. I cannot post links to papers, so this will have to do: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210125-why-ceos-make-so-much-money https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/27/negligible-link-between-executive-pay-and-firms-performance-says-study This also has a knock on effect of artificially inflating senior public sector pay in order to compete. The state has always had to regulate the market to level the playing field and control unfair practises. Do you agree on that? Linking executive pay to that of the rest of a company's staff could be one of them. It is, actually, a minor change to a director's responsibilities. They have to share the benefits of good company performance rather than keep it all for themselves. That will help both companies and society. You are making perfect sense, I can see the reasoning but not the practical elements playing out in the private sector as a whole. However, I could see a company such as BT, go down the route of capping their senior management salaries. I could also imagine how performance would be rewarded with healthy bonuses. Overall it would improve consumer confidence in the business, hopefully drive more sales that increase the bonuses. I might be over playing this, but that is my point, it will get played for profit. So there is nothing that you disagree with, but you don't see how it would work? I've suggested a range of options from Py ratios (not caps) to tax breaks for socially good behaviours. All aligned with the market with a goal to achieve that can be reached however the company chooses. I thought that you wanted everything to be played for profit? It is now, but the taxpayer subsidises it. I would like to to delete that element and make better use of the money. Education as has been widely suggested, for instance." I'm pretty sure I didn't say there is nothing I don't disagree with. We are certainly on different pages, that much I can agree with. Will we ever find a mid-ground, I'm really not sure we would. However, I will watch the Californian tax implications over pay disparages with a lot of interest. | |||
"I've shared options early in a thread but I will repeat. I would increase the minimum wage to something higher. We don't need companies that are only profitable due to to pay ing low wages. There will be some short-term consequences of this and some companies may liquidate. So we can't beat up the government if that is a short-term increase in unemployment. Instead I want shareholders to to care about this because we care about it. This may be similar to esg. Indeed if we as a society, rather than a government, thought a sensible range was 40x then that maybe a factor in whether a company is included in an esg index. A lot of the discussion is that pay at the top of companies is out of control and does not reflect the contribution of these individuals. There is no correlation with company performance. There is plenty of room to transfer pay to the bottom with no detrimental effect. That will also reduce income differentials which has been clearly connected to social unrest. Do we want the state to subsidise working people survive whilst their employers make profits? Do we want large wealth discrepancies with rewards of employees not tied to performance? The money paid to the top tier of an organisation is extremely low compared to the payments made to the lower tiers, dependant on the size of the business. I think there is a misconception that the person or people at the top earning the fat cat salaries are not worth the money they are being paid. The reality is somewhat different in my opinion, and if the they do not meet the business objectives they will be gone in a flash. If we consider that a proportion of people do engage in employment that offers no sick pay, minimum wage and poor working conditions, I question why they do this? Nobody is forcing people to do this, yet they do. The private sector, needs no interference from government, other than to ensure employment laws are adhered too. I'm sure subsidies already exist for low income families and people, are those subsidies fit for purpose? In my opinion, this is the area the government should be concentrating on, not forcing an increase in salary through the workplace, which will then have a knock on effect to everyone. I’ve cut a lot of the above to save space. Not sure I agree with your first point. When Yorkshire water was privatised the CEO’s salary was tripled. When a journalist asked the chairman why he received such a pay rise the response was we don’t want to risk such talent being poached from us. Hmmm really so why wasn’t he poached during the previous ten years whilst he was on a much lower salary? I also got involved with a take over of another business which was loosing tens of millions of pounds a year. After the takeover and a full internal review of the business, changes in the operations were made. More importantly however, was that all the directors were sacked en masse bar one. The company was turned around and breaking even within six months. No lower ranks of staff were made redundant. Being senior does not always go with having ability and in my experience there are many cases of senior staff being massively over paid for their ability. The NHS and organisations such as universities and some civil servant departments are awash with ridiculously overpaid staff at a senior level. If they fail they are given a bigger budget. In the private sector they can risk the sack but if they are smart enough to rise they are quite often smart enough to hide. If the person on the production line presses the wrong button they can be gotten rid of very quickly and relatively cheaply. Sad but true. As for your point on investors only investing in high profitability low risk big returns that’s not true in a lot of cases in both public and private. The rail franchises for example raise and lose billions because they know the government will subsidise the system and so they are more or less guaranteed dividends. It’s similar in the offshore oil business or green energy . Tax breaks funded by U.K. tax payers means huge windfalls on dividends which they know the government support . The actual truth of economic return in companies such as Nissan is that without government subsidy the company would move to a cheaper location in Europe . That again is tax payer funds pushing against the really of business so again is that good senior management on the governments part or just firefighting to gain sone time? The NHS is a terrible return on investment (unless of course you invest In selling it stuff) and it’s secure funding method along with appalling management makes it a bottomless pit, which is again subsidised by the tax payer. I’m not advocating privatisation I’m advocating accountability for returns on investment. That way money would be saved and reduce the burden on the tax payer. With unregulated markets the race is always to the bottom and wages will follow. (The negative of the thatcher years). The easiest way for senior manages to protect themselves is to cut poorer paid staff purely because they can. Protecting markets is against the capitalist mantra but a governments primary remit is to protect their citizens, therefore protectionism has its place . A free for all is bad as country’s have different styles of economy which if exploited by capitalism will destroy ours eventually. If capitalism isn’t controlled to a small level then ultimately the U.K. will lose out. Reece mogg is an example of investors moving their money through London but investing the vast majority of their cash overseas. That investment only benefits a select rich few in this country who’s funds he manages . The jobs are nowhere to be seen here. Cheap labour elsewhere gives a better return. I'm not disagreeing with your observations, I think the public sector is awash with incompetence and layers of bureaucracy. However there is no comparison to be had between a public sector and private sector organisation, chalk and cheese, comes to mind. With the thousands of private sector businesses in this country there will be some badly run as well as some extremely well run, which is what you have highlighted in the businesses or organisations that have not performed so well. There are plenty of great examples of businesses doing great by their employees, customers and shareholders. The CEO who was paid more to prevent him from leaving, he was paid that because someone saw the worth, everything has worth. You didn't see his worth, but there again you are not in the market for a CEO that you want to run a business for you, I assume? If someone can give me an alternative to capitalism, that is not communism I'm all ears. I am sure there are equally a long list of well run government departments so the awash comment of mine was in regards to the over paid in many cases which I believe is as much a structural issue than just ability but some definitely will be worth their salary, I can give a long list of incompetent CEO’s who run very successful companies despite their inability. I have seen examples of that. They tend to stay for three years. The first year is to find their way and learn. The second they use to implement their programme. The third year they are slowly exposed and their strategies torn to ribbons so they then leave by mutual agreement without a negative word spoken but a very nice bank balance. The overseeing board usually sing their praises as they don’t want to be exposed for their incompetent appointment. The point you made was they are not in your opinion overpaid. I can confirm many are. So yes some are paid well and rightly earned but many are overpaid. The U.K. has one of the worlds worst worker to boss ratios on earnings. Two months ago we interviewed for a CEO. He will be paid less than the retiring CEO as he has to prove to us his ability. So depending on that who knows we may be in the market for a new candidate. In relation to a country’s system of government it’s not a simple communism or capitalism choice. Capitalism can be beneficial for innovation as you say but capitalism without controls would result in anarchy and a bankrupt U.K. From a national security situation alone our steel Industry would not exist without government protection. As for the CEO in the utility it turns out he helped to facilitate the sale and was involved in his own remuneration levels. Corrupt basically, so nothing to do with his ability. He was sacked a few years later so obviously someone saw what others didn’t.
You are trying to simplify it to only two choices of government and I’m sorry and with respect I’m not trying to be rude but that is nonsense.
Give me meaningful alternatives"I think firstly you have to explain your actual detailed view of what you believe capitalism is. I’m sure you’re pushing open doors in some instances with me but maybe we’re not understanding your belief of only two alternatives. | |||
" The approach of increasing wages does not work on a large scale. Increasing wages at the minimum is more than likely where the majority of cash flow is spent. This approach will come with consequences, lower quality products and services provided by the business or increased cost of the end product and service. Everything from the cost of wages, to the logistics, energy and so on, has a knock on to the cost of the product or services being made or delivered. Shareholders, do not need to invest their money, they have no social responsibility by investing their money, they are investing their money in the belief the business is being run correctly, has a plan to deliver and a good idea of the return. If you interfere with this setup from a government perspective you will upset the balance that businesses rely on when they need the money shareholders are investing to grow and progress. Shareholders will simply not risk their money on a low return. The idea of increasing educational standards to make people more employable and reduce the supply to lower paid jobs, is not feasible in practice. The lower skilled jobs will not go away, there is a need for this type of role and people. Simply paying someone more to the same job because they are better educated, isn't a thing, nor will it be. Simply raising the bar at the bottom, raises the bar for the middle and top. I don't follow this. If the state now has to make up the difference for someone to have enough money to survive on, then there will be no more money spent by those individuals. In your thesis the business model that would be "upset" is one that counts on underpaying some staff and the state providing the difference. This difference goes into their profit. Should this be maintained? A lot of the discussion is that pay at the top of companies is out of control and does not reflect the contribution of these individuals. There is no correlation with company performance. There is plenty of room to transfer pay to the bottom with no detrimental effect. That will also reduce income differentials which has been clearly connected to social unrest. Do we want the state to subsidise working people survive whilst their employers make profits? Do we want large wealth discrepancies with rewards of employees not tied to performance? The money paid to the top tier of an organisation is extremely low compared to the payments made to the lower tiers, dependant on the size of the business. I think there is a misconception that the person or people at the top earning the fat cat salaries are not worth the money they are being paid. The reality is somewhat different in my opinion, and if the they do not meet the business objectives they will be gone in a flash. If we consider that a proportion of people do engage in employment that offers no sick pay, minimum wage and poor working conditions, I question why they do this? Nobody is forcing people to do this, yet they do. The private sector, needs no interference from government, other than to ensure employment laws are adhered too. I'm sure subsidies already exist for low income families and people, are those subsidies fit for purpose? In my opinion, this is the area the government should be concentrating on, not forcing an increase in salary through the workplace, which will then have a knock on effect to everyone. It's not one guy at the top earning a huge amount. It's several. It may not be quite enough to increase the incomes of everyone at the bottom, but it will make a dent. It will,also, visibly reduce extreme employee wealth inequality. All of the data shows that senior management wage inflation has not been correlated with better company performance. They just don't deserve it, but it's become normalised. Why should society directly subsidise investor profits by artificially reducing their wage costs? The knock on effect is that people get paid properly by their employers and companies make slightly less money. If the only reason that you remain in business is that you underpay your staff then you shouldn't be there. I'm not for one moment suggesting employers should under pay their employees, but that often happens to meet the demand of customers who are generally not prepared to pay more for goods and services. The last point is the crux of the issue, are you prepared to pay more for your goods and services? Would you be happy for a x% increase on all things, not just on the things you think are worth it, everything? The sympathy and for the good of society boat, will sail long before the majority of the general public will accept increases. No matter how you shuffle the deck a private enterprise is only functioning whilst it is clearly able to bring returns that investors think are worth taking a risk on, and no amount of social reasoning will change that. The outcome of such policy would drive the money out and closure of the business, to an investor it is simply not worth it. Well, actually you are suggesting exactly that. Either the company pays or the taxpayer does. Why should it be the taxpayer? If the company makes a profit and the price is too high, then they have to cut their margin and find efficiencies to return them. That's actual capitalism. Am I prepared to? Yes, if that's the real price. No choice. Again, wage rises are not automatically inflation. Cut margins. This is particularly aimed at large companies. Small businesses may be given deregation, but that will lead to staff turnover unless they can get onto equal pay terms. It's still free market reality. You are saying that any company actually paying the true price for it's wages is not viable? Really? The nature of business has developed into the capitalist model we have today and I'm advocating is the right way, for the lack of an alternative that would actually drive innovation. What are you suggesting would work better? Reading through the thread it reads like a hybrid communism model, is that the way you would describe it? Something lost in this discussion. How are any of my suggestions "commmunist" rather than market driven? You did not directly respond to the points I raised. I am saying that the state must ensure that its citizens do not live in poverty and that society remains stable whilst minimising its effect on the market. The first part, according to almost all available data requires adequate pay and wealth differentials not being excessive. Does that make sense? I would say that if the state subsidises the salaries of the poorest such that companies take this as profit and therefore transfer wealth from poor to wealthy, that distorts both the market and society. They are not paying the true market price for wages and they increase their margin (unearned) as a result. Does that make sense? Although there is clearly a high value on good management and a strong case for linking to performance, there is nothing to justify the increase seen in executive pay relative to the rest of the population. A sensible system is possible but it is currently completely open to corruption. I cannot post links to papers, so this will have to do: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210125-why-ceos-make-so-much-money https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/27/negligible-link-between-executive-pay-and-firms-performance-says-study This also has a knock on effect of artificially inflating senior public sector pay in order to compete. The state has always had to regulate the market to level the playing field and control unfair practises. Do you agree on that? Linking executive pay to that of the rest of a company's staff could be one of them. It is, actually, a minor change to a director's responsibilities. They have to share the benefits of good company performance rather than keep it all for themselves. That will help both companies and society. You are making perfect sense, I can see the reasoning but not the practical elements playing out in the private sector as a whole. However, I could see a company such as BT, go down the route of capping their senior management salaries. I could also imagine how performance would be rewarded with healthy bonuses. Overall it would improve consumer confidence in the business, hopefully drive more sales that increase the bonuses. I might be over playing this, but that is my point, it will get played for profit. So there is nothing that you disagree with, but you don't see how it would work? I've suggested a range of options from Py ratios (not caps) to tax breaks for socially good behaviours. All aligned with the market with a goal to achieve that can be reached however the company chooses. I thought that you wanted everything to be played for profit? It is now, but the taxpayer subsidises it. I would like to to delete that element and make better use of the money. Education as has been widely suggested, for instance. I'm pretty sure I didn't say there is nothing I don't disagree with. We are certainly on different pages, that much I can agree with. Will we ever find a mid-ground, I'm really not sure we would. However, I will watch the Californian tax implications over pay disparages with a lot of interest. " So you want the taxpayer to subsidise company profits by allowing them to underpay wages? You want executive pay to have no limit regardless of performance? You don't think that the state should prevent poverty or regulate market failures? You don't think that extreme financial inequality leads to social problems? What are the things that you want and don't want? | |||
"So you want the taxpayer to subsidise company profits by allowing them to underpay wages? You want executive pay to have no limit regardless of performance? You don't think that the state should prevent poverty or regulate market failures? You don't think that extreme financial inequality leads to social problems? What are the things that you want and don't want?" First point: you have suggested that companies should reduce the senior management wage bill and transfer that money downwards to supplement the lower salaried staff. is that correct? Second point: I have not said this it at all. I said they will be paid what they are thought to be worth by the person / board. Third point: I do think the state should prevent poverty, I never once said they shouldn't. I have also been very clear that the state should not interfere in the running of a lawfully run business. If laws need to change then that is the right of government and the people we empower to make those decisions. Forth point: financial inequality leads to social problems? We have a national minimum wage, are social problems occurring because that wage is not equal to a middle income earner, for example? What are you proposing here, what do you see as the issue? Is the minimum wage too low? Do you think everyone should be paid the same? I want innovation and growth. I want people to better themselves. I agree with improved education as a means to this but it is not a silver bullet. I do not want interference from government bodies in how a business structures its pay grades, and punish them through tax enforcement. This will not work and no matter what is put in place, a workaround will be found and usually they hurt the people who can least afford it. | |||
| |||
"So you want the taxpayer to subsidise company profits by allowing them to underpay wages? You want executive pay to have no limit regardless of performance? You don't think that the state should prevent poverty or regulate market failures? You don't think that extreme financial inequality leads to social problems? What are the things that you want and don't want? First point: you have suggested that companies should reduce the senior management wage bill and transfer that money downwards to supplement the lower salaried staff. is that correct? Second point: I have not said this it at all. I said they will be paid what they are thought to be worth by the person / board. Third point: I do think the state should prevent poverty, I never once said they shouldn't. I have also been very clear that the state should not interfere in the running of a lawfully run business. If laws need to change then that is the right of government and the people we empower to make those decisions. Forth point: financial inequality leads to social problems? We have a national minimum wage, are social problems occurring because that wage is not equal to a middle income earner, for example? What are you proposing here, what do you see as the issue? Is the minimum wage too low? Do you think everyone should be paid the same? I want innovation and growth. I want people to better themselves. I agree with improved education as a means to this but it is not a silver bullet. I do not want interference from government bodies in how a business structures its pay grades, and punish them through tax enforcement. This will not work and no matter what is put in place, a workaround will be found and usually they hurt the people who can least afford it. " No. I have suggested that they maintain an appropriate ratio relative to the lowest paid. Money should not be transferred up by the wages of the lowest being less than livable and paying it as a bonus and dividends to the richest. I was asking. I haven't been able to follow what you think is appropriate other than the status quo. I have stated on multiple occasions that remuneration committees are a corrupt process. They all have an incentive to push payments up as they are all members of other boards. The payment plans are pretty much incomprehensible to an ordinary shareholder. You have no opinion on the fact that executive pay is uncoupled from performance and the pay of the normal staff delivering the results? This is not a market failure for you? So the state should pay for people not to live in poverty but companies should not pay an adequate wage to do so? Government should not "interfere" with running a company, but it can, and in some cases should, make laws which change how companies operate? Should Government remove R&D tax credits and other such "interference" too? Health and safety requirements? Employment protections? Do you mean that they should never change any regulations ever again because everything works perfectly? | |||
"Can the wages of the unskilled wver catch up to a (notionally) fair rate that would be considered a fair living wage when we allow an the supply side (external supply) to tilt the balance of power in the market for workers? I’ve noticed that there is a link between those advicating improvements in wages and also advocating free movement. I voted remain - but was under no illusion that a huge reason for the free movement was to arbitrage wages between poorer lower paid areas and higher wage areas to manage inflation and help corporates. This is principally why the EU expanded east too. So now we have left, do we not celebrate the return of power to the worker to get a better deal? Can we have a cheap cake, one that the baker can afford to eat too? Speaking purely from personal experience my work and wage situation has improved significantly. More importantly we are now treated as valuable employees as opposed to disposable employees as it used to be. Before the attitude of management was, well if you don't like it then tough we will just bring in someone that will replace you. The problem was they were right. I don't know if it's the after effects of covid or what but something changed. " There are some major company managers with the attitude, glad I no longer work in those sectors anymore. | |||
 | |||
"Can the wages of the unskilled wver catch up to a (notionally) fair rate that would be considered a fair living wage when we allow an the supply side (external supply) to tilt the balance of power in the market for workers? I’ve noticed that there is a link between those advicating improvements in wages and also advocating free movement. I voted remain - but was under no illusion that a huge reason for the free movement was to arbitrage wages between poorer lower paid areas and higher wage areas to manage inflation and help corporates. This is principally why the EU expanded east too. So now we have left, do we not celebrate the return of power to the worker to get a better deal? Can we have a cheap cake, one that the baker can afford to eat too?" the cheaper the ingredients of the cake are the worse the quality of the cake! If the majority of workers become poorer they are surely the majority of the country. So surely advocating low wages to increase profits or sustain an unprofitable business model. Leads to an ever dwindling GDP and a shrinking economy and a worse standard of living for all but a very few at the top of the economic ladder. It is in the countries interest to raise wages and focus on high tech, high skill value added sectors. To bring in export revenue etc... Also we are a consumer debtor economy which relies on consumerism. So we need people to have money to spend to keep it going. Low paid sectors/businesses undermine this. They should be forced to automate and or increase productivity. If not possible and if not strategically important to function of society or economy they should maybe be allowed to wither away. If these sectors are important to society or economy then they should be nationalised or subsidised. | |||
| |||
| |||
"So now there are more jobs on the market than supposedly unemployed! Never been a better time for someone to make career changes or negotiate better terms right? What more needs to be done? A magic want to upskill those who have no drive? " where are the jobs and on which sectors ? How many hours are they ? Can one simply switch into these careers or does it need years of training. There are frictional reasons for not "improving ones lot" beyond drive. | |||
"So now there are more jobs on the market than supposedly unemployed! Never been a better time for someone to make career changes or negotiate better terms right? What more needs to be done? A magic want to upskill those who have no drive? where are the jobs and on which sectors ? How many hours are they ? Can one simply switch into these careers or does it need years of training. There are frictional reasons for not "improving ones lot" beyond drive. " Indeed, but the point is that the market has not been this much in favour of the jobseeker for quite some time - so the barriers to change are lower. “Experts” were saying so on R4 this afternoon. They said it has never been a better time to enter the labour market or attempt a new role leveraging transferable skills | |||
"So now there are more jobs on the market than supposedly unemployed! Never been a better time for someone to make career changes or negotiate better terms right? What more needs to be done? A magic want to upskill those who have no drive? where are the jobs and on which sectors ? How many hours are they ? Can one simply switch into these careers or does it need years of training. There are frictional reasons for not "improving ones lot" beyond drive. Indeed, but the point is that the market has not been this much in favour of the jobseeker for quite some time - so the barriers to change are lower. “Experts” were saying so on R4 this afternoon. They said it has never been a better time to enter the labour market or attempt a new role leveraging transferable skills" I don't disagree. But this better time often still favours some groups more than others. | |||
| |||
"So now there are more jobs on the market than supposedly unemployed! Never been a better time for someone to make career changes or negotiate better terms right? What more needs to be done? A magic want to upskill those who have no drive? where are the jobs and on which sectors ? How many hours are they ? Can one simply switch into these careers or does it need years of training. There are frictional reasons for not "improving ones lot" beyond drive. Indeed, but the point is that the market has not been this much in favour of the jobseeker for quite some time - so the barriers to change are lower. “Experts” were saying so on R4 this afternoon. They said it has never been a better time to enter the labour market or attempt a new role leveraging transferable skillsI don't disagree. But this better time often still favours some groups more than others. " It does. Oddly the wages of the ‘high skilled’ are outstripping inflation by some margin, whilst the lower paid yet still in demand roles are not keeping up. That’s the ‘broken’ element at the moment and the unfairness. | |||
"these days you have to get past the algorithm bouncers before you're able to get near enough to put foot in the door. aparently an underlying reason for business whinging that they are unable to fill their vacancies. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/11/artitifical-intelligence-job-applications-screen-robot-recruiters?fr=operanews " Probably some truth in that. But like anything that’s a hurdle to navigate. Do people expect that they are hired with no effort on their part? Where’s the fun in that? | |||
| |||
