Associate
- Joined
- 7 Sep 2014
- Posts
- 1,160
Why do we need to tackle wage inequality at all?
The real battle is absolute poverty, not people needing wage equality imo
30K everyone in company gets it.
- Thread starter Hagar
- Start date
Why do we need to tackle wage inequality at all?
The real battle is absolute poverty, not people needing wage equality imo
Because they're one and the same, unless the wages of the lowest paid rise faster than the average then poverty will increase, as would wage inequality.
I'm not sure what you're trying to address - the fact that some people earn more than others.. meh so what?
I don't see why earning a large salary or building a successful business is an issue, I think dynastic wealth perhaps is an issue and I've already put forth my views here:
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29412326&postcount=68
not really 'relative poverty' does sure, but that isn't so worrying... I mean relative poverty decreased during the financial crisis simply because stocks fell and rich people became less rich... poor people didn't become any less poor in absolute terms but there were suddenly less people classed as being in 'poverty' simply because the rich weren't so rich
the other poster specifically state 'absolute poverty' which is rather different and doesn't require low wages to rise faster than average in order to be reduced
Soldato
would never work in a specialised or hi-tech industry like Pharma or Engineering, there is no way you re getting Phd's and full on research scientists doing low rent work or paying them the same as the cleaners.
it's a nice utopian notion that will never take off in areas that required dedicated and lengthy training, education and specialisation.
it's a nice utopian notion that will never take off in areas that required dedicated and lengthy training, education and specialisation.
I have no issue with some people earning more, you're making me out to be a communist here. Just that no one person should be earning 100-500x more than another for doing the same amount of work.
I agree, but I think it's possible to build a company without making hundreds of billions in personal wealth at the detriment of your employees. But yeah, inherited wealth should be very heavily taxed.
Soldato
No
if the cost of living remains fairly stable and wages increase at the same rate as this then absolute poverty does not increase. you are quoting poverty as being a comparison between someone who earns e.g 30K v some Toff who is on £1 million. The 30K person is not poor as they can still live, but of ocurse when you compare them to the toff you think wow they are poor.
Regardless of what anyone thinks real poverty does not actually exist in this country. Real poverty =
and
whne people start erecting those blue tarps outside the grounds of the plush marble lined hotels in london to live in then I'll agree that we have real poverty as opposed to contrived poverty of jealousy because hey I want the millions the Cameron and his Toffs squirrel away too right ?
What do you even mean by 'the same amount of work'? People earning super high pay packages generally aren't paid per hour.
There isn't much comparison between say the founder of facebook and a premier league footballer or between a premier league footballer and a guy who cleans the stands. I don't see why their incomes even need to be compared - if you're doing a low or no skilled job then you're doing something anyone can do and so long as there are others looking for employment then no skills = minimum wage in lots of instances. Unless you're adding additional value then why should you be paid more?
On the other hand if you're creating immense value somewhere then why shouldn't you get a share? A football club will earn millions in TV revenue, if the players are getting a lesser share of it due to some arbitrary intervention based on some subjective view of 'fairness' then you're simply channeling more funds to management salaries or shareholder dividends. Why should fat cats and investors get to keep on talented players at arbitrarily cheaper prices and get richer off it (at least until the players all quit, move overseas then the club's revenue drops massively leading to job losses as pointed out earlier).
Why is it at the detriment of employees? Do you think facebook employees are not happy with their (often) above market rate pay packages? The fact that the founder has multiple billions (which he's mostly pledged to give away anyway) is utterly irrelevant - he created the thing! Most of them joined well after it was already a success. Plenty of the ones who joined pre-IPO are millionaires anyway and hardly complaining and the very early employees are multi millionaires or billionaires in their own right - yet the founder still counts as someone who has earned many many multiples more than a lot of them.
Your post has literally zero relevance.
A: I never said someone who earns £30k lives in poverty
B: I never said poverty in the UK is comparable to 3rd world countries
All I said was poverty will increase unless the wages of the lowest paid increase more quickly (or at least at parity with the average), which is factually correct.
What's your point? One owner of one company has pledged most of his earnings to charity (along with Buffet, Gates etc.) which is great. He could have done that at the point he was paid, making it tax deductible and not contributing to their earnings, which in the model I proposed wouldn't have penalized them in any way.
Do you think Foxconn pay their employees a fair share based on their revenue? Or Walmart? Or Exxon? Or China Railway? Just because one company treats its employees fairly (which is all I was suggesting in the first place!) doesn't mean they all do.
Man of Honour
The business has been functioning this way since 1977, so the system must work. Including whatever managerial work needs to be done, obviously.
I'm not sure about how far it would scale up, but they employ ~150 people so it's not just a handful of friends working together.
But you've not proposed a model? You mentioned something about salary multiples but it seems to fall apart when equity is brought into the picture, at least you gave up on trying to explain how it could be implemented as you've not clarified whether it applied to new allocations of equity or existing equity held by business owners/founders etc.. (and indeed how it would apply to existing equity).
In the facebook example he's owned the equity since it was founded and then diluted his equity as he gained investors and grew the company - so what on earth does 'He could have done that at the point he was paid' even mean in that context? He gets paid an annual salary of one dollar! The equity he has he's owned since it was worth $0 at inception and he still owns it now, albeit he has pledged to give it away.
You've then voiced support for arbitrary salary caps proposed by another poster with some vague claim that they would somehow create jobs
And I'm still not seeing the issue you're trying to resolve in the first place by capping income? Other than some ideological position that people shouldn't earn 'too much'.
I don't see what foxconn has to do with anything but the likes of Exxon and Walmart, at least in so far as where they operate in free markets, have to compete for talent like anyone else.
Last edited:
you said that in relation to a poster talking about absolute poverty - if you're referring to absolute poverty you're not factually correct, if you're talking about relative poverty then that is a different matter and your statement is irrelevant to the post you actually quoted
Soldato
/OcUK forums.
Soldato
I grew up a mile or two from Suma and I remember when it started up. A couple of old friends have worked there since it began. 30k is a great wage in Calderdale. The thing is Suma don't need that many highly-skilled workers. That is how they can operate this way.
Caporegime
Good for them if it works and they are happy
I love the way it blows some people's minds.
I love the way it blows some people's minds.
Soldato
How big is Suma or whatever they are called? How many employees does it have?
Soldato
Good luck to them and I respect their attempt. But somewhere in the darkness, Ayn Rand is cackling about the Twentieth Century Motor Company.
“Well, we got what we asked for. By the time we saw what it was that we’d asked for, it was too late. We were trapped, with no place to go. The best men among us left the factory in the first week of the plan. We lost our best engineers, superintendents, foremen and highest-skilled workers. A man of self-respect doesn’t turn into a milch cow for anybody. Some able fellows tried to stick it out, but they couldn’t take it for long. We kept losing our men, they kept escaping from the factory like from a pesthole - till we had nothing left except the men of need, but none of the men of ability.
“Well, we got what we asked for. By the time we saw what it was that we’d asked for, it was too late. We were trapped, with no place to go. The best men among us left the factory in the first week of the plan. We lost our best engineers, superintendents, foremen and highest-skilled workers. A man of self-respect doesn’t turn into a milch cow for anybody. Some able fellows tried to stick it out, but they couldn’t take it for long. We kept losing our men, they kept escaping from the factory like from a pesthole - till we had nothing left except the men of need, but none of the men of ability.
What makes you think it has blown anyone's mind?