They aren't. If they took payment in shares (using the 20x/25% values as before) they would simply need to offer cash wages that are an 80th of what they earn.
30K everyone in company gets it.
- Thread starter Hagar
- Start date
They aren't. If they took payment in shares (using the 20x/25% values as before) they would simply need to offer cash wages that are an 80th of what they earn.
Deleted member 66701
D
Deleted member 66701
It prevents wealth concentration.
Sorry that doesn't make much sense? I asked whether you're only counting annual grants of stocks/options?
Are you saying that equity already allocated doesn't have to be counted? In which case this is massively flawed. However if you are counting equity already allocated then how is it counted?
Last edited:
For the most part its not, but it is desirable to reduce the pay gap between the highest and lowest earners
The problem is wages wont go up, the lowest paid will simply be out sourced
How else do you reduce the pay gap without creating massive inflation? Honest question, I would like to know from someone more educated than I am.
Last edited:
I don't see why pay gaps are a problem IMO reducing dynastic wealth would be a better move and make society fairer in the sense that we'd be more meritocratic... Becoming rich within your lifetime because you've created something or you're very good at what you do shouldn't be an issue, being incredibly rich simply because your parents were rich and their parents before them is a bigger issue.
Why should most of the land in Scotland be owned by a few dozen families, why should one Duke and then the Duke who inherits his title/estate and so on own all of Mayfair and Belgravia in perpetuity?
That is the sort of stuff that causes real inequality and has done for centuries. The fact that someone gets a huge sum for say being very good at kicking a football around though is rather more based on merit.
People making money from money which was never initially earned by them or from owning things that were merely handed down to them via complicated trusts - they occupy a big chunk of the 'rich list' and contribute a lot more towards social inequality. Entrepreneurs on the other hand create wealth rather than horde it, yet people want to punish the high wage earners who are actually producing things or providing services that contribute to our economy rather than simply owning 'stuff'.
Why should most of the land in Scotland be owned by a few dozen families, why should one Duke and then the Duke who inherits his title/estate and so on own all of Mayfair and Belgravia in perpetuity?
That is the sort of stuff that causes real inequality and has done for centuries. The fact that someone gets a huge sum for say being very good at kicking a football around though is rather more based on merit.
People making money from money which was never initially earned by them or from owning things that were merely handed down to them via complicated trusts - they occupy a big chunk of the 'rich list' and contribute a lot more towards social inequality. Entrepreneurs on the other hand create wealth rather than horde it, yet people want to punish the high wage earners who are actually producing things or providing services that contribute to our economy rather than simply owning 'stuff'.
Last edited:
Soldato
I agree with this, that the software engineer would pursue a £50k salary rather than £25k. £50k isn't overly extortionate for a skilled person.
However, I also agree with this, in that some salaries are just extortionate. I mean... bankers who are paid £8m a year plus bonuses while their counter staff (read: minions) only get £15k. How is that justified?
Because for some of them, if you didn't pay them that then they'd go elsewhere or set up their own firm. It isn't that hard to justify, do you want the person to earn you say XX-XXX million next year or do you want to kill that part of your business and let your rival earn that revenue instead when they leave and most of the team follows them.
Last edited:
Soldato
Stupid idea.
I'm all for keeping exec level salaries more in line with the impact those people have on the business (i.e: if the rake in millions for the copmpany , or prevent millions from draining out of a company... then pay them their due) ... but having an entirely flat structure is the most ridiculous idea I've heard.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Sep 2014
- Posts
- 1,160
This.
Bar the public sector. We all get paid pretty much inline with what we are worth. It's a bottom dollar scenario. I remember listening to the radio 4 program about a company that tried this, had success for about a month and then it everyone went bat****.
Soldato
The problem then is the pay culture in that industry. A multi-million wage is just too much imo, and I think a maximum wage of £500k or £1m for London or £750k for home counties. Instead of 1 bank manager working 60 hours pw earning £8m, I'd rather see a team of bank managers earning £500k each, splitting their hours between them and covering for each other on absences etc. If 1 person was to get £8m or 16 people got £500k each, the latter would go further. Hell, just £50k for me would pay off my remaining mortgage!
I think you missed the point, also it isn't 'bank managers' earning that amount. It has nothing to do with hours worked either, just revenue generated in most cases.
There was a guy at a previous firm I worked at who sat a few rows in front of me and used to come in at lunch time, sometime days he'd work for 8 hours other days he'd only work until 5... he was earning a couple of million a year and was only in his 20s.
You're talking as though people are merely appointed to certain jobs, that you could find any number of people to fill those roles and simply decide to pay them less. Maybe to put it in another way what you're proposing is that some premier league team sacks their top players and instead brings in a bunch of lower division players to job share/split the multi million pound salary between them and take it in turns to play in matches as one of the strikers - do you not see how that team might then easily be relegated and lose a lot of revenue? Like there is actually some value in having top strikers which is why they're paid so much in the first place?
There was a guy at a previous firm I worked at who sat a few rows in front of me and used to come in at lunch time, sometime days he'd work for 8 hours other days he'd only work until 5... he was earning a couple of million a year and was only in his 20s.
You're talking as though people are merely appointed to certain jobs, that you could find any number of people to fill those roles and simply decide to pay them less. Maybe to put it in another way what you're proposing is that some premier league team sacks their top players and instead brings in a bunch of lower division players to job share/split the multi million pound salary between them and take it in turns to play in matches as one of the strikers - do you not see how that team might then easily be relegated and lose a lot of revenue? Like there is actually some value in having top strikers which is why they're paid so much in the first place?
Last edited:
Absolutely this, a wage cap would create more jobs, not fewer.
Also, if someone left for another company they could only earn more if that company paid their lowest earners more as well. Even if they started their own company they would have the same earning limitations.
Raising minimum wage doesn't increase inflation luckily.
It doesn't, but it also make automating many more jobs much more viable (look at the $15 McDonald wage for example).
Whilst long term I don't think this is a bad thing at all, we should be looking to minimize the amount of labour required, short term it could have very negative effects for a lot of people.
Whilst long term I don't think this is a bad thing at all, we should be looking to minimize the amount of labour required, short term it could have very negative effects for a lot of people.
So all our premier league footballers go to the US or Spain, Germany etc.. No English team has a chance of winning in Europe ever again, the Premier league that generates millions in TV revenue from around the world now has much much less appeal and is surpassed by MLS in the US etc..
It isn't really going to create any jobs, it is just going to kill off or massively reduce in size a bunch of companies (teams) who will likely not need so many staff any more.
while we're at it might as well kill off F1 teams...
those are the easier to explain examples but you'd also massively reduce our financial services sector (a huge % of our economy) and a lot of professional services businesses too
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Sep 2014
- Posts
- 1,160
Exactly.