A new and possible more just pay system is in the working

[Respenus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8410489.stm

This just might become a new turning point in Capitalism. Looking at everything and not just one specific detail about someone's work. The amount of zeros that come after each balance sheet don't mean that society proper has function. The article said that this doesn't mean that salaries should rise. I say they should be representative of how much work and good you for your society. Together with certain actions taken by European governments, the effect of which (if any) will be seen in the future, this might just be the end of the City of London and other similar financial zones of power.

[OneToughHerring]

Good points but the BBC often quotes studies that don't really lead to anything. The UK is a pretty archaic society where class distinctions are very much alive, I don't think this study will change anything. Especially with a right-winger like Brown representing the labour and the tories clamoring for more power.

I'd say it's more likely that things will just get worse and bankers etc. will continue to rob more for every pound they destroy.

[Respenus]

I agree, but you must look at the larger picture. Data from said study can be extrapolated for other states or similar studies can be done in other states. Once the larger picture is seen, more pressure will be put on those jobs in society which destroy, rather than create new value.

[Letum]

Especially with a right-winger like Brown representing the labour and the tories clamoring for more power.

You never know. There might be a hung parliament next election.

I can only hope.

[Tribesman]

You never know. There might be a hung parliament next election
Would you like to buy some rope?

[Skybird]

Interesting, I always hoped that somewehre some thought would be spend on these things. It points at the same direction like my own thinking on the matter.

In a past job during university, I once had a (friendly) argument with my boss who tried to justify the excessive differences in loans between people by pointing at the higher importance of those being at the top. I asked him how he would do a day's work in his office if there would be no toilet clean enough so that he would dare to use it, and if a stuck toilet obviously interferes with his daily work routine and distracting him more and more over the hours, a toilet cleaner obviously cannot be that unimportant at all just becasue his educational status is lower (or not, one of the workers in that hall had a doctor in mathematics, another guy had a degree in philosophy). He did not really have a reply to that.

Even when taking longer, better education into account, I personally think that the differences in loans that excessive as we see them today, are not justified. Let there be a spread from bottom to top in the range of factors around 20, for example. Let the elite of the really important and well educated guys earn 20 times as much as the toilet cleaner. the rest of a business' profits is common property. Let foreign investiments and this almolst perverse system of money-leasing end. Let nobody have a right to enrich himself by just buying stocks of a company with which he has no busienss beyind this act, and where he does not work.

A company has other responsibilities than to enrich stockholders. It has oblligations to it's customers, these it has to weigh versus the imperative that the communal interest comes first, so not any desire by the customers for this or that item must be accepted (the usual argument for crap TV broadcasting so much crap: becasue oublic taste "demands" it). A company must be managed that it does no sustaining harm to the environment, that it can compensate the dmage it does, that it's economical status is health, and that the workers can make a living by their daily work, and their jobs are safe. compared to that the profit interests of foreign "investors" are meaningless and just a symptom of this perverse economic system we have.

Just imagine what you could do with that ammount of money suddenly available to - sciences. Arts. Medical research. Adressing hunger, diseases, envrionmental issues. Those billions and billions that now have ended as private bonusses for a few perpetrators doing incredible ammonts of harm to the communal interest - being available for being used for the communal and global interest instead the interest of a few greedy egoists!

I am neither a socialist nor a communist: let there be reward for those showing better performance and more engagement, let there be reward for creativity and accepting more responsibility. BUT KEEP IT IN RELATION. Leaving the regulation of bonusses and loans to free market only, just helps to accumulate more and more power in few and fewer hands that grab the more for themselves the more powerful they have become, leaving the others with less and lesser. The split between rich and poor in the Wetsern nations, is widening, everywhere, the rich become richer and fewer, the poor become more and poorer. Also, later generation do not have the same chances at the starting line the now-monopolists once had themselves. Free market always leads to it's distortion by the few trying to establish their interest monopoles, which always translates into power and money for themselves - and the prevention of free market at the cost of the many.

So keep loans and rewards in relation to what the earner actually deserves by his obligatory deeds and and voluntary engagement and function and performance and importance. Hold him responsible for where he fails (bankers and stock brokers now must want to kill me, I know). Many bankers act like they do only because they know that they will not be held repsnisble for their deeds and will not need to compensate with their private wealth - they are wasting the money of others, not their own. And shoot those damn lobbyists manipulating politics and neutralising the power of the (voting) people that way, working around the electorial mandate that way. Politics and economy must stay independant from each other. no person shall have a seat in parliament and a seat in a board of directors at the same tim - this is the classic example of a conflict of interests, isn't it. The state on behalf of the communal higher interest should regulate as little as possible, but as much as needed to keep selfishness of economic actors within limits where their damage to the communal interest remains to be relatively low, the state is both the protection shield of the community against economical greed of the few, and the authoriuty defining the general set of rules that set the frame for economic developement taking place. There shall not be a total regulation by the state, nor shall there be a anarchistic, "free" market regulating itself, since thta means monopolism. The rule of thumb is: the interest of the many ranks higher than the interest of the few, or the one. there may be ethical tjhought experiments possible poutting this rule into question under specilaised circumstances, but a state must base on rules that are valid for the general majority of cases and issues, the majority should not depend on rules that got defined by - the exceptions from the rules. exceptions should be possible, but they should not be the general rule.

The interest of the many overules the interest of the few - this of course cannot be an excuse for anarchic absence of justice and laws protecting basic rights of the few as well, thta would be totalitarianism. The decisive word here is "basic rights".

[Tribesman]

Its funny though isn't it, accountants stop people giving money to the government....well what on earth did they think people have accountants for.
accountants damage the country by devising schemes to cut the amount of money available to the government
Accountants allow people to exercise their rights by understanding the schemes the government devises which aim to rob the people of more than they should be paying.

[MothBalls]

To me there is something to be said about paying a guy millions of dollars a year because he can through a football through a donut from 60 yards away, pitch a baseball faster than 90MPH, or shoot hoops.

While the Doctor in Beverly Hills is making millions sucking fat out of rich people lard butts, the researcher working on cancer studies is making less than six digits.

It's a grand idea, I agree with it. Your salary should be based on your contribution to society and mankind in general, not how many people you can entertain or how fast you can run. Too bad it will never happen.

[XabbaRus]

Nothing wrong with a class structure.

Quite frankly things started coming apart when John Major stated that we have a classless society.

Regardless of what country there is and always be a class system of one form or the other.

[SteamWake]

A "just" pay system ? :shifty:

[August]

Pay has always been based on how many people can do a particular job.

The Banker makes more than the toilet cleaner because he has the education and smarts to work with large amounts of money without screwing it up. How many cleaning ladies would you trust with your savings?

The baseball star is paid a lot because very few people can hit a big league fastball.

Now while it'd be nice to cut high paying salaries in half you're never gonna see a well paid janitor because he's just too easily replaced.

[Letum]

You can be Jo Idiot in a job that anyone could do and still be a millionaire
if you own enough capital and employ someone who isn't a utter idiot to
tend to it.
Equally you could be the best car salesman in the world, but with out the
capital to set up a workshop or factory, your never gonna make a million.

It is often rank by merit for employees, but always rank by capital for
employers unless you naturally have, or manage to find your own means of
production for free, but that is very rare.

It's not especially fair, but it never could be. Even tho everyone is
competent enough to be Jo Idiot above, someone still needs to scrub
the bogs and every job in-between.

[SteamWake]

Yes its true you too can be an millionare if you have enough capitol :03:

[Snestorm]

There are many factors effecting pay scales.
Brains, braun, trustworthyness, replacability, skill, marketability, dispopularity of the task, risk factor, osv.

Rearranging the stacking order is probably not a good idé.
Keeping the top and bottom from having too big a gap tends to work well.

[Skybird]

Keeping the top and bottom from having too big a gap tends to work well.
That's the point.

Also, what Letum said.

[Sailor Steve]

Sports figures. They used to be the pawns of the owners. They were lucky if they made enough to live on. Back in 1919 the players of the Chicago White Sox were so badly treated that they took money from gamblers to lose the World Series, which they were guaranteed to win. This is fabulously portrayed in the book and movie Eight Men Out.

Today the owner needs to fill his seats, and winners do that. Is player X worth $20 million per year? Maybe not to you or me, but to the owner he obviously is or he wouldn't get that much.

The same is true of actors and musicians. If I play at a local club and get $50, that's what I'm worth. But if everybody suddenly wants my record and I make $2 million, am I not worth that? Who decides?

A new movie is being made. The producers and director think that Johnny Depp will be perfect for the role, and make them a lot more money. Depp says he wants $15 million just to show up. The powers-that-be say "No! Too much!" Depp agrees to a lesser amount, or they find somebody else. On the other hand they say "Yeah, we need him, and he's worth it!"

Is he worth it? Who decides? The filmmakers, or some lawmaker?

Legally-mandated wage caps sound good on paper, but the only way to enforce them is to pass laws, and that means that you give yourself the power to force others to do what you think is right, and that's tyranny all over again.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Yes its true you too can be an millionare if you have enough capitol :03:

Or you get it the old fashioned way, by inheriting it.

[Snestorm]

That's the point.

Also, what Letum said.

Agreed.

[Snestorm]

Sports figures. They used to be the pawns of the owners. They were lucky if they made enough to live on. Back in 1919 the players of the Chicago White Sox were so badly treated that they took money from gamblers to lose the World Series, which they were guaranteed to win. This is fabulously portrayed in the book and movie Eight Men Out.

Today the owner needs to fill his seats, and winners do that. Is player X worth $20 million per year? Maybe not to you or me, but to the owner he obviously is or he wouldn't get that much.

The same is true of actors and musicians. If I play at a local club and get $50, that's what I'm worth. But if everybody suddenly wants my record and I make $2 million, am I not worth that? Who decides?

A new movie is being made. The producers and director think that Johnny Depp will be perfect for the role, and make them a lot more money. Depp says he wants $15 million just to show up. The powers-that-be say "No! Too much!" Depp agrees to a lesser amount, or they find somebody else. On the other hand they say "Yeah, we need him, and he's worth it!"

Is he worth it? Who decides? The filmmakers, or some lawmaker?

Legally-mandated wage caps sound good on paper, but the only way to enforce them is to pass laws, and that means that you give yourself the power to force others to do what you think is right, and that's tyranny all over again.

Entertainment, which includes sports, falls into the category of Marketability.

[August]

You can be Jo Idiot in a job that anyone could do and still be a millionaire if you own enough capital and employ someone who isn't a utter idiot to tend to it.

"A fool and his money are soon parted" would seem to cover that situation quite nicely.

[MothBalls]

Sports figures. They used to be the pawns of the owners. They were lucky if they made enough to live on. Back in 1919 the players of the Chicago White Sox were so badly treated that they took money from gamblers to lose the World Series, which they were guaranteed to win. This is fabulously portrayed in the book and movie Eight Men Out.

Today the owner needs to fill his seats, and winners do that. Is player X worth $20 million per year? Maybe not to you or me, but to the owner he obviously is or he wouldn't get that much.

The same is true of actors and musicians. If I play at a local club and get $50, that's what I'm worth. But if everybody suddenly wants my record and I make $2 million, am I not worth that? Who decides?

A new movie is being made. The producers and director think that Johnny Depp will be perfect for the role, and make them a lot more money. Depp says he wants $15 million just to show up. The powers-that-be say "No! Too much!" Depp agrees to a lesser amount, or they find somebody else. On the other hand they say "Yeah, we need him, and he's worth it!"

Is he worth it? Who decides? The filmmakers, or some lawmaker?

Legally-mandated wage caps sound good on paper, but the only way to enforce them is to pass laws, and that means that you give yourself the power to force others to do what you think is right, and that's tyranny all over again.

I agree with everything you're saying. It makes perfect sense, if your a capitalist. My point is that there is a fundamental flaw in any society that places a higher value on entertainment than ourselves. It just shows where our priorities are and how our entire system works.

Some of the most important jobs in the US are some of the lowest paying. If you look at the wages for teachers, police, the military, fire and EMS services and compare them to the outrageous salaries paid to sports figures and performers, that's where I think there is a flaw. It's easy to see the difference and why there is one. One group is paid from public money, the other from private money.

I doubt we'll see eye to eye on this issue. Since we disagree, I think we should start seeing other people.

[August]

Some of the most important jobs in the US are some of the lowest paying. If you look at the wages for teachers, police, the military, fire and EMS services and compare them to the outrageous salaries paid to sports figures and performers, that's where I think there is a flaw. It's easy to see the difference and why there is one. One group is paid from public money, the other from private money.

Imagine what your tax bill would be if we payed every cop, teacher, soldier, sailor, airman, fireman and EMS tech in the nation what they pay Johnny Depp.

[Sailor Steve]

It's easy to see the difference and why there is one. One group is paid from public money, the other from private money.
Very true. Unfortunately increasing the public money means increasing the money taken from the public. The left (in the US anyway) says that government is the solution, and the right says that government is the problem. And the real answer is beyond any of us to resolve. Fairness vs freedom? Equality vs individuality? I don't know if those are even the right questions, let alone any of the answers. And I don't trust most of the people who claim they do.

Since we disagree, I think we should start seeing other people.
But...but...you promised!:cry:

[Onkel Neal]

Pay has always been based on how many people can do a particular job.

The Banker makes more than the toilet cleaner because he has the education and smarts to work with large amounts of money without screwing it up. How many cleaning ladies would you trust with your savings?

The baseball star is paid a lot because very few people can hit a big league fastball.

Now while it'd be nice to cut high paying salaries in half you're never gonna see a well paid janitor because he's just too easily replaced.

Agreed. Now, if we can only find a system that revokes these high paid guys' savings when they screw up, I will be happy. :cool:

[Sailor Steve]

Good point. When the cleaning lady screws up we don't give her a bonus and tell her to name her own price.

[nikimcbee]

They reportedly destroy £7 of value for every £1 they earn.

Yeah, wait until the interest rates go up.
What a dumb study. If their looking for drags on society, how about they do a study on lawyers and gov't employees.

I have no sympathy for the gov't class.

[Wolfehunter]

When are you guys going to realize your slaves? Pay your masters... :haha:

[August]

This goes against my normal libertarian leanings but maybe we need a national salary cap. A limit to the total amount of compensation any one person can receive in a year.

Hey, it's worked pretty well for the NFL. :DL

[Letum]

This goes against my normal libertarian leanings but maybe we need a national salary cap. A limit to the total amount of compensation any one person can receive in a year.

Hey, it's worked pretty well for the NFL. :DL

I'm no economist, so take all this with a pinch of salt...

I don't like caps.
There should still be wage competition for high earners.

Exponential wage tax would be better.

Something like this: (totally made up numbers)

Wage - Tax
1m - 30%
2m - 35%
3m - 45%
4m - 60%
[...]
20m - 98%
30m - 98.5%
[...]
10,000m - 99.995%
Etc.

That way you can still pay someone 1000m, it's just gonna be very inefficient.
The other advantage over caps is extra tax revenue.

[AVGWarhawk]

I think we should just go back to the barter system. :up:

[Letum]

I think wealth should be divided according to post counts.

[Letum]

ed: Double post. Sorry.

Ca-ching!

[heartc]

Pay has always been based on how many people can do a particular job.

The Banker makes more than the toilet cleaner because he has the education and smarts to work with large amounts of money without screwing it up. How many cleaning ladies would you trust with your savings?

The baseball star is paid a lot because very few people can hit a big league fastball.

Now while it'd be nice to cut high paying salaries in half you're never gonna see a well paid janitor because he's just too easily replaced.

Pssst. Your post contains too much common sense. That goes against the enlightened religion of Bull****, which is striving to form utter confusion into a doctrin, so that we'll all be together in peace when our Western societies go down the toilet and are consumed by those waiting down there, hoping for it so that no one will be left to notice their dirty smell.

[August]

I'm no economist, so take all this with a pinch of salt...

I don't like caps.
There should still be wage competition for high earners.

Exponential wage tax would be better.

They are the same thing in the end except that your way sounds a lot more complicated.

A simple cap somewhere in the mid range of present high paying salaries, say around 50 million total compensation. Anything over that is taxed at 100%. I'd also favor allowing a percentage of it to be reinvested back into the persons business, say for hiring more employees.

[Aramike]

Pssst. Your post contains too much common sense. That goes against the enlightened religion of Bull****, which is striving to form utter confusion into a doctrin, so that we'll all be together in peace when our Western societies go down the toilet and are consumed by those waiting down there, hoping for it so that no one will be left to notice their dirty smell.:up:

Reading this thread from the beginning, I was about to hammer out nearly the same response August made.

The bottom line is this: why would anyone in their right mind educate themselves well enough to be a banker when they can make a more lucrative living as a janitor right out of the gate? Or are you suggesting that bankers altogether are unnecessary (which is equally absurd, as is the liquid form of economics going to merely handle itself)?

Like someone else said, what a silly study, as frankly all studies are when they are commissioned for the purpose of proving a point rather than gathering a fact.

[Aramike]

Oh, and by the way, I don't think the government should impose any executive pay cap on American businesses.

Actually, I have what I believe to be a far more effective solution: repeal the Capital Gains Tax, EXCEPT from gains made from businesses who have any executive making more than $10m a year. That way, if the executive is talented enough and providing the results needed to still financially lure investors in even though they will be levied an additional tax for investing in the company, he's worth the pay. If not, investors will drop like flies FORCING the company to reduce executive pay in order to attract capital.

[August]

Pssst. :) :salute:

[August]

Oh, and by the way, I don't think the government should impose any executive pay cap on American businesses.

Actually, I have what I believe to be a far more effective solution: repeal the Capital Gains Tax, EXCEPT from gains made from businesses who have any executive making more than $10m a year. That way, if the executive is talented enough and providing the results needed to still financially lure investors in even though they will be levied an additional tax for investing in the company, he's worth the pay. If not, investors will drop like flies FORCING the company to reduce executive pay in order to attract capital.

I like your idea better than mine...