Does Relative Poverty matter?

jp · 23-11-2006, 02:53 PM

A worthwhile read on this:

http://freebornjohn.blogspot.com/200...f-polly-t.html

mkpdavies · 23-11-2006, 03:13 PM

He sounds like my kind of person.

Hereward the Wake · 23-11-2006, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eublues

To deal with absolute poverty there has to be some sort of safety net (for UK citizens only!).

Relative poverty is also an issue - because massive disparities damage the social cohesion that a healthy society needs and become self-sustaining, and because the mega rich become much too powerful.

In the last 20 years or so the gap between the lowest paid in many public or private sector organisations and the highest has gone from about 5-10x to more like 20x.

Some sort of wealth tax and inheritance tax is fair - but how to do it without creating undesirable consequences I don't know. UKIP should be working on this.

Right on. You said it better than I could.

David Agnew · 28-12-2006, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eublues

In the last 20 years or so the gap between the lowest paid in many public or private sector organisations and the highest has gone from about 5-10x to more like 20x.

What would be your opinion of a law that said that in any British organisation, the best paid manager may not be paid more than, say, twenty times more than the lowest paid employee?

Besoeker · 28-12-2006, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Agnew

What would be your opinion of a law that said that in any British organisation, the best paid manager may not be paid more than, say, twenty times more than the lowest paid employee?

I think that might not work.
It would effectively set a cap on earnings at about 20 times minimum wage across a broad range of companies. Employers who want to compete for particular skills would have no bargaining power.
And it wouldn't be possible to offer incentives the high rollers to get out there and compete fiercely for business if their rewards don't reflect their success.
Apart from anything else, it would be a nightmare to police.

In general, I don't agree with government capping company salaries.
It is up to the company to decide how much it is worth to recruit, retain, and motivate its employees.

Just my two pence worth.

Westcountryman · 28-12-2006, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Agnew

What would be your opinion of a law that said that in any British organisation, the best paid manager may not be paid more than, say, twenty times more than the lowest paid employee?

I think that might not work.
It would effectively set a cap on earnings at about 20 times minimum wage across a broad range of companies. Employers who want to compete for particular skills would have no bargaining power.
And it wouldn't be possible to offer incentives the high rollers to get out there and compete fiercely for business if their rewards don't reflect their success.
Apart from anything else, it would be a nightmare to police.

In general, I don't agree with government capping company salaries.
It is up to the company to decide how much it is worth to recruit, retain, and motivate its employees.

Just my two pence worth.

I agree, and it would be difficult to enforce too.

Besoeker · 28-12-2006, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

How does someone who isn't that brilliant academically acheive? The system is totally set up against them. It almost doesn't matter how hard they work, there will always be a limit on what they can earn. Is it any wonder that a number of people in that position choose to stop playing by the rules.

Throw into the mix a load of cheap competition from mass immigration and the effects of outsourcing from globalisation. How exactly is someone who doesn't have a silver spoon in their mouth at birth, or the brains to do anything other than the micky mouse jobs that our economy now creates, supposed to "get on"? Hard work won't cut it any more, it has to be the RIGHT kind of hard work, or even just the right kind of work.

In the past this "underclass" of people could still make themselves a good life, simply by working hard in a manual labour job, or even picking up a trade in manufacturing. You didn't have to go to university, indeed that was just for the very brainy. Now if you don't go to University you are treated almost like a reject.

I think there is a whole section of people that feel they can't win within the system now. They see it as unfair and see opportunities in the black market and criminal world, where they can do well for themselves.

Can you blame them for choosing to play by different rules?

Whilst I don't agree with all of that, I understand what you are getting at.
I'm probably quite a bit older than you. I think, to some extent, you are viewing the past through rose tinted glasses. By the standards of the period when I grew, up people employed for manual labour now have a considerably better lifestyle than they had then. People working in manufacturing have better welfare facilities, better working conditions, and better safety.

That said, I agree with your point about immigration. Expanding the EU to include eastern European countries was bound to result in an influx of economic migrants. It is hard to fathom why our current incumbents didn't see that coming and are only now considering measures to limit it.
Doubtless, the rising labour market resulting from the influx will put downward pressure on wage levels if it is assumed that those migrants will accept, and can survive on, lower wages. If they are young, single and unmortgaged they probably can.

Your point about Universities is also one with which I agree. A degree now doesn't have the same clout it did. Blair commented that he wanted to see 50% of young people in university. Education, education, education.
This is a real paradox.
Most jobs don't require a degree. Postman, plumber, sparky, chef, welder, buyer, train driver, telephonist, storeman, truck driver, website designer, MP (oops, that's not a real job), television presenter, desk jockey, customer service manager, shop assistant, etc...
Yet there are now fees as a disincentive. If you want your child to go to university it will cost you out an arm and a leg. Have more than one go and it could be unaffordable.
If I were being cynical I might see it as a means of getting a proportion of school leavers not to appear on the unemployment stats at minimum cost.

On your point about some people not being brilliant academically I would say this.
You can provide equal legislation for all people. You cannot legislate to make all people equal.

Final point for now...
I don't agree with anyone playing outside the rules. Sure, I can see how certain circumstances might engender such behaviour but, yes, I would blame them for doing so.

23-11-2006, 03:13 PM	#12 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,112 Party: Libertarian Party	He sounds like my kind of person. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

23-11-2006, 02:53 PM	#11 (permalink)
jp Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,001	A worthwhile read on this: http://freebornjohn.blogspot.com/200...f-polly-t.html