Benefits Street

[Guest MattP]

All this talk about a minimum wage is a red herring. The minimum wage doesn't exist. You really think immigrants, work gangs, student workers and many others get "minimum" wage?

 

What we should look at is a maximum wage, a salary cap for both employees and employers.

 

What a great way to make every employer lose his best talents and workers.

[Guest]

Not only is that ,imo, immoral , it would also mean that all the best talent would leave the country.

 

How can a question of money be moral or immoral?

 

If it can then 1 person earning a thousand times more than another when both put the same effort and time into their work is surely far more immoral.

 

Neither would it mean that the best talent left the country. Some would but not so many and others would be attracted in their place.

 

You are aware that the "brain drain" exists even though there is no maximum wage don't you?

[The God Emperor]

How can a question of money be moral or immoral?

 

If it can then 1 person earning a thousand times more than another when both put the same effort and time into their work is surely far more immoral.

 

Neither would it mean that the best talent left the country. Some would but not so many and others would be attracted in their place.

 

You are aware that the "brain drain" exists even though there is no maximum wage don't you?

it's not a question of effort. you can work very hard cleaning toilets but at the end of the day anyone can do that so the pay isnt going to be as much as a job that requires someone with qualifications and experience.

some one earning more than someone else doesn't hurt anyone, wealth is not a fixed pie where if someone has more someone must have less.

and although a brain drain exists without a maximum wage introducing one will make it 100 times worse.

[Guest]

What a great way to make every employer lose his best talents and workers.

 

That has been proven to be false. A lack of jobs / a stagnant/declining economy / an increase in tax / and others have been shown to be more likely to cause a brain drain. even then the "brain drain" simply opens up opportunities for others who haven't left the country.  

 

A brain drain has happened in England in the past, more recently in France.

 

interesting point (at least to me) The city with the 8th largest French population in the world is London (that includes every city in France).

[Webbo]

How can a question of money be moral or immoral?

 

If it can then 1 person earning a thousand times more than another when both put the same effort and time into their work is surely far more immoral.

 

Neither would it mean that the best talent left the country. Some would but not so many and others would be attracted in their place.

 

You are aware that the "brain drain" exists even though there is no maximum wage don't you?

It's immoral because the sole reason it would exist is to appease envy. What other people earn affects you not a jot so what give you the right to limit someone else's ambition?

[Webbo]

That has been proven to be false. A lack of jobs / a stagnant/declining economy / an increase in tax / and others have been shown to be more likely to cause a brain drain. even then the "brain drain" simply opens up opportunities for others who haven't left the country.  

 

A brain drain has happened in England in the past, more recently in France.

 

interesting point (at least to me) The city with the 8th largest French population in the world is London (that includes every city in France).

Doesn't that just defeat your own argument?

[Guest]

it's not a question of effort. you can work very hard cleaning toilets but at the end of the day anyone can do that so the pay isnt going to be as much as a job that requires someone with qualifications and experience.

 

 

It would be better if pay were a question of effort and not hereditary opportunity. Why should someone who works hard but was unfortunate enough to not be born with the necessary DNA be paid more than someone who was?

 

I'd also say that just because someone can do a job that is more highly paid doesn't mean that they could or would do a less well paid job. I can think of hundreds of "lesser" jobs that many well paid people couldn't do. As for your "cleaning toilets" example, it's not a very good one, but I'd like to see how many "intellectuals" would be willing to clean up shit 8 hours a day 5 days a week for 40 years. I'd rather top myself.

 

Some of us have found it easy to get qualifications and money but we are the lucky ones.

[Guest MattP]

That has been proven to be false. A lack of jobs / a stagnant/declining economy / an increase in tax / and others have been shown to be more likely to cause a brain drain. even then the "brain drain" simply opens up opportunities for others who haven't left the country.  

 

A brain drain has happened in England in the past, more recently in France.

 

interesting point (at least to me) The city with the 8th largest French population in the world is London (that includes every city in France).

 

It hasn't been proven at all as what you are suggesting has never been put into practice.

 

Is that really an interesting point? The Paris to London train is now quicker than the Manchester to London one, I'd say that coupled with EU freedom of movement means it was always likely to happen.

 

France also has the 8th highest amount of British ex pats now. (excluding Hong Kong from the statistics)

[Guest]

some one earning more than someone else doesn't hurt anyone, wealth is not a fixed pie where if someone has more someone must have less.

and although a brain drain exists without a maximum wage introducing one will make it 100 times worse.

 

Doesn't this eliminate the argument for NOT having a minimum wage? If the pie is not fixed than let's double the minimum wage.

 

In most cases the pie is fixed - otherwise debt would never exist for companies, people or countries.

 

Salary caps in sports have managed to bring more equality and less failure (as in bankruptcy etc...) without weakening the quality.

[The God Emperor]

It would be better if pay were a question of effort and not hereditary opportunity. Why should someone who works hard but was unfortunate enough to not be born with the necessary DNA be paid more than someone who was?

 

I'd also say that just because someone can do a job that is more highly paid doesn't mean that they could or would do a less well paid job. I can think of hundreds of "lesser" jobs that many well paid people couldn't do. As for your "cleaning toilets" example, it's not a very good one, but I'd like to see how many "intellectuals" would be willing to clean up shit 8 hours a day 5 days a week for 40 years. I'd rather top myself.

 

Some of us have found it easy to get qualifications and money but we are the lucky ones.

its a perfectly good example. its about ability not willingness, if you have 2 arms you can clean toilets.

why does it matter if someone was born with more advantages than others? I've had less advantages than some so my aim is to work hard and provide better opportunities than I had for my future children the same way may parents did for me.

[Guest MattP]

Doesn't this eliminate the argument for NOT having a minimum wage? If the pie is not fixed than let's double the minimum wage.

 

In most cases the pie is fixed - otherwise debt would never exist for companies, people or countries.

 

Salary caps in sports have managed to bring more equality and less failure (as in bankruptcy etc...) without weakening the quality.

 

Do you think English rugby clubs would agree with that compared to the French?

 

The only sports that has worked in have been American ones where they control the whole market and all its seen is the best players see their wages increase to levels beyond belief (Manning, A-Rod) and seen the lesser players begging for the scraps.

[The God Emperor]

Doesn't this eliminate the argument for NOT having a minimum wage? If the pie is not fixed than let's double the minimum wage.

 

In most cases the pie is fixed - otherwise debt would never exist for companies, people or countries.

 

Salary caps in sports have managed to bring more equality and less failure (as in bankruptcy etc...) without weakening the quality.

no it doesnt eliminate the argument. the minimum wage causes harm because it makes those who's labour is not worth the minimum wage unemployable (to a degree). wealth isnt just measured in money either. money is a fixed pie, wealth isnt.

[Guest]

It's immoral because the sole reason it would exist is to appease envy. What other people earn affects you not a jot so what give you the right to limit someone else's ambition?

 

No, it's not. A salary cap would allow more of the pie to be given to others. The idea that ambition is changed whether you earn 10 million a year or 1 million a year is a non-argument. There is no need to have "more than enough" money. Do you think that Messi would have less ambition if he earned only half of his wage? There are both hard and soft salary caps in American sports (the country of free capitalism) and they have benefitted every sport that they've been introduced into. 

 

Doesn't that just defeat your own argument?

 

Not sure what this refers to?

[Guest]

It hasn't been proven at all as what you are suggesting has never been put into practice.

 

Is that really an interesting point? The Paris to London train is now quicker than the Manchester to London one, I'd say that coupled with EU freedom of movement means it was always likely to happen.

 

France also has the 8th highest amount of British ex pats now. (excluding Hong Kong from the statistics)

 

We must have an economics specialist on the board who can confirm that the theory of maximum wage has been proven. If I could remember my references I'd point them out to you. 

 

You misunderstood. I'm talking about permanent citizens not country hoppers.

 

Don't see the relevance of your last sentence but I guess that would show that the "brain drain" argument is a non-starter.

[Webbo]

No, it's not. A salary cap would allow more of the pie to be given to others. The idea that ambition is changed whether you earn 10 million a year or 1 million a year is a non-argument. There is no need to have "more than enough" money. Do you think that Messi would have less ambition if he earned only half of his wage? There are both hard and soft salary caps in American sports (the country of free capitalism) and they have benefitted every sport that they've been introduced into. 

 

 

Not sure what this refers to?

But it would be a smaller pie because all the talented people who create the wealth will have moved abroad just as the best and brightest in France have moved to London to earn money for non French companies because the govt in france has decided that they were earning too much.

[Guest MattP]

We must have an economics specialist on the board who can confirm that the theory of maximum wage has been proven. If I could remember my references I'd point them out to you. 

 

You misunderstood. I'm talking about permanent citizens not country hoppers.

 

Don't see the relevance of your last sentence but I guess that would show that the "brain drain" argument is a non-starter.

 

Well I was trying to explain that British workers have also started going to France in significent numbers since the EU freedom of movement came into force.

 

It's not that hard to understand.

 

Keep doing your usual though of replying to everything to everybody except the questions you can't or don't want to answer. I'm off out for a drink, you are boring me again already and that's actually hard to do.

[Guest]

its a perfectly good example. its about ability not willingness, if you have 2 arms you can clean toilets.

why does it matter if someone was born with more advantages than others? I've had less advantages than some so my aim is to work hard and provide better opportunities than I had for my future children the same way may parents did for me.

 

It's a crap example! literally. Willingness is an important criteria when choosing a job. I'm sure that fungi and white dee arecapable of working yet they don't. And as you state there are physical limits to cleaning a loo. Stephen Hawkings couldn't do it.

 

It doesn't matter how hard you work - that's one of the points I'm making. Your children are slaves of the genetics that you will give them. They may not have the intelligence or any other characteristic necessary for a high paying job, they may inherit a weakness to addiction to illnesses, to fearless risk taking. Or they maybe lucky enough not to be so limited. 

 

Wouldn't you prefer that if your children worked hard at school and after they would be sure of a fair wage allowing them to live comfortably?

[MooseBreath]

Why should someone who works hard but was unfortunate enough to not be born with the necessary DNA be paid more than someone who was?

/quote]

Motivation is a product of DNA as well isn't it? The choices we make are determined by the type of person we are and for the most part that isn't a choice. If we take your argument through to its logical conclusion then we end up with every single person being paid the same fixed amount regardless of ability or workrate, no? And clearly that would totally annihilate the motivation to innovate, and if we could apply the effects of that retrospectively we would still be in the dark ages.

It is curious that fif and CPF, the two posters on here who have enjoyed openly discussing their high earnings, which iirc fif has said can be over £1000 per day, are the two who seem most comfortable with deciding that other people shouldn't be allowed to earn very much money. I wonder if it's the effect of having no money worries whatsoever that lends a certain complacency? Or maybe it's more cynical, I don't know. Either way, to say you're out of touch with reality would be quite the understatement.

[Guest]

Do you think English rugby clubs would agree with that compared to the French?

 

The only sports that has worked in have been American ones where they control the whole market and all its seen is the best players see their wages increase to levels beyond belief (Manning, A-Rod) and seen the lesser players begging for the scraps.

 

English rugby clubs is a good example. The clubs have more stability, the league is more balanced and very few players have left - those that have have been replaced by other and foreigners and the system is helping to bring through new youth talent without bankrupting the teams. 

 

Sure teams like Leicester are hurt because they benefitted from the "rich" syndrome but English rugby from grassroots up has benefitted. Talking about the French takes us out of the controlled market. So if England bring in  this idea then some other countries will get a few highly qualified people but not so many and they'll be replaced, but as in rugby the health of England will as a whole will improve. The long term outlook becomes so much better. Are you aware of the problems in French rugby at the moment. The domination of the few is becoming more extreme. Even great teams like Bayonne and Biarittz are looking at the death of their teams.   

 

You only talk about baseball but not Football and Basketball. the sports that are overhauling all other US sports. They don't have a world Monopoly on the sport by the way, all the players are benefitting and both sports are benefitting. Basketball has never known things so good.

[Guest MattP]

Manning doesn't play Baseball.

[Guest]

But it would be a smaller pie because all the talented people who create the wealth will have moved abroad just as the best and brightest in France have moved to London to earn money for non French companies because the govt in france has decided that they were earning too much.

That's a false argument. People don't only work for money. Life is about more than this. Would you work and live in North Korea if they promised to double the salary you have now? 

 

The best and brightest realise that money isn't everything. People move for many reasons and most of those French in London were not the best and brightest and certainly not the wealthiest.

 

btw the pie doesn't get smaller because the work is still there.

[The God Emperor]

It's a crap example! literally. Willingness is an important criteria when choosing a job. I'm sure that fungi and white dee arecapable of working yet they don't. And as you state there are physical limits to cleaning a loo. Stephen Hawkings couldn't do it.

 

It doesn't matter how hard you work - that's one of the points I'm making. Your children are slaves of the genetics that you will give them. They may not have the intelligence or any other characteristic necessary for a high paying job, they may inherit a weakness to addiction to illnesses, to fearless risk taking. Or they maybe lucky enough not to be so limited. 

 

Wouldn't you prefer that if your children worked hard at school and after they would be sure of a fair wage allowing them to live comfortably?

yes its an important criteria when choosing a job but ability comes into it. there are physical limits to cleaning toilets but last time I checked the mass majority of people in this country have 2 arms. willingness will also affect pay in some cases, my job for example. it requires more physical fitness than cleaning toilets, more intelligence due to the amount of problem solving involved and good social skills. since it involves being outdoors in all weathers doing unclean work it does drive the wage up a bit. but if a job can be done by almost anyone willingness is going to have a limited affect on the wage.

I know people's ability to earn more is affected by genetics, but why should we punish people for being talented and having advantages just because other where denied them? if I was to get into a ring with a young Mohammed Ali should we break his arm to make it fair?

I also wouldnt want my children if they were born with a talent to be punished just to appease the envy of others.

[Guest]

Well I was trying to explain that British workers have also started going to France in significent numbers since the EU freedom of movement came into force.

 

It's not that hard to understand.

 

Keep doing your usual though of replying to everything to everybody except the questions you can't or don't want to answer. I'm off out for a drink, you are boring me again already and that's actually hard to do.

 

And why have the English moved to France? It's not for the money is it? It's hard to understand the point you're trying to make.

 

And if I can't answer a question I obviously can't. Perhaps you can.

[Guest]

Why should someone who works hard but was unfortunate enough to not be born with the necessary DNA be paid more than someone who was?

/quote]

Motivation is a product of DNA as well isn't it? The choices we make are determined by the type of person we are and for the most part that isn't a choice. If we take your argument through to its logical conclusion then we end up with every single person being paid the same fixed amount regardless of ability or workrate, no? And clearly that would totally annihilate the motivation to innovate, and if we could apply the effects of that retrospectively we would still be in the dark ages.

It is curious that fif and CPF, the two posters on here who have enjoyed openly discussing their high earnings, which iirc fif has said can be over £1000 per day, are the two who seem most comfortable with deciding that other people shouldn't be allowed to earn very much money. I wonder if it's the effect of having no money worries whatsoever that lends a certain complacency? Or maybe it's more cynical, I don't know. Either way, to say you're out of touch with reality would be quite the understatement.

 

Yes, Motivation is, to an extent, a product of DNA. So why would a salary cap stop motivation or innovation?

 

How can a logical conclusion to a salary cap be everyone earning the same.

 

You are aware that man has innovated and evolved since long before money was invented haven't you?

 

I guess you don't have children but if you do/did would you stop trying in life because they was a salary cap? High amounts of money aren't the only form of   motivation.

 

oops missed the last paragraph of your post !!

 

Maybe having the ability to earn a lot of money and having had the experience of earning it we are better positioned to comment on it. If you haven't your view is limited. I lived through the Thatcher years and benefitted financially. I understand how Thatcherism can make us selfish egoists who want to benefit from "less capable" individuals like yourself maybe  . Maybe we also realise how there are so many more important criteria to life than excess money.

[Webbo]

That's a false argument. People don't only work for money. Life is about more than this. Would you work and live in North Korea if they promised to double the salary you have now? 

 

The best and brightest realise that money isn't everything. People move for many reasons and most of those French in London were not the best and brightest and certainly not the wealthiest.

 

btw the pie doesn't get smaller because the work is still there.

So what you're saying is all companies can grow by employing mediocre people?