Smudge Posted 14 February 2014 Posted 14 February 2014 Not only is that ,imo, immoral , it would also mean that all the best talent would leave the country. I didn't know you had a stutter.
Guest Posted 14 February 2014 Posted 14 February 2014 Manning doesn't play Baseball. Neither does Lebron.
Guest MattP Posted 14 February 2014 Posted 14 February 2014 Neither does Lebron. And he earns 20million a year while some of his team mates earn 150k because of the wage cap that was enforced. Happy Days eh? 10million more and he's on Kobe's level.
Guest Posted 14 February 2014 Posted 14 February 2014 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. Is it fair to say that a salary cap probably wouldn't reduce your wage? I'm not talking £50,000. A salary cap doesn't punish it moderates excess. It works the same as in a religion. Limiting the extremes and making the system healthy. Do you want other people's children to be punished just to allow your children to earn more money than is needed for a comfortable pleasant life? I'm sure you don't. Mohammed Ali? How have we gotten here? Ali only fought against other heavyweights, he would never have stepped in to fight Barry Mcguigan's dad or Tony Makenzie. So what you're saying is all companies can grow by employing mediocre people? Companies can grow by using their resources in a better manner.
Webbo Posted 14 February 2014 Posted 14 February 2014 Companies can grow by using their resources in a better manner. Who decides how their resources are used?
Guest Posted 14 February 2014 Posted 14 February 2014 And he earns 20million a year while some of his team mates earn 150k because of the wage cap that was enforced. Happy Days eh? 10million more and he's on Kobe's level. Nobody on the Heat or in the NBA earns 150K. Even Tony Douglas earns 1.6m. The NBA doesn't have a player Salary cap, but the NBA does have a team salary cap - well an inhibitive increasing tax hit along with a minimum team salary. This has allowed all players to earn more. The Sport has exploded over the last 30 years and all teams are benefitting from the situation. and FYI Lebron, Bosh, Wade took less than their maximum allowed salary so that others could have more (thus getting the players they wanted around them) this has won them 2 consecutive finals. Other players are now doing this. Kobe is a born capitalist.
Guest Posted 14 February 2014 Posted 14 February 2014 Who decides how their resources are used? Are you really trying to make a direct Relationship between resource décisions and actual pay? Do you think that a £20 reduction in a yearly salary would reduce the quality of the decision making? Do you think people are paid what they are Worth? Time to return to my real life. Catch you later.
Dr The Singh Posted 14 February 2014 Posted 14 February 2014 Nobody on the Heat or in the NBA earns 150K. Even Tony Douglas earns 1.6m. The NBA doesn't have a player Salary cap, but the NBA does have a team salary cap - well an inhibitive increasing tax hit along with a minimum team salary. This has allowed all players to earn more. The Sport has exploded over the last 30 years and all teams are benefitting from the situation. and FYI Lebron, Bosh, Wade took less than their maximum allowed salary so that others could have more (thus getting the players they wanted around them) this has won them 2 consecutive finals. Other players are now doing this. Kobe is a born capitalist. Nice beef!!
Webbo Posted 14 February 2014 Posted 14 February 2014 Are you really trying to make a direct Relationship between resource décisions and actual pay? Do you think that a £20 reduction in a yearly salary would reduce the quality of the decision making? Do you think people are paid what they are Worth? Time to return to my real life. Catch you later. Someone has to make the decisions, you're saying that you can employ mediocre people and be just as successful. Surely if you employ the best people they will make the best decisions, isn't that worth paying more for?
MooseBreath Posted 14 February 2014 Author Posted 14 February 2014 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. Because you are saying that inherent advantages shouldn't be specifically rewarded. If motivation is also an inherent advantage, that too should not be specifically rewarded. If all of our skills and the choices we make are essentially the product of our inherent attributes and personalities then your logic suggests that nothing anyone does should be specifically rewarded. Therefore everyone must receive the same reward. 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. I'm quite sure that if you looked at the history of human innovation you would find most of it is a direct result of somebody motivated by the prospect of a financial (or historical equivalent) reward. I'm also certain that if you were to survey the population and ask them why they go to work, money would be top of the list. Quite what makes you think that you are the spokeswoman for what people should be motivated by, I don't know. The vast majority of jobs on this earth are not what people would choose to do if it weren't for the prospect of receiving a financial reward. Your idea of removing that reward would mean nobody would do any of the millions of jobs that need to be done to afford us the standard of living we currently enjoy. There are thousands of examples of things that nobody would do if it wasn't for the prospect of a specific reward. At the more obvious end, think about things like refuse collection and sewage treatment. Tell me who is ever going to be motivated to come up with ways to treat human shit if not for the prospect of a reward? There would have been no innovation in the many thousands of services you clearly take for granted if we had have relied on altruism alone. 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. Nice barbs Again assuming you are some kind of spokeswoman for what other people should be allowed to be motivated by. I assume you donate most of what you earn to the poor? Or do you not practice what you preach? Would you support a cap on net wealth as you do on salary, which would mean you would be forced to give away most of what you already have? Or does this cap of yours only affect future earnings, ensuring your relative wealth is locked in?
The God Emperor Posted 14 February 2014 Posted 14 February 2014 Is it fair to say that a salary cap probably wouldn't reduce your wage? I'm not talking £50,000. A salary cap doesn't punish it moderates excess. It works the same as in a religion. Limiting the extremes and making the system healthy. Do you want other people's children to be punished just to allow your children to earn more money than is needed for a comfortable pleasant life? I'm sure you don't. Mohammed Ali? How have we gotten here? Ali only fought against other heavyweights, he would never have stepped in to fight Barry Mcguigan's dad or Tony Makenzie. no a salary cap wouldnt affect my wage but its nots not about whether it would affect me. how are other people being punished by others earning more? if they have stolen the money from them then I'd understand but some one who is being paid a high wage voluntarily by their employer because that's what they believe their labour is worth then no one is being harmed. the money wouldn't go to the lesser earner if the higher earner didnt get it because the lesser earners labour would still be worth the same. the higher earner does not earn more at the expense of the lesser earner. the mohammed ali example wasn't great I'll admit that
Smudge Posted 14 February 2014 Posted 14 February 2014 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. I am lost on this sorry why do you want to cap wages? An incomes and price control policy is usually introduced to kerb inflation during extreme times. What problem exists that require these extreme measures other than envy? In the 1960's the Labour party introduced taxation that after you reached a certain pay level you were taxed at about 90% as I remember. All that did was to encourage people to live abroad. It also stifles enterprise. in the early 70's I owned a small construction business and was making four times what I was making in my day job. Which was great until I came to pay the tax bill on the company. I distinctly remember paying about 60% on many thousands of pounds. I packed it in, as in the end, the reward didn't justify the risk.
Smudge Posted 14 February 2014 Posted 14 February 2014 Post of the day!! Twat When I posted it, it didn't have the quotes in correctly edit: Shit I'm starting to sound like Rincey
Guest Posted 15 February 2014 Posted 15 February 2014 Someone has to make the decisions, you're saying that you can employ mediocre people and be just as successful. Surely if you employ the best people they will make the best decisions, isn't that worth paying more for? You seem to believe that paying more money leads to having better decision makers. I hope you don't make the décisions! Money is not the only factor in choice of job. Anyhow a salary cap does not stop you paying high salary it prevents ridiculously high salary.
Guest Posted 15 February 2014 Posted 15 February 2014 Because you are saying that inherent advantages shouldn't be specifically rewarded. If motivation is also an inherent advantage, that too should not be specifically rewarded. If all of our skills and the choices we make are essentially the product of our inherent attributes and personalities then your logic suggests that nothing anyone does should be specifically rewarded. Therefore everyone must receive the same reward. I'm quite sure that if you looked at the history of human innovation you would find most of it is a direct result of somebody motivated by the prospect of a financial (or historical equivalent) reward. I'm also certain that if you were to survey the population and ask them why they go to work, money would be top of the list. Quite what makes you think that you are the spokeswoman for what people should be motivated by, I don't know. The vast majority of jobs on this earth are not what people would choose to do if it weren't for the prospect of receiving a financial reward. Your idea of removing that reward would mean nobody would do any of the millions of jobs that need to be done to afford us the standard of living we currently enjoy. There are thousands of examples of things that nobody would do if it wasn't for the prospect of a specific reward. At the more obvious end, think about things like refuse collection and sewage treatment. Tell me who is ever going to be motivated to come up with ways to treat human shit if not for the prospect of a reward? There would have been no innovation in the many thousands of services you clearly take for granted if we had have relied on altruism alone. Nice barbs Again assuming you are some kind of spokeswoman for what other people should be allowed to be motivated by. I assume you donate most of what you earn to the poor? Or do you not practice what you preach? Would you support a cap on net wealth as you do on salary, which would mean you would be forced to give away most of what you already have? Or does this cap of yours only affect future earnings, ensuring your relative wealth is locked in? You've completely missed the point of what a salary cap is. Come back to me when you understand and I'll reply to any relevant points. to start you off - a salary cap doesn't stop people being paid a lot of money (more than you'll ever earn) and it doesn't remove a differential between a skilled/experienced person's wage and an unskilled/inexperienced person's wage. think of it this way - the manager at McD's still gets paid more than the bog cleaner at McD's!
Guest Posted 15 February 2014 Posted 15 February 2014 no a salary cap wouldnt affect my wage but its nots not about whether it would affect me. how are other people being punished by others earning more? if they have stolen the money from them then I'd understand but some one who is being paid a high wage voluntarily by their employer because that's what they believe their labour is worth then no one is being harmed. the money wouldn't go to the lesser earner if the higher earner didnt get it because the lesser earners labour would still be worth the same. the higher earner does not earn more at the expense of the lesser earner. the mohammed ali example wasn't great I'll admit that But the higher earner WILL work for less in most cases. We all have a wage comfortability level that we'll accept. Others are being punished by some being paid overly high in many ways. The clearest example would be the price of the good/service. Lower overall wages means a reduction in costs which can be converted to a lower price meaning more spending power for the same wages. Alternatively this money could be used to take on more staff, leading to less unemployment, more product, lower price, more spending power for the same wage. Alternatively this money could be put into R&D or technology causing more employment, better products etc... . I won't disagree with that.
Webbo Posted 15 February 2014 Posted 15 February 2014 You seem to believe that paying more money leads to having better decision makers. I hope you don't make the décisions! Money is not the only factor in choice of job. Anyhow a salary cap does not stop you paying high salary it prevents ridiculously high salary. I don't know why you're arguing this, you know very well that's not true. Someone with a good track record in one firm will often be headhunted for a job in another company for more money. Trying to pretend that any random person is just as capable of making the best decision is just arguing for the sake of it.
Guest Posted 15 February 2014 Posted 15 February 2014 I am lost on this sorry why do you want to cap wages? An incomes and price control policy is usually introduced to kerb inflation during extreme times. What problem exists that require these extreme measures other than envy? In the 1960's the Labour party introduced taxation that after you reached a certain pay level you were taxed at about 90% as I remember. All that did was to encourage people to live abroad. It also stifles enterprise. in the early 70's I owned a small construction business and was making four times what I was making in my day job. Which was great until I came to pay the tax bill on the company. I distinctly remember paying about 60% on many thousands of pounds. I packed it in, as in the end, the reward didn't justify the risk. Tax and salary capping are two different babies. The 60's and 70's are very different to today but even then it really didn't send that many people abroad - and of those that went most came back with their tails between their legs realising that money isn't everything. I like your point about reward and risk for small businesses - I ran one myself and understand that. However a salary cap wouldn't affect small businesses. I'd like to see a company profits cap but the level wouldn't affect Small enterprise it should be there to influence re-investment of profits in tech or R&D or expansion. A salary cap on wages isn't a tax it's a ceiling just as we have a safety net in a floor.
Guest Posted 15 February 2014 Posted 15 February 2014 I don't know why you're arguing this, you know very well that's not true. Someone with a good track record in one firm will often be headhunted for a job in another company for more money. Trying to pretend that any random person is just as capable of making the best decision is just arguing for the sake of it. I think you're looking at it in a very narrow minded way. "More money" is not quantitative. Some people with good track records move to firms for reasons other than money. In fact many senior execs after having made decent money change for other reasons. For example moving TO national companies or BBC or banks. Some of them move for status which isn't always pay. some move for family reasons or health reasons or location reasons. Some want to do the equivalent of "down-sizing" to enjoy life more. I for one turned down much more money in order to take a job that gave me much more time to enjoy life. The "best decision" is also questionable. Their are good décisions and bad décisions but "the best" is pretty difficult to argue. Finally what do you think companies do that can't "afford" the perceived best track record? They get someone else who may end up being better (who knows) or they find the "new" guy whose going to become a "great track record". A track record relates to the past and a past where the same conditions are never replicated in the present and future. A couple of years ago Rory McIlroy was perceived as the greatest Golf player on the planet - his track record showed it. then he didn't win a tournament for a year. Don't kid yourself that there aren't always alternatives and the difference is small if not incorrect.
MooseBreath Posted 15 February 2014 Author Posted 15 February 2014 You've completely missed the point of what a salary cap is. Come back to me when you understand and I'll reply to any relevant points. to start you off - a salary cap doesn't stop people being paid a lot of money (more than you'll ever earn) and it doesn't remove a differential between a skilled/experienced person's wage and an unskilled/inexperienced person's wage. think of it this way - the manager at McD's still gets paid more than the bog cleaner at McD's! No, i've explained precisely why your logic leads to a fixed reward. It is you that doesn't understand the reality of what you are proposing. Think of it this way - why does the manager at McDonald's get paid more than the waste management agent if by your own logic we shouldn't be rewarding people based on inherent ability?Nice attempt at a cop out, but you're fooling nobody. I see you've heavily backtracked on your initial idea and are now suggesting it should just be a cap on very high earners. What level would you put the cap at?
Webbo Posted 15 February 2014 Posted 15 February 2014 I for one turned down much more money in order to take a job that gave me much more time to enjoy life. That's your choice and you're entitled to it, you don't have the right to decide it for someone else.
The God Emperor Posted 15 February 2014 Posted 15 February 2014 But the higher earner WILL work for less in most cases. We all have a wage comfortability level that we'll accept. Others are being punished by some being paid overly high in many ways. The clearest example would be the price of the good/service. Lower overall wages means a reduction in costs which can be converted to a lower price meaning more spending power for the same wages. Alternatively this money could be used to take on more staff, leading to less unemployment, more product, lower price, more spending power for the same wage. Alternatively this money could be put into R&D or technology causing more employment, better products etc... there may be reduction in wages but the money would just be spent on other ways to attract the best people. bonuses, contributions, material gifts etc. people are very good at getting around laws. the higher earn will work for less but if theirs a better alternative they most likely will take this alternative if the payout is worth the risk.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.