Should people be paid what they need or what they earn?

P

Purple

Registered User
Messages
13,996
Should employees be paid what they need to sustain a reasonable standard of living, based on their family and personal circumstances, or should they be paid what they earn?
 
Purple said:
Should employees be paid what they need to sustain a reasonable standard of living, based on their family and personal circumstances, or should they be paid what they earn?
Click to expand...

Hi Purple

What do you mean?

Take a lawyer who generates €3m of fees for his firm. Are you asking whether he should be paid a fair whack (e.g. €1m) or what it costs him to live (e.g. €100k)?

Gordon
 
Gordon Gekko said:
Hi Purple


What do you mean?


Take a lawyer who generates €3m of fees for his firm. Are you asking whether he should be paid a fair whack (e.g. €1m) or what it costs him to live (e.g. €100k)?


Gordon
Click to expand...

Yes. Should the market rate for his skills determine his wages or should it be based on what it costs him to live.

I'm asking as on another thread I asked if a poster believed that "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” was a good philosophy. Personally I strongly oppose such a dogma but I’m interested in the views of other posters.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
I'd vehemently oppose it. Communism by another name...utter nonsense.
Click to expand...
Ok, so it's not just me then.

To expand on the topic; If the state (we the people) decide that people should have a basic level of income, a social safety net, and give support to people with families or dependents etc who work in low paid jobs is that support a subsidy to their employer?
 
What about something that reflects both the need to have enough income to live and the need to incentivise people to take on onerous and responsible jobs, (perhaps think surgeon rather than lawyer).

In fact we have something that approaches this, with social welfare and the possibility of well paid employment.
 
Purple said:
To expand on the topic; If the state (we the people) decide that people should have a basic level of income, a social safety net, and give support to people with families or dependents etc who work in low paid jobs is that support a subsidy to their employer?
Click to expand...

Is it a subsidy to the employer? Possibly, but by the same viewpoint the minimum wage is harmful to those employers who want someone to do X but can only pay Y. Also, the same viewpoint would suggest the social welfare, by boosting available monies to that section of the populace, boosts demand to local businesses... who are also employers.

I wouldn't get too hung up on thinking of it as a subsidy to the employer... it is beneficial to the taxpayer if we're only paying 50% of benefits and the employer matches that, than paying 100%. The complication is how to stop the taxpayer from creeping into a situation where they are paying that for ALL future low-paid positions i.e. positions that employers would have funded 100%.
We don't want employers letting go people they were paying 100%, so they can hire people co-funded by the state, which is one of the criticisms of JobBridge.

A citizen's income would be one way... but Switzerland rejected that, and I can't see it working for an EU member state.
 
Purple said:
I agree that it is intrinsically communist. Do others concur?
Click to expand...

Sounds like it to me. I assume in this new order nobody needs a foreign holiday, or imported wines or electronics and all the nice holiday spots in Ireland will be set aside for party apparachiks? Each of us will get a visit to Mosney 1 year in every 5? Like in the good old days?
https://thevieweast.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/power-and-privilege-in-communist-eastern-europe/

I'm in favour of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” - in terms of one's own household. Its track record in wider society in lamentable.
 
I firmly believe there should be a minimum wage to provide some sort of a floor for people. However, to have a set minimum wage across the country is crazy in my mind. The cost of living in Leitrim is far different from the cost of living in Dublin and there should be recognition of those factors. Minimum wage in rural Ireland will result in a higher standard of living then minimum wage in Dublin. Whether that is a "Dublin Allowance" or a reduction in minimum wage in rural areas is a debate worth having. Indeed such a move may help development outside of Dublin if it encouraged companies to move out to reduce costs thus taking some of the pressures on public transport and accomadation off Dublin. Sometimes Ireland is too Dublin centered.
 
The slogan itself was adopted mantra for failed communist states. But that does not mean the slogan itself is exclusively communist rhetoric.
There is a lot of merit to the slogan and at its essence, the adoption by civilised developed countries of the welfare state is testament to the intrinsic values of that slogan.
 
TheBigShort said:
There is a lot of merit to the slogan and at its essence, the adoption by civilised developed countries of the welfare state is testament to the intrinsic values of that slogan.
Click to expand...

The welfare state has always been pitched as a safety net. That was always its slogan and the basis of its values and the basis for its introduction.
As I understood the slogan it did not mean redistribution of proportions that we see in Ireland for example, it means that everything "from each" went into a central pot for redistribution "to each".
This is a solution I see no moral or economic virtue in.
 
Purple said:
Should employees be paid what they need to sustain a reasonable standard of living, based on their family and personal circumstances, or should they be paid what they earn?
Click to expand...

Donald Trump had an agreement with his bank that he could only spend $450,000 a month. He would argue that is what is required for a reasonable standard of living. I think the Quinns and other rich families had similar (although not as high) spending requirements.

But I'm with Gordon on this. It is nonsense. People should be rewarded for creating wealth. Why shouldn't a business development manager share in the rewards of creating income for the company he works in, while the admin person has none of the pressure but is well rewarded? Motivation will drop and the profitability of the business will fall. Capitalism underpins the world's economy, even in countries with communist leaders.


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie
 
odyssey06 said:
As I understood the slogan it did not mean redistribution of proportions that we see in Ireland for example, it means that everything "from each" went into a central pot for redistribution "to each".
This is a solution I see no moral or economic virtue in.
Click to expand...

This is what the failed communist states tried to impose. That a person who commits and studies to perform life saving surgery or to the advancement of life saving medicine should not expect a reward greater than the waiter in a restaurant, or the creator of the new fast food burger franchise. This is clearly wrong.
But the free market capitalist system is not without its flaws (major) either. We can satisfy ourselves that the system will reward the medical doctor over the waiter, but we cant gaurantee her rewards will be anywhere close to the fast food burger trademark holder.
And while I dont think the burger trademark holder should have his rewards diminished, I do think those rewards can be legitimately targeted to fund essential social provisions for health and education and so on.
 
Purple said:
Should employees be paid what they need to sustain a reasonable standard of living, based on their family and personal circumstances, or should they be paid what they earn?
Click to expand...

Paid what they earn, but with a safety-net/trampoline for the less-fortunates.
 
SBarrett said:
People should be rewarded for creating wealth.
Why shouldn't a business development manager share in the rewards of creating income for the company he works in, while the admin person has none of the pressure but is well rewarded?
Click to expand...

Hi Stephen,

Normally I would agree with this however not all jobs are expected to create wealth in the financial sense. Think Gardai, nurses, teachers, IT staff, even the admin person you refer to.

In my experience, business development managers (i.e. sales people) do share in the business they generate by way of commissions - if they're not happy and if they're any good they'll move somewhere else.

Whether or not the first group of people are paid enough / too highly is another matter, but I don't think it's entirely fair to expect all incomes to be based on wealth generation.

Firefly.
 
I agree, not all jobs are expected to generate wealth or income for the company. And their salaries usually reflect that. When people start a career, they should be aware of the earning potential ie if you work in admin, your earning capacity will be relatively limited than that of an income generator. I also work with a lot of people who work for multi-nationals and earn good salaries but their employers are very demanding and they have to put in a lot of hours.

Purple's idea that these people shouldn't be rewarded, while Joe Slob with his 6 kids gets €100,000 for doing the bare minimum is just wrong.

As an aside, in one of the companies I worked for, the woman doing admin said that she should get a bonus equal to those who brought in the business as she did all the paperwork and admin. I wouldn't mind but she spent the day talking to her sister on the phone!
 
SBarrett said:
Purple's idea that these people shouldn't be rewarded, while Joe Slob with his 6 kids gets €100,000 for doing the bare minimum is just wrong.
Click to expand...

No amount of money could compensate me for having 6 kids I can tell you that!

But I agree completely. Where do you draw the line - should someone with a bigger house get paid more to help them with their heating bills?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top