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



## Purple (23 Aug 2016)

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?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (23 Aug 2016)

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?



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


----------



## Purple (23 Aug 2016)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Hi Purple
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
> ...



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 (23 Aug 2016)

I'd vehemently oppose it. Communism by another name...utter nonsense.


----------



## Purple (23 Aug 2016)

Gordon Gekko said:


> I'd vehemently oppose it. Communism by another name...utter nonsense.


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?


----------



## cremeegg (23 Aug 2016)

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.


----------



## odyssey06 (23 Aug 2016)

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?



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 (24 Aug 2016)

Gordon Gekko said:


> I'd vehemently oppose it. Communism by another name...utter nonsense.


I agree that it is intrinsically communist. Do others concur?


----------



## odyssey06 (24 Aug 2016)

Purple said:


> I agree that it is intrinsically communist. Do others concur?



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.


----------



## thedaddyman (25 Aug 2016)

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.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 Aug 2016)

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.


----------



## odyssey06 (25 Aug 2016)

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.



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.


----------



## Steven Barrett (25 Aug 2016)

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?



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


----------



## TheBigShort (25 Aug 2016)

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.



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.


----------



## Setanta12 (25 Aug 2016)

Who is John Galt ?


----------



## Setanta12 (25 Aug 2016)

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?



Paid what they earn, but with a safety-net/trampoline for the less-fortunates.


----------



## Firefly (25 Aug 2016)

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?



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.


----------



## Steven Barrett (25 Aug 2016)

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!


----------



## Firefly (25 Aug 2016)

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.



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?


----------



## Setanta12 (25 Aug 2016)

If some proposes to me, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"; I always ask him 'Who is John Galt?'


----------



## Purple (25 Aug 2016)

Setanta12 said:


> If some proposes to me, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"; I always ask him 'Who is John Galt?'


Are you an Ayn Rand fan?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (27 Aug 2016)

_Purple_ that was a quote from Marx, no not Groucho, Karl

It was the essence of the Soviet model, collective farms and all that.  "Needs" meant the basic requirements for living, food, healthcare, shelter, education, security etc.  And it worked at that level.  Soviet citizens were generally fully employed and had adequate food, shelter and possibly even superior healthcare.

But they had a peep over the wall and noticed that under free markets human needs were
far outstripping these basic necessities and were generally being satisfied at a far higher level.  They decided that Marx had failed them and the rest is history.

I was thinking out some of the practicalities of that Marxist "utopia".  Going right back to my schooldays.  I studied for my A levels.  Others didn't. Ok Marx would say those others were not giving of their best but how on earth do you incentivise people to put in the (extra) effort if at the end of the day what society gives back to me is totally independent of what I give to society.

Nonsense, as has already been observed and yet Wiki describes Marx (Karl not Groucho) as the most influential sociologist of all human history.


----------



## Setanta12 (27 Aug 2016)

And 'Who is John Galt?' was the catch-cry of Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' where society/economy began to disintegrate when people were only rewarded with what they needed. Which is what happened in Russia - in the end, they didn't really have a choice.


----------



## newtothis (28 Aug 2016)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> ....how on earth do you incentivise people to put in the (extra) effort if at the end of the day what society gives back to me is totally independent of what I give to society



That's a very interesting question, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any society, least of all our own (or indeed any western democracy), that has achieved this to any great extent. Rewards for work have very little correlation to either effort or productive outcome. Some of the most valuable work in terms of society - raising the next generation - had some of the lowest or no pay associated with it. Work that has been traditionally performed by women has been undervalued in general. Some of the highest rates of pay are found in sectors associated with powerful professional groups that control access to entry. I'll accept that within a particular sector, cash can and does work as an incentive to advance, but I think you're on very shaky ground trying to argue that it works at a societal level.


----------



## odyssey06 (28 Aug 2016)

newtothis said:


> That's a very interesting question, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any society, least of all our own (or indeed any western democracy), that has achieved this to any great extent. Rewards for work have very little correlation to either effort or productive outcome. Some of the most valuable work in terms of society - raising the next generation - had some of the lowest or no pay associated with it. Work that has been traditionally performed by women has been undervalued in general. Some of the highest rates of pay are found in sectors associated with powerful professional groups that control access to entry. I'll accept that within a particular sector, cash can and does work as an incentive to advance, but I think you're on very shaky ground trying to argue that it works at a societal level.



Least of all? Ok, please list the non Western societies who have achieved this to a greater extent?

I'm really not sure where you can are going with this. We are talking about the economic structure of a society. Would anyone really want that extended into the nuclear household?

As for undervaluing the work of women, again please find me any large scale society that has valued the work of women greater than Western democracies?
When one compares the rights and freedoms of women in western society with any other large scale civilisation that has every existed (let's leave utopian hunter gatherers out of it), western society is greatest of all, not least of all.

Let's not forget that those societies who tried to base their economic structure on "what they need" had to build a wall around their countries to stop their citizens fleeing, and shoot the ones who still tried to escape. 
One of the biggest problems Western societies face is the number of people who vote with their feet and want to come here.


----------



## Purple (28 Aug 2016)

newtothis said:


> Some of the highest rates of pay are found in sectors associated with powerful professional groups that control access to entry.


 Those sectors are now becoming dominated by women as they account for the majority of law and medical graduates.


----------



## Purple (28 Aug 2016)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Purple_ that was a quote from Marx, no not Groucho, Karl


Yes, I'm aware of the origin of the phrase, and it pre-dates Marx (Carl). 
Marx never foresaw the property owning middle class. Basically he got it wrong and hundreds of millions of people suffered as a result.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 Aug 2016)

_Purple_ I think he never foresaw the consumer society. Centralised economic management works well for things like education, healthcare, security, infrastructure etc. A modern Western society actually has a high proportion of its economy centrally controlled.  Soviet communism went further and centrally provided nearly all other human "needs".  It was working well enough within its own terms but what done for it was that it was never capable of harnessing the technological revolution to provide the cornucopia of consumer goods and services Western capitalism delivered.  That needed a free market and incentivised enterprise.  People had their basic needs met in Soviet society and to a much greater extent than the West they were treated equally.  But they drove Ladas made under Fiat licence.  They lived in drab tower blocks etc.  This fully centralised economic model was never going to deliver the high quality and diversity of goods and services that capitalism has delivered, from high spec reliable cars to white goods for every imaginable household chore to iPhones etc. etc.  The hapless Soviets had more or less achieved their goals of an equal society where people's basic needs were satisfied only to find that the other model had transformed from the Satanic mills of the industrial revolution to an unimaginable vista of material well being.

BTW Wiki credits Karl with the phrase, possibly you should advise them of their error


----------



## Purple (28 Aug 2016)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> BTW Wiki credits Karl with the phrase, possibly you should advise them of their error


Really?


----------



## newtothis (28 Aug 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> Least of all? Ok, please list the non Western societies who have achieved this to a greater extent?.



Maybe you should read what I said: "you'd be hard pressed to find *any* society...."

My point is that you can hardly point to our own society as one which rewards according to the value to society, as had been claimed here.

Personally, I think it's a nonsensical debate to try and equate value to society as a yardstick to rewarding people.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 Aug 2016)

Wiki said:
			
		

> This work is also notable for another famous Marx's quote: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."


_Purple_ this is what you get if you Wiki KM directly, but I see that it could be interpreted as not implying he was the first.  I knew when I said it I was on shaky ground


----------



## odyssey06 (28 Aug 2016)

newtothis said:


> Maybe you should read what I said: "you'd be hard pressed to find *any* society...."



Eh, I re-read it three times and that's not the sentence that you wrote, which carried with it an implicit criticism of western democracy.

I refer you to post #24:
"I think you'd be hard pressed to find any society, *least of all our own (or indeed any western democracy)*, that has achieved this to any great extent."

I don't think anyone has claimed here that western societies reward according to value to society? But that marked-based rewards "what they earn" lead to better societies overall than those who rely on centralised re-distribution "what they need".
I think a market-based rewarded society will also be superior in the long run to a "rewarding value" based one. Because that implies that some central organisation will decide that value - for everyone else. Unless human nature changes, the track record of any central organisation thus empowered with that level of control over the rest of society is that it will turn into a tyranny of gulags and walls and stasi. Although, it would probably achieve a higher material standard that a "need" based society.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 Aug 2016)

The reality is Western capitalism wins hands down in creating new human needs and satisfying them.    The human condition is that this comes at a cost in lack of equality.   But off the top of my head I would say the LQ of a  typical Western society had a higher (material) standard of living than the UQ in Soviet Union.


----------



## Dan Murray (28 Aug 2016)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> ....yet Wiki describes Marx (Karl not Groucho) as the most influential sociologist of all human history.



Care to provide the link


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 Aug 2016)

Wiki said:
			
		

> Marx has been described as one of the most influential figures in human history, and his work has been both lauded and criticised.


Ok, Dan, not quite. I'm not getting away with much today


----------



## Dan Murray (28 Aug 2016)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Ok, Dan, not quite. I'm not getting away with much today



No worries - it's usually quite efficient to make stuff up.....just not always effective! Or, as I've told you a million times before, you must resist the urge to make exaggerated claims!!!!

On a serious note, it's amazing how things get picked up on this and other sites. A week or so ago, a regular contributor here made a post that was 100% lifted from an article written in the US. When this was pointed out to said poster, the non-referencing was attributed to an oversight. Personally, I wasn't convinced. Still what did I expect? - as Myles, when he was away from Dublin, told us: how are allegations dealt with? They are _denied...._


----------



## newtothis (28 Aug 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> Eh, I re-read it three times and that's not the sentence that you wrote, which carried with it an implicit criticism of western democracy.



Er, the quote was taken directly from what I'd written. The criticism of Western democracies was only to the extent that they shouldn't be singled out as being in some way superior to rewarding value to a society; it’s no better.

As I also said, I think the whole idea is a nonsense, if for no other reason than determining the relative values of different types of work is next to impossible. I suspect we agree more than disagree on that point.



odyssey06 said:


> I don't think anyone has claimed here that western societies reward according to value to society?



Not quite in those terms, but my point was in response to the comment which implied it: “....how on earth do you incentivise people to put in the (extra) effort if at the end of the day what society gives back to me is totally independent of what I give to society”. There’s an implicit claim in this that western societies are somehow delivering reward to those who give most to society: my point is that they aren’t, so don’t claim it.

I said nothing about the relative benefits of western democracies vs. Soviet style communism: I suspect defenders of the latter are somewhat thin on the ground at this stage.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (29 Aug 2016)

_newtothis_ I could see how you would make that inference but it certainly wasn't intended and I like you would reject it.  If we changed "society" to "the world" I would be more comfortable about it but I was not intending any commentary on how we arrange things.  I was merely observing that anyone who proposes that what humans "get out" should bear no relationship to what they "put in" does not understand human nature.  And to think he was one of the most influential figures in HH.  Well I suppose an even more influential guy recommended that if someone hits you you should turn the other cheek.


----------



## Purple (29 Aug 2016)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Well I suppose an even more influential guy recommended that if someone hits you you should turn the other cheek.


 And look what happened to him!


----------



## Firefly (29 Aug 2016)

Purple said:


> And look what happened to him!



LOL


----------



## newtothis (29 Aug 2016)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _newtothis_ I could see how you would make that inference but it certainly wasn't intended and I like you would reject it.



Absolutely accept it's not what you intended. I understand too, people have a habit of reading too much into what's written; I wasn't expecting to be taken as an apologist for Soviet style societies either.

Personally, I think we'd all be better off in paying more attention to Marx (Groucho) rather than Marx (Karl).....


----------



## Purple (29 Aug 2016)

newtothis said:


> Personally, I think we'd all be better off in paying more attention to Marx (Groucho) rather than Marx (Karl).....


 Well said. I think most of us can agree on this though Groucho, while a funny guy, wasn't a very nice guy and treated people who worked for him quite badly.


----------



## newtothis (29 Aug 2016)

Purple said:


> Well said. I think most of us can agree on this though Groucho, while a funny guy, wasn't a very nice guy and treated people who worked for him quite badly.



That may well have been the case, but I'll bet he was better company than Karl......


----------



## Purple (30 Aug 2016)

newtothis said:


> That may well have been the case, but I'll bet he was better company than Karl......


Indeed, Karl was well known for seldom bathing. He kept a "maid" who lived with him from the ago of 8, was never paid and there are numerous but unproven accusations that she later bore his child.  
He lived off loans from rich (capitalist) friends which for the most part he didn't repay, never employed or worked with any "working class" people and his daughters seemed to be seriously dysfunctional people as 2 of the 3 of them committed suicide.


----------



## cremeegg (30 Aug 2016)

newtothis said:


> Rewards for work have very little correlation to either effort or productive outcome. Some of the most valuable work in terms of society - raising the next generation - had some of the lowest or no pay associated with it.



That is just your opinion.

Who is to decide what work is the most valuable to society. 

If it were me, hairdressers among others, would get nothing.

It is an aspect of democracy, not just of capitalism, that individual people can decide who to reward. You are free to spend your money with the hairdresser, I am free not to.


----------



## cremeegg (30 Aug 2016)

The idea that pay is the only reward society can give to incentivise effort is a little myopic.

Most people also get an element of respect from their work. Both self-respect and the respect of the community.

In any traditional Irish town, the priest, the doctor and the teacher were the best respected people. That was their reward for their study and effort.

The publican, the auctioneer, the shop keeper, the undertaker and some of the larger farmers usually had a bigger income, that was their reward for their energy and enterprise.


----------



## Purple (30 Aug 2016)

As for GAA, football and rugby coaches who work for free...
Working for an income is what we are talking about here, not the societal value of how we spend our time. 
Nobody pays me for cooking dinner for my kids, washing and ironing their clothes or baking, cooking, painting & drawing with them and nobody should; they are my kids. I don't feel under valued as a parent by society because of that. The notion that people should be paid to be a parent is daft.


----------

