Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Boom Boom

A Fair Day's Pay For A Fair Day's Work

Recommended Posts

This word "fair" is much ballyhooed around but it means whatever you want it to mean. If a guy spends all day digging a hole and the next day filling it in has he done two days work? If a guy digs a hole in the wrong place does he still get paid? Who loses? It is all a load of rot. You get paid what someone else thinks you are worth and if you don't like the pay . . . don't work . . . and if someone, other than the guy who wants the hole, sets the rates then the buyer simply does without the hole and you have to go find another sucker who will pay you more to dig the hole.

It isn't exactly rocket science. Anything, whether it be a house or a day's work or a sandwich is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. Period. All this whining and crying about "fair" is tripe. It is what it is and nothing in this world is "fair". Get used to it slackers and grow up. My kids used to whine, "but Dad, it's not fair". They grew up and don't whine anymore. Those nanny-state-I-want-my-Daddy labour voters need to realise that Daddy has been whoring around with rich people since he was elected and they are only very useful idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This word "fair" is much ballyhooed around but it means whatever you want it to mean. If a guy spends all day digging a hole and the next day filling it in has he done two days work? If a guy digs a hole in the wrong place does he still get paid? Who loses? It is all a load of rot. You get paid what someone else thinks you are worth and if you don't like the pay . . . don't work . . . and if someone, other than the guy who wants the hole, sets the rates then the buyer simply does without the hole and you have to go find another sucker who will pay you more to dig the hole.

It isn't exactly rocket science. Anything, whether it be a house or a day's work or a sandwich is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. Period. All this whining and crying about "fair" is tripe. It is what it is and nothing in this world is "fair". Get used to it slackers and grow up. My kids used to whine, "but Dad, it's not fair". They grew up and don't whine anymore. Those nanny-state-I-want-my-Daddy labour voters need to realise that Daddy has been whoring around with rich people since he was elected and they are only very useful idiots.

You're right about one thing - it isn't rocket science. It's harder. Rocket science deals with predictable phenomena governed by natural laws, whereas people are difficult, moody, and sometimes unpredictable. It's easy to talk about things like sandwiches and digging holes, but how do you decide in a large, complex organisation how individual effort relates to the end product? Man who designed the actuator for the rudder on a Boeing 737, say, 0.000013% of the sale price of the aircraft. Women who takes the x-rays of the broken leg of the premier league footballer, £20k - after all he's worth millions so she ought to get paid more for helping fix him than for helping fix some oik from a council estate who smashed themself up joy-riding. Top banker, clearly millions. Hardworking brilliant engineer, clearly s&d all.

Once again another simplistic right-wing ideologue who thinks that what applied in villages when everybody knew everyone else and could see how hard the butcher and the candle stick maker worked and knew what people could and couldn't do without needing degrees and qualifications, can be applied to a modern economy. It can't. Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" was nostalgia when it was written, let alone now.

And btw, we're not your kids. We don't need some lecture on growing up, ta very much. Your kids probably stopped whining when they realised you'd started repeating yourself, and they probably have you marked down as the old g!t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This word "fair" is much ballyhooed around but it means whatever you want it to mean. If a guy spends all day digging a hole and the next day filling it in has he done two days work? If a guy digs a hole in the wrong place does he still get paid? Who loses? It is all a load of rot. You get paid what someone else thinks you are worth and if you don't like the pay . . . don't work . . . and if someone, other than the guy who wants the hole, sets the rates then the buyer simply does without the hole and you have to go find another sucker who will pay you more to dig the hole.

It isn't exactly rocket science. Anything, whether it be a house or a day's work or a sandwich is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. Period. All this whining and crying about "fair" is tripe. It is what it is and nothing in this world is "fair". Get used to it slackers and grow up. My kids used to whine, "but Dad, it's not fair". They grew up and don't whine anymore. Those nanny-state-I-want-my-Daddy labour voters need to realise that Daddy has been whoring around with rich people since he was elected and they are only very useful idiots.

no you don't, you get paid according to your ability to abstract a certain level of pay. bankers and ceo's get paid highly not because of talent but because the positions that they occupy enable them to extract high levels of pay. Same with accountants. While those at the low end have bugger all ability to enforce higher pay demands (outsourcing/insourcing/mechanisation/etc) so get bugger all. Nothing to do with talent nothing to do with 'worth', not in todays global world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no you don't, you get paid according to your ability to abstract a certain level of pay. bankers and ceo's get paid highly not because of talent but because the positions that they occupy enable them to extract high levels of pay. Same with accountants. While those at the low end have bugger all ability to enforce higher pay demands (outsourcing/insourcing/mechanisation/etc) so get bugger all. Nothing to do with talent nothing to do with 'worth', not in todays global world.

You clearly haven't read what Snow Birds has written have you? Bankers get paid highly because they are deemed worth it by their organisation - rightly or wrongly. This effectively is their ability to extract high levels of pay, their percived value to the company. Those at the low end have bugger all ability to enforce higher pay demands because they are not deemed worth more pay by their organisations, often because there's plenty more that can do what they do for the same money.

You get paid what someone else thinks you are worth. Whether they're right or not is another matter, often you might argue they aren't, but that doesn't change the validity of the statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You clearly haven't read what Snow Birds has written have you? Bankers get paid highly because they are deemed worth it by their organisation - rightly or wrongly. This effectively is their ability to extract high levels of pay, their percived value to the company. Those at the low end have bugger all ability to enforce higher pay demands because they are not deemed worth more pay by their organisations, often because there's plenty more that can do what they do for the same money.

You get paid what someone else thinks you are worth. Whether they're right or not is another matter, often you might argue they aren't, but that doesn't change the validity of the statement.

If you get paid what you get paid because someone else thinks that is what you are worth, then you are worth what someone else thinks they need to pay you. That's circular, and it's a platitude. The point is how someone decides what they think you are worth. The people who run most of the banks have proved that they are incapable of correctly judging what their employees are worth, because the activities of the employees - including the managers, directors, and the boards - have destroyed their banks. They are maintained by life-support provided by tax payers and governments.

Snow Birds' "argument" is just begging the question, it is simply the platitude mentioned. If it is a substantive claim then it is false, as the inability of bankers to assess the worth of their employees demonstrates. Once again the truth is far more complicated than simple-minded responses allow. The kind of social/economic organisation in which the thinking that says "it can all be left to the market" worked is inadequate for the modern world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah, blah, blah. Look at how much people got paid to run the banks into the ground...........any Tom, Dick or Harry on min wage could have done their job.

The fact is they can't, it's a universally popular but completely ridiculous fantasy.

The pool of talent available to fill senior management positions is, unfortunately, very small. I say unfortunately because if it was larger you could get away with paying them a lot less.

There's an infinite supply of silly blowhards who'll spout 'I could do his job for half as much pay'. The fact is they couldn't and the supply of those with the genuine experience and ability to is exceeded by demand.

The usual suspects won't want to hear it but, sky high executive pay is in fact a symptom of the minimum wage. Low level labour within companies has become commoditised so the main point of difference becomes the people leading them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah, blah, blah. Look at how much people got paid to run the banks into the ground...........any Tom, Dick or Harry on min wage could have done their job.

The fact is they can't, it's a universally popular but completely ridiculous fantasy.

The pool of talent available to fill senior management positions is, unfortunately, very small. I say unfortunately because if it was larger you could get away with paying them a lot less.

There's an infinite supply of silly blowhards who'll spout 'I could do his job for half as much pay'. The fact is they couldn't and the supply of those with the genuine experience and ability to is exceeded by demand.

The usual suspects won't want to hear it but, sky high executive pay is in fact a symptom of the minimum wage. Low level labour within companies has become commoditised so the main point of difference becomes the people leading them.

They can have their pay, if we can have our billions back. Fair deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe if we lived in a libertarian society where you could build houses where you wanted without permits, where you could practice the occupation you wanted without state certification and state limited numbers of places for the most desireable jobs. Then a totally free market in labour might make sense.

Right now the rich want it both ways, strict state protections limiting supply for what they do(accountants, lawyers, doctors, dentists, even commercial property owners).. with a global free market in labour for what poor people do.

Luckily the poor are wiseing up though. In a free market for labour if you don't like the pitiful wages they offer you can choose not to work for that. And year by year more poor are choosing not to work for that.. and instead go on public benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah, blah, blah. Look at how much people got paid to run the banks into the ground...........any Tom, Dick or Harry on min wage could have done their job.

The fact is they can't, it's a universally popular but completely ridiculous fantasy.

The pool of talent available to fill senior management positions is, unfortunately, very small. I say unfortunately because if it was larger you could get away with paying them a lot less.

There's an infinite supply of silly blowhards who'll spout 'I could do his job for half as much pay'. The fact is they couldn't and the supply of those with the genuine experience and ability to is exceeded by demand.

The usual suspects won't want to hear it but, sky high executive pay is in fact a symptom of the minimum wage. Low level labour within companies has become commoditised so the main point of difference becomes the people leading them.

Utter rubbish as usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah, blah, blah. Look at how much people got paid to run the banks into the ground...........any Tom, Dick or Harry on min wage could have done their job.

The fact is they can't, it's a universally popular but completely ridiculous fantasy.

The pool of talent available to fill senior management positions is, unfortunately, very small. I say unfortunately because if it was larger you could get away with paying them a lot less.

There's an infinite supply of silly blowhards who'll spout 'I could do his job for half as much pay'. The fact is they couldn't and the supply of those with the genuine experience and ability to is exceeded by demand.

The usual suspects won't want to hear it but, sky high executive pay is in fact a symptom of the minimum wage. Low level labour within companies has become commoditised so the main point of difference becomes the people leading them.

:lol: WTF are you on about?

the majority of high earners in this country are on the state payroll, on way or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nothing in this world is "fair".

Does that mean that if I am bigger and stronger than you it's ok for me to beat you up and take your wallet? Or do you believe that there should be rules to prevent me abusing my position of power over you in this regard?

If you really think fairness does not matter try jumping the que next time you go to the bank- you will discover then that fairness matters very much indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You clearly haven't read what Snow Birds has written have you? Bankers get paid highly because they are deemed worth it by their organisation - rightly or wrongly. This effectively is their ability to extract high levels of pay, their percived value to the company. Those at the low end have bugger all ability to enforce higher pay demands because they are not deemed worth more pay by their organisations, often because there's plenty more that can do what they do for the same money.

You get paid what someone else thinks you are worth. Whether they're right or not is another matter, often you might argue they aren't, but that doesn't change the validity of the statement.

Banks employ street 'urchins' - how do they talent spot them?

I have my ideas what "barrow boy" 'symbolises' - but try to keep it to the icke thread! ;)

I'm sure arch-B.B. Lord 'Sugar' would be a bit 'bitter' about it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah, blah, blah. Look at how much people got paid to run the banks into the ground...........any Tom, Dick or Harry on min wage could have done their job.

The fact is they can't, it's a universally popular but completely ridiculous fantasy.

The pool of talent available to fill senior management positions is, unfortunately, very small. I say unfortunately because if it was larger you could get away with paying them a lot less.

There's an infinite supply of silly blowhards who'll spout 'I could do his job for half as much pay'. The fact is they couldn't and the supply of those with the genuine experience and ability to is exceeded by demand.

The usual suspects won't want to hear it but, sky high executive pay is in fact a symptom of the minimum wage. Low level labour within companies has become commoditised so the main point of difference becomes the people leading them.

Only an idiot would think that just anyone could hold down a senior banking or management role. That's not the point. The fact is that the people who made decisions about pay got it wrong, which undermines the claim that someone is worth what someone else decides to pay them. If the person who makes the decision gets it wrong then the ascription of worth is incorrect.

Your closing point about sky-high executive pay applies only to a limited range of companies in which there is a small number of top jobs and an overwhelming proportion of menial jobs; like chain retailing or fast food organisations. This is not the norm. Introducing the minimum wage into the argument is a red herring. The sorts of companies you mean compete by ruthlessly cutting costs, including pay. Setting a minimum wage reduces the extent to which they can drive down pay, but there is no direct correlation between sky high executive pay and the minimum wage. Assuming that executives don't exercise their ruthless cost-cutting talents by finding ways of circumventing minimum wage legislation, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends what you call "fair"

A colleague of my wife's discovered and patented a technique in the field of antibody technology, he did this whilst working for a government funded research council on a £40k a year salary.

This technique was then spun out into a seperate company and is now a multi-billion pound industry. The employees directly involved in this discovery have done well for themselves and I think the main person probably earnt around £1m.

However the scientists who did this work earned much less than the financiers who were involved in raising the money on the markets for the company to spin out and subsequently float.

How can it be correct that those who invent an entire industry worth billions to this country get less financial reward than those who simply introduce existing capital to ideas. A flipping website outlining the deal could do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<snip> ...A flipping website outlining the deal could do that.

So why didn't they get one? Why did they employ financiers and allow them to make more money than they did? Either it's not as simple as getting a website and the financiers got to make the deals because they did something valuable or the patent holder screwed up because they mis-valued the role of the financiers.

At face value your scenario sounds "unfair" but who are you saying is at fault?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah, blah, blah. Look at how much people got paid to run the banks into the ground...........any Tom, Dick or Harry on min wage could have done their job.

The fact is they can't, it's a universally popular but completely ridiculous fantasy.

The pool of talent available to fill senior management positions is, unfortunately, very small. I say unfortunately because if it was larger you could get away with paying them a lot less.

There's an infinite supply of silly blowhards who'll spout 'I could do his job for half as much pay'. The fact is they couldn't and the supply of those with the genuine experience and ability to is exceeded by demand.

The usual suspects won't want to hear it but, sky high executive pay is in fact a symptom of the minimum wage. Low level labour within companies has become commoditised so the main point of difference becomes the people leading them.

Again thats rubbish and not how senior level pay is decided.

What is the level of the FTSE250 now and a decade ago?

What is the level of share holder returns now and a decade ago?

By these benchmarks what should executive pay be now in real terms as compared to a decade ago?

What actually are executive salaries in real terms compared to a decade ago?

How many executives over the past decade have left with massive golden payoffs after leaving a company that is now a smoking ruin?

How many of the pay consultants that decide these schemes have been fired?

Who decides which of these pay consultants FTSE companies use?

Where do the incentives lie for these pay consultant companies?

Where do the incentives lie for the pension fund managers that permit the above to go on?

What comeback do pension plan owners have against their managers and how easy are they to use?

What ability do the actual shareholders (not pension companies, but the real shareholders) have to decide pay for companies they own?

Answer the above questions and you have your answer on why executives are paid what they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right about one thing - it isn't rocket science. It's harder. Rocket science deals with predictable phenomena governed by natural laws, whereas people are difficult, moody, and sometimes unpredictable. It's easy to talk about things like sandwiches and digging holes, but how do you decide in a large, complex organisation how individual effort relates to the end product? Man who designed the actuator for the rudder on a Boeing 737, say, 0.000013% of the sale price of the aircraft. Women who takes the x-rays of the broken leg of the premier league footballer, £20k - after all he's worth millions so she ought to get paid more for helping fix him than for helping fix some oik from a council estate who smashed themself up joy-riding. Top banker, clearly millions. Hardworking brilliant engineer, clearly s&d all.

Once again another simplistic right-wing ideologue who thinks that what applied in villages when everybody knew everyone else and could see how hard the butcher and the candle stick maker worked and knew what people could and couldn't do without needing degrees and qualifications, can be applied to a modern economy. It can't. Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" was nostalgia when it was written, let alone now.

And btw, we're not your kids. We don't need some lecture on growing up, ta very much. Your kids probably stopped whining when they realised you'd started repeating yourself, and they probably have you marked down as the old g!t.

Your concept of hiring is wrong. Nobody decides a person's worth in any intrinsic way. The only thing that matters is the assessment of the worth. If aircraft engineers are two a penny (like they were immediately after WWII) then their input to the project in terms of importance is not relevant. If jet engine designers are as rare as hen's teeth (like they were immediately after WWII) then they can name their own price. It is entirely supply and demand. There is no "fairness" involved. There is no "eye in the sky" making sure that Spitfire designers get a decent salary because they were so good at what they did.

There is no one deciding what a person "ought" to get based on humanity or education or any other cockamamie socialist ideal. You get what you are worth to someone else. They may be wrong. You may be worth far less and you may be worth far more but at the moment of hiring you were assessed at worth so much. The truth is hindsight. Up or down is irrelevant.

Nobody ever assessed how hard the butcher or candlestick maker worked and payed for meat or candles accordingly. They bought based on quality and price (what a concept) and the butcher and candlestick maker priced on costs and what the market would bear (another wild concept). No I'm not your Daddy and neither is the government and nobody will pay you because you deserve it based on anything other than your worth as assessed by whoever employs you. Tough old world ain't it. Get used to it because the party's over and you have already spent all the money other people (Daddy) are going to give you, now you have to earn it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that mean that if I am bigger and stronger than you it's ok for me to beat you up and take your wallet? Or do you believe that there should be rules to prevent me abusing my position of power over you in this regard?

If you really think fairness does not matter try jumping the que next time you go to the bank- you will discover then that fairness matters very much indeed.

Your post begs the question though: Who makes the decision of what is "fair"? The mugger is quite sure you have more money than he does because you have privilege or whatever. He thinks you are "unfair". He thinks he is being very "fair" even benevolent by letting you live. Are you "fair" by working at a job and not sharing your earnings with him even though he would work if he could? Perhaps it would be more "fair" if you worked for nothing at all and Daddy (the government) gave everyone food and beer for free.

Queue jumpers are quite sure they are far more important than you and that they should be allowed to jump the queue. They think you are being very "unfair" not to recognise this. Fairness is totally subjective and is a matter of perspective. It does not exist intrinsically. There is no such thing as "fair" only your opinion of "fair" and that will be different to someone else's opinion. There is no "eye in the sky" checking on humanity for fairness. That is a concept left over from childhood when you could "tell my Mom about you". We exist as a society by consent. There are no rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your post begs the question though: Who makes the decision of what is "fair"? The mugger is quite sure you have more money than he does because you have privilege or whatever. He thinks you are "unfair". He thinks he is being very "fair" even benevolent by letting you live. Are you "fair" by working at a job and not sharing your earnings with him even though he would work if he could? Perhaps it would be more "fair" if you worked for nothing at all and Daddy (the government) gave everyone food and beer for free.

Queue jumpers are quite sure they are far more important than you and that they should be allowed to jump the queue. They think you are being very "unfair" not to recognise this. Fairness is totally subjective and is a matter of perspective. It does not exist intrinsically. There is no such thing as "fair" only your opinion of "fair" and that will be different to someone else's opinion. There is no "eye in the sky" checking on humanity for fairness. That is a concept left over from childhood when you could "tell my Mom about you". We exist as a society by consent. There are no rules.

Yup! The only viable way to judge is something is fair or not is allow them to say 'yes' or 'no' to your offers - a free market.

We know there are problems with monopolies, not least of land, but the only solution I can see is to make the market genuinely more free, wherever and whenever we can. I just wish those with an axe to grind about 'greedy fat cats' would turn their fire on corporatism and not the concept of a free market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your post begs the question though: Who makes the decision of what is "fair"? The mugger is quite sure you have more money than he does because you have privilege or whatever. He thinks you are "unfair". He thinks he is being very "fair" even benevolent by letting you live. Are you "fair" by working at a job and not sharing your earnings with him even though he would work if he could? Perhaps it would be more "fair" if you worked for nothing at all and Daddy (the government) gave everyone food and beer for free.

Queue jumpers are quite sure they are far more important than you and that they should be allowed to jump the queue. They think you are being very "unfair" not to recognise this. Fairness is totally subjective and is a matter of perspective. It does not exist intrinsically. There is no such thing as "fair" only your opinion of "fair" and that will be different to someone else's opinion. There is no "eye in the sky" checking on humanity for fairness. That is a concept left over from childhood when you could "tell my Mom about you". We exist as a society by consent. There are no rules

But that consent is based on the notion of 'fairness'. And if this perception is lost, the consent is also lost.

I think you underestimate how vital the notion of fairness is. You seem to feel that because children can grasp the concept this means the concept itself is a product if immature thinking.

I would argue that the reason children talk of fairness is because we teach them to do so, because it is vital to their socialisation that they internalise this idea. We talk of jumping the que at the bank- but have you ever done this, or even seen anyone do this- ever?

The idea of fairness is not a childish fantasy, it's the difference between a civil society and a revolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that consent is based on the notion of 'fairness'. And if this perception is lost, the consent is also lost.

I think you underestimate how vital the notion of fairness is. You seem to feel that because children can grasp the concept this means the concept itself is a product if immature thinking.

I would argue that the reason children talk of fairness is because we teach them to do so, because it is vital to their socialisation that they internalise this idea. We talk of jumping the que at the bank- but have you ever done this, or even seen anyone do this- ever?

The idea of fairness is not a childish fantasy, it's the difference between a civil society and a revolution.

Definitely a lovely word, fairness, and a very worthy and useful concept, all other things being equal.

Its fatal flaw is that too often, it requires a referee to enforce it. The referees in real life tend not to be blind but evil. Think Brown, and Mandelson or many other new labour cronies who overuse the word. Even the well meaning who scatter the word around would cut a child in half and give a bit to each divorcing parent.

It has been a useful word to confuse the daft and hard of thinking because they find it a very hard idea to argue with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What has 'fairness' ever had to do with wage rates?

An employer wants to hire the best candidate he can for the lowest wage possible. An employee wants to earn the most they can.

A balance is arrived at. This balance is set by the market; by supply and demand. 'Fairness' has no part to play in the process.

If a person's skills are redundant or no longer saleable, he needs to get himself some different skills.

Edited by Mr Yogi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 145 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.