Tories Reverse Thinking On Minimum Wage

[cybernoid]

Of course there is the argument that the benefit claimant should be motivated by morality not personal gain- but no one suggests that an executive has a moral obligation to work for his basic salary- which in fact he does.

So we end with this curious moral inversion where the great and good are clearly seen to require financial incentives to motivate them- while we expect the people we label as scum to be motivated by more lofty moral concerns.

I didn't mean to give you an opportunity to express that same point you have expressed time and time again, I tried to give your understanding a finer granularity, which as ever was a mistake.

You don't listen, you just preach.

I didn't label anyone as scum, and I don't think many people actually do.

Here's some more definition for these broad strokes you intentionally use to blunt any more sophisticated argument - there are pull and push factors at work in motivating someone. And the morality comes from a desire to stand on your own two feet and provide for yourself versus expecting others to provide for you instead ; not something I would describe as 'lofty'.

But whatever. Repeat whatever else is on the schedule and disregard the more subtle points again.

[wonderpup]

I didn't mean to give you an opportunity to express that same point you have expressed time and time again, I tried to give your understanding a finer granularity, which as ever was a mistake.

You don't listen, you just preach.

I didn't label anyone as scum, and I don't think many people actually do.

Here's some more definition for these broad strokes you intentionally use to blunt any more sophisticated argument - there are pull and push factors at work in motivating someone. And the morality comes from a desire to stand on your own two feet and provide for yourself versus expecting others to provide for you instead ; not something I would describe as 'lofty'.

But whatever. Repeat whatever else is on the schedule and disregard the more subtle points again.

I covered your granular objections with a well presented argument as to the motivational model that is applied to the rich- then made the entirely fair point that the same motivational model should be applied to the poor.

If you accept the principle that people are motivated by self interest- as I think you do- then there is no reason to believe that self interest declines as we move down the social scale.

You don't actually use the word 'scum' I agree- but you do imply that those who choose to live on benefits rather than work for no personal gain lack self respect- so in effect you deem them at best as morally corrupt.

But assuming we accept your view that people should work based on a desire to maintain self respect rather than only personal gain- how are we to explain the fact that a CEO paid a basic salary of hundreds of thousands of pounds lacks the self respect to then do the best job he can without demanding an additional bonus payment to provide him with motivation?

I merely compare and contrast your view that the people at the bottom should be motivated by their own internal moral integrity with the spectacle of some of the most well paid people on the planet demanding even more because they so lack self respect and moral integrity that they are apparently incapable of doing their best work unless huge bribes are forthcoming for their efforts.

We seem to live in a society where the brightest and the best rewarded are deemed morally degenerate enough to require bribery to do their own jobs properly- while complaining that the least advantaged lack moral fiber because they are reluctant to take on work for little or no personal gain whatsoever.

The problem is not that your self respect argument lacks merit- the problem is that it only seems to apply to the people at the bottom- after all no self respecting CEO would take a massive bonus simply for carrying out the work which he is already handsomely paid to do- would he?

So if we are to apply a moral standard to the benefit claimant that's fine- so long as the same moral standard is applied to the CEO- but that's not how it works.

Essentially what we have now is a system in which the best paid people are deemed so lacking in moral fiber that only large amounts of cash bribes will ensure they do their best work- while demanding that people on benefits should work not because they will be better off- but because it's the morally right thing to do.

So you tell me- which of the two are we holding to the higher standard of moral behavior?

[okaycuckoo]

Cybernoid and Wonderpup are having an elegant and mostly polite argument about principles.

Meanwhile political constituents direct the gusher of state subsidies.

[gf3]

[cybernoid]

Cybernoid and Wonderpup are having an elegant and mostly polite argument about principles.

How dare you!

Id be up for an interesting discussion but I never get one, just repeated same old stuff whilst ignoring any subtleties based on actual reality, so I give up pretty quickly. Applying simplistic pseudo logic to contort 'observations' to pre determined ideology based 'conclusions' never makes for a logical argument to begin with so any progress from there is impossible.

Anyone with any real world experience or ability to see any finer detail in the real world would dismiss that sort of thing pretty quickly I think, so I don't know who he's trying to convince. This place isn't exactly a soap box for some misplaced idealistic crusade, no-ones listening.

"Thats all very well in practice but what about in theory?" should be wonderpups signature.

If you're genuine wonderpup and actually hold these views then, thats amazing. Good luck to you.

[cybernoid]

Yep.

I simply introduced the idea of push and pull factors before everything was steam rollered again into the world according to wonderpup, so good luck getting any of that to penetrate!

How do I get to hate rich people with that?

[FallingAwake]

But assuming we accept your view that people should work based on a desire to maintain self respect rather than only personal gain- how are we to explain the fact that a CEO paid a basic salary of hundreds of thousands of pounds lacks the self respect to then do the best job he can without demanding an additional bonus payment to provide him with motivation?

Surely it's down to simple POWER.

A CEO has the POWER to raise his salary substantially. Someone on minimum wage, competing with potentially thousands of others of his fellow citizens, and immigrants... doesn't.

[fluffy666]

Surely it's down to simple POWER.

A CEO has the POWER to raise his salary substantially. Someone on minimum wage, competing with potentially thousands of others of his fellow citizens, and immigrants... doesn't.

That's why we used to have both Unions and a Political party representing the working classes.

[wonderpup]

How dare you!

Id be up for an interesting discussion but I never get one, just repeated same old stuff whilst ignoring any subtleties based on actual reality, so I give up pretty quickly. Applying simplistic pseudo logic to contort 'observations' to pre determined ideology based 'conclusions' never makes for a logical argument to begin with so any progress from there is impossible.

Anyone with any real world experience or ability to see any finer detail in the real world would dismiss that sort of thing pretty quickly I think, so I don't know who he's trying to convince. This place isn't exactly a soap box for some misplaced idealistic crusade, no-ones listening.

"Thats all very well in practice but what about in theory?" should be wonderpups signature.

If you're genuine wonderpup and actually hold these views then, thats amazing. Good luck to you.

You keep claiming that my arguments lack merit but then fail to point out why- just saying I am wrong does not really constitute a coherent refutation does it?

I have made two substantive claims;

1) That poor people are just as likely to want to increase their income as rich people- so the idea that a Citizens Income will lead to mass indolence among those at the bottom is simply not a credible claim.

2) The response to a lack of motivation at the bottom is to make accusations of moral turpitude while the response to lack of motivation at the top is to offer large bonus incentives- from which I draw the conclusion that the people at the bottom are being held to a higher standard of moral behavior than those at the top- who are in fact rewarded for their lack of a work ethic by cash incentives.

What you seem to be claiming is that at some point as we move down the social/income scale a radical change in human nature takes place that alters the way that human beings respond to incentives- to such a degree that once the apparent sub humans at the bottom had their basic needs met they would immediately collapse onto a sofa and do nothing for the rest of their lives.

I just don't buy this at all. Sure there will be some people for whom that is true- just as there are some people now who simply do not want to work and are content to live on benefits- but this has always been a minority. Most people would choose to work even if their basic needs were met by a Citizens Income because they would keep a substantive part of what they earned and so be better off by doing so.

Edited January 13, 2014 by wonderpup

[wonderpup]

Surely it's down to simple POWER.

A CEO has the POWER to raise his salary substantially. Someone on minimum wage, competing with potentially thousands of others of his fellow citizens, and immigrants... doesn't.

Of course you are right- but consider that one aspect of wielding power is the ability to define others- especially to define others in terms of moral behavior.

The elites have been very successful in defining lack of motivation among the poor as a moral issue- while defining lack of motivation among themselves as an incentive issue.

So if you are claiming an out of work benefit there is a moral argument to be made that you should take any work on offer- even if you are no better off by doing so- and this is an argument that many people would agree with. In other words the view is that work is something that has a moral as well as a self interest dimension.

However this concern with the morality of work is nowhere to be seen when we look at the people at the top of society- here we see people who are extremely well paid to do their jobs insisting that they must also have the prospect of large bonus's to ensure they have sufficient motivation to do their jobs-so no sign of a work ethic here- just naked greed on display.

So it's fair to say- I think- that in our society the poorest are supposed to work for reasons of morality- while the richest are seen as only working for reasons of personal gain.

And this represents a total inversion of the older notion that those at the top had a moral obligation to exemplify societies values and moral standards.

In today's society it is not to the captains of industry we look for examples of ethics in the workplace- it is to the woman who cleans his office.