Titanic99 Posted September 19, 2010 Author Share Posted September 19, 2010 To me the actual levels of pay seem fair relative to the job content, the level of training and/or experience required, the cost of persuing such a position, the revenue generated, and the supply/demand conditions of labour. FTSE-100 chief executive V. High level of responsibility V. High failure rate Usually Masters level qualifications and professional accreditation High personal and financial cost Significant impact on bottom line Companies seek to attract top candidates Premiership footballer Fair level of responsibility V. High failure rate V. Short career No professional qualifications required, but a high 'natural' skill level Fairly high personal cost Significant impact on bottom line Clubs seek to attract top candidates Bond trader High level of risk Usually strong Undergraduate qualifications required High personal and financial cost Significant impact to bottom line Companies willing to pay for top candidates Demand higher than supply Prime minister V. High level of responsibility No professional qualifications formally required, but usually necessary High personal and financial cost Usually limited time-period Secondary school head High level of responsibility Masters level qualification sought and/or significant experience High financial cost Significant impact on success Schools willing to pay for proven success Train driver Moderate level of procedural responsibility No qualifications or experience required Low cost Little bottom line impact Demand higher than supply Social worker Fair level of responsibility Undergraduate degree and professional accreditation in senior positions and/or experience Moderate financial cost Significant impact on success Demand much higher than supply Nurse Moderate/high level of procedural responsibility Minimum Diploma level qualification Moderate personal and financial cost Moderate impact on success (depending on level) Demand higher than supply Technician This is such a general job title, it could be anything. Airline cabin attendant Moderate/low level of responsibility No qualifications required Moderate/high personal cost Moderate/high impact on success Secretary/PA Moderate/low level of responsibility Basic diploma/undergraduate qualifications and/or experience preferred Moderate/low financial cost Low impact on success Supply higher than demand Hospital porter Low level responsibility No qualifications required Moderate impact on success Call centre worker Low level of responsibility No qualifications required Low personal cost Low impact on bottom line Supply higher than demand Care assistant Low/moderate level of responsibility No qualifications required Low personal cost Low/moderate impact on success (difficult to assess) Demand higher than supply Retail cashier Low level of responsibility No qualifications required No cost Low impact on success Supply higher than demand I have to agree that private sector salaries have nothing to do with a neo-liberal Government. If I may say so that's a very good and thought provoking post although I can't agree with your conclusion. There are lots of wrongs in the figures shown, but one that stands out is the pay of a Chief Exec being £2.1 million a year, compared to the Prime Minister at £142,500. Looking at the skills-set for the Chief Executive you identified the following: V. High level of responsibility V. High failure rate Usually Masters level qualifications and professional accreditation High personal and financial cost Significant impact on bottom line Companies seek to attract top candidates Breaking these down further, what do you think is involved in their roles to justify these salaries. High level of Responsibility- I would guess their role is to meet specific financial targets, to meet these targets isn’t it as simple as ensuring the right Marketing people are in place, the right pricing of the product is agreed and that costs of production are kept to a minimum. I’m not sure which aspect of the above is difficult. High failure rate- If they do, don’t they just end up unemployed like what happens to the rest of us High personal and financial cost- This isn’t the case in all Chief Executives The other skills seem an extension of those above so I’ve not commented on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 What makes you think that private companies have to justify a pay packet though to anyone other than the board and shareholders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cressida Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 I noticed Care Assistant quite low down in the rating, a fulltime Carer I would equate with a nurse's salary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 You make what in my opinion is an incorrect assumption, in that the citizens of other countries welcome these sorts of disparities. Not every country has a rabble rousing socialist group fanning the flames of indignation of the lower paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 This simply isn't true. It is though. You started talking about specific professions and how their salary should be controlled by the government (which obviously knows best via the big brother style votes of the uninformed). Then a few posts later it's anyone earning more than 200k, an arbitrary figure you've picked because you know it excludes 99% of people and is thus easy for people to agree with. It happens that that figure would make no practical difference to taxation income for the income. The only point of it is to assuage your jealousy of those who earn a lot. What is clear is that people aren't in agreement with what certain types or professions are paid, I conceded it is easy to agree with the problem but to resolve it is more problematic. This isn't a problem at all, there's no reason that any persons salary should be set by the general public. It's down to the private enterprise which employs them and the owners of that enterprise to agree a figure with the individual. In the interim I suggested a solution that taxes those paid over a certain amount whilst we collectively bang our heads together to find a solution that meets the wishes of the people who have spoken. You suggested taxing the well paid more because of your political views. Any other reason you give is just a smokescreen to hide your feelings towards the well paid and successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 High level of Responsibility- I would guess their role is to meet specific financial targets, to meet these targets isn’t it as simple as ensuring the right Marketing people are in place, the right pricing of the product is agreed and that costs of production are kept to a minimum. I’m not sure which aspect of the above is difficult. High failure rate- If they do, don’t they just end up unemployed like what happens to the rest of us High personal and financial cost- This isn’t the case in all Chief Executives The other skills seem an extension of those above so I’ve not commented on them. Maybe if your opinion involved less guessing and not being sure then it might be more valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 That depends on to what level you think a central democracy can and should be involved in private arrangements, which is ultimately what private sector pay packets are. It is no longer a democracy if you limit the power of its democratic institutions. You seem to be advocating a Neo-Feudalist society, run by businesses not a democratic one. Such a view will inevitably lead to trouble and a damaged, broken society because Corporations are legally set up to maximise profit, act in their own interests without any concept of morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 What makes you think that private companies have to justify a pay packet though to anyone other than the board and shareholders? Inequality damages society and hinders well being. It is precisely the reason we fought and won our democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 It is no longer a democracy if you limit the power of its democratic institutions. You seem to be advocating a Neo-Feudalist society, run by businesses not a democratic one. Such a view will inevitably lead to trouble and a damaged, broken society because Corporations are legally set up to maximise profit, act in their own interests without any concept of morality. No, I'm advocating a minimally moderated capitalist democracy. Exactly what we have now. Government only needs to interfere in the running of business when it's clearly in the public interest to do so. Capping salaries to assuage jealousy and because some people don't understand what being a CEO involves is not in the public interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 Inequality damages society and hinders well being. It is precisely the reason we fought and won our democracy. Who exactly did we fight for our modern democracy? And at which point did democracy change to involve a neo communist central state which must set the acceptable salaries for people? The majority of people who support the idea of democracy also support the idea of a relatively free market for goods and services. That's because government doesn't exist to run our lives, it only exists to run the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.