Wildcat Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 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. On a whole range of indicators quite clearly it is in the public interest: http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 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. Wages have been regulated since the time of the Norman conquest through taxation. There has never been a point in history, when pay has not been within the control of the state. And no one here is arguing against a regulated free market, what is being argued against is an unfettered market. Free Markets act in the interests of the rich and of the businesses not the people. The whole point of a democracy is to redress the balance and to return some control to the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artisan Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 Not every country has a rabble rousing socialist group fanning the flames of indignation of the lower paid. Bullsit, The French, Spaniards and Amereicans are much more vocaland get their rights far better than we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted September 19, 2010 Author 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? I don't recall saying that they did. What we have from a survey is a clear indignation that the people surveyed believe that some roles are grossly overpaid and that others could do with a bit more. Personally I would like our Government (of whichever party) to address these issues. Out of curiousity do you think the figures being currently awarded are about right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted September 19, 2010 Author Share Posted September 19, 2010 Maybe if your opinion involved less guessing and not being sure then it might be more valid. You are correct in that I have no experience of these positions, I hope you will also concede that I asked the other poster for guidance on what is involved to justify these salaries as shown below. "Breaking these down further, what do you think is involved in their roles to justify these salaries." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted September 19, 2010 Author 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 I would agree that this role is deserving of more pay, both for those that care at home and for those working in care homes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 Titanic, have you seen this research? http://www.neweconomics.org/press-releases/hospital-cleaners-worth-more-society-city-bankers-says-new-nef-research Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted September 19, 2010 Author Share Posted September 19, 2010 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). 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. No I didn't, I posted a link that showed people who have been surveyed on the whole don't agree with the levels of pay people receive for certain professions. For the umpteenth time, I concede it is easy to identify and agree with the problem but resolving it is difficult. But again I don't believe it to be beyond our collective capabilities to come up with a system that pays people a salary that is reflective of what they deserve. Out of curiousity, would you rather the individuals receiving the salaries continued receiving the salary stated, or the one that people stated they deserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted September 19, 2010 Author Share Posted September 19, 2010 Titanic, have you seen this research? http://www.neweconomics.org/press-releases/hospital-cleaners-worth-more-society-city-bankers-says-new-nef-research I'd not seen that before, but from a quick review I see this to be the key statement which I'd agree with. “Pay levels often don’t reflect the true value that is being created. As a society, we need a pay structure which rewards those jobs that create most societal benefit, rather than those that generate profits at the expense of society and the environment.” How we get there is the problem though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted September 19, 2010 Author Share Posted September 19, 2010 Not every country has a rabble rousing socialist group fanning the flames of indignation of the lower paid. Come on Cyclone you can do better than that. This seems like a very simple survey that has brought up results/findings that are at odds with the current levels of pay. I don't see how you can blame Socialist groups for that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.