Is the middle class splitting in two?

[Maz3]

You mean in a "allo allo" sort of way?

 

Oui .............

[L00b]

You frogs can be a tediously pedantic lot. I was just trying to lighten things up a bit.

Ah, so that's what that was, 'humour'...Learnt if off Bernard Manning, have you?

Remind me not to attempt humour with you again.

Too kind. I've already got 3 copies of "The Official I hate the French handbook", I won't miss it

You asked why do lawyers, doctors and so forth earn more. Have you ever thought about why they CAN earn more? That is because those industries are more regulated, and are structured in terms of pay, and also in terms of salaries.

That might be the case for NHS-paid doctors, but I doubt it's the case for doctors/surgeons in the private healthcare sector, and I know for a fact that it is not the case for the legal profession at large.

[cuttsie]

According to Polly Toynbee and David Walker, (http://www.kgbanswers.com/records and statistics) only 10% of the population earn over £40k per anum.

As an aside to that. It was reported on the radio this morning that five people who live in England own more of the wealth than 20% of the population put together.

That is around twelve million people.

This is a disgracefull situation ! int it.

[Maz3]

It was reported on the radio this morning that five people who live in England own more of the wealth than 20% of the population put together.

That is around twelve million people.

This is a disgracefull situation ! int it.

 

It's appalling, and the trend for wealth to be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands is increasing.

[salsafan]

Ah, so that's what that was, 'humour'...Learnt if off Bernard Manning, have you?

Too kind. I've already got 3 copies of "The Official I hate the French handbook", I won't miss it

That might be the case for NHS-paid doctors, but I doubt it's the case for doctors/surgeons in the private healthcare sector, and I know for a fact that it is not the case for the legal profession at large.

 

I'm sorry, but why is this not the case for the legal industry ? Meaning that if you pass a certain qualification then the employer need to pay you more.

 

In my industry for example, a system administrator does not have to be qualified, but have a little bit of experience and he can be sitting next to a colleague who is qualified either through professional certification and or an education in the relevant degree. Also, BCS does not regulate the industry as the General Medical Council does on Doctors. I assume that the legal profession have a similar entity like the GMC to regulate them.

[Anna B]

I'm sorry, but why is this not the case for the legal industry ? Meaning that if you pass a certain qualification then the employer need to pay you more.

 

In my industry for example, a system administrator does not have to be qualified, but have a little bit of experience and he can be sitting next to a colleague who is qualified either through professional certification and or an education in the relevant degree. Also, BCS does not regulate the industry as the General Medical Council does on Doctors. I assume that the legal profession have a similar entity like the GMC to regulate them.

 

What about Barristers, QCs etc? How does the hierarchy work? I've never thought of them as struggling.

[L00b]

I'm sorry, but why is this not the case for the legal industry ? Meaning that if you pass a certain qualification then the employer need to pay you more.

Because, whilst this is common sense and indeed correct, it is not what you said. You suggested a level of structure and organisation which just does not exist: my point was that there is no more or better 'structure' about salary/remuneration in the legal profession than in any most other professions, regulated or not. It's a market-driven free-for-all, with the usual offer & demand constraining factors.

I assume that the legal profession have a similar entity like the GMC to regulate them.

Yes, the SRA (& individual 'sub' regulators for certain specialist areas like mine). But the SRA has nothing to say about salary/remuneration levels and progression whatsoever. It's a free-for-all wherein the market forces play to their full extent.

[salsafan]

Because, whilst this is common sense and indeed correct, it is not what you said. You suggested a level of structure and organisation which just does not exist: my point was that there is no more or better 'structure' about salary/remuneration in the legal profession than in any most other professions, regulated or not.

What did you think I meant ? It is okay if you do not understand where I was coming from at all. Whereas you read into what I wrote more than my intent.

As you can see, I elaborated more and clarified based on your misunderstood post above.

 

I was under the assumption that in the legal industry, they also have a certified professional structure similar to that of the medical industry. Not just based on a company's own decision based on their own profit level.

 

I presume you work in the legal industry, can you clarify if I am correct with this assumption, or should I just google and research to check ?

 

It's a market-driven free-for-all.

yes, the SRA (& individual 'sub' regulators for certain specialist areas like mine). But the SRA has nothing to say about salary/remuneration levels and progression whatsoever. It's a free-for-all wherein the market forces play to their full extent.

 

Ok, so if I understood the above, your area is a niche specialist area from the main legal structure of which it is based on market demand, and not based on an actual professional hierarchial and regulated structure ?

 

I brought this point up about the salary level against regulated profession is to show Anna why certain jobs could be higher than average, and it stays that way.

[L00b]

What did you think I meant ?

Well, based on this:

You asked why do lawyers, doctors and so forth earn more. Have you ever thought about why they CAN earn more? That is because those industries are more regulated, and are structured in terms of pay, and also in terms of salaries.

I think you meant that "lawyers, doctors and so forth" CAN earn more because those industries are more regulated, and are structured in terms of pay, and also in terms of salaries"

 

And I have explained (...I hope ) that, although those industries are indeed regulated, the pay/salaries associated with these industries is no more "structured" than the pay/salaries associated with most other industries.

 

Meaning there is no set scale of pay/salary like you would find e.g. for civil servants like teachers, police officers, etc.

I was under the assumption that in the legal industry, they also have a certified professional structure similar to that of the medical industry. Not just based on a company's own decision based on their own profit level.

That's just the point.

 

There is a professional structure. Just like the medical profession, and most other professions (in the conventional sense of the word: i.e. you need relevant qualification(s) to practice it).

 

For the legal industry at least, that structure does not set or dictate pay levels.

Ok, so if I understood the above, your area is a niche specialist area from the main legal structure of which it is based on market demand, and not based on an actual professional hierarchial and regulated structure ?

Not very clear, but I think I understand the point. And in answer: no.

 

My area is a niche specialist area within the main legal structure

 

My profession is regulated by the SRA (ultimately) and a sub-regulator (more immediately)

 

Entry into my profession is free for the asking (well...subject to job opportunities), staying in the profession and salary progression are subject to gaining professional (legal-) qualifications and experience. If you never qualify, depending on the employer, you get kicked out or you just stay a trainee on a trainee salary.

 

Market demand and local competition set pay/salary level (e.g. a fully-badged practitioner in Sheffield is on less than a fully-badged practitioner in Leeds or Manchester, and both are on far less than a fully-badged practitioner in London). Standard market mechanics. Makes sense?

I brought this point up about the salary level against regulated profession is to show Anna why certain jobs could be higher than average, and it stays that way.

No. Or rather, "it's not as simple as that", is a better way of putting it. There are really very many factors influencing professional pay levels at any one time. Where the legal professions are concerned, that is, as I don't profess to know how the medical professions 'work' on that front.

 

It's just disingenuous to continue to portray the legal profession at large as enforcing some sort of numerus clausus to artificially inflate salary levels, 'looking after itself', out to fleece all its clients and charges, etc. It's moved on an awful lot since Lord Wolf's reforms (and many others most on here have never heard of).

[salsafan]

Well, based on this:

I think you meant that "lawyers, doctors and so forth" CAN earn more because those industries are more regulated, and are structured in terms of pay, and also in terms of salaries"

 

And I have explained (...I hope ) that, although those industries are indeed regulated, the pay/salaries associated with these industries is no more "structured" than the pay/salaries associated with most other industries.

 

Meaning there is no set scale of pay/salary like you would find e.g. for civil servants like teachers, police officers, etc.

That's just the point.

 

There is a professional structure. Just like the medical profession, and most other professions (in the conventional sense of the word: i.e. you need relevant qualification(s) to practice it).

 

You know, paraphrasing my words are not going to impress me in the slightest. At best, I find it rude.

 

If you noticed how I wrote my point, I asked Anna to consider, and not to state and to tell her. There is a difference and a deliberate in expression of what you are saying to how I wanted to express myself. Please do read.

 

I think you are still missing the point really.

 

For the legal industry at least, that structure does not set or dictate pay levels.

Not very clear, but I think I understand the point. And in answer: no.

 

My area is a niche specialist area within the main legal structure

 

My profession is regulated by the SRA (ultimately) and a sub-regulator (more immediately)

Do these regulators require you to register with them, and if you perform a misconduct, then will you be struck of the list ?

 

Entry into my profession is free for the asking (well...subject to job opportunities), staying in the profession and salary progression are subject to gaining professional (legal-) qualifications and experience. If you never qualify, depending on the employer, you get kicked out or you just stay a trainee on a trainee salary.

 

Market demand and local competition set pay/salary level (e.g. a fully-badged practitioner in Sheffield is on less than a fully-badged practitioner in Leeds or Manchester, and both are on far less than a fully-badged practitioner in London). Other factors can sometimes have disproportionate effects as well. E.g. I happen to specialise in the "dark arts" of computer-implemented inventions, and to have a non-trivial amount of experience in that greyest of legal fields...and the market has long-placed a top end premium on that, and still does.

Right. Ok. So it means you need a professional qualification and being certified first, and I assume that this certification is also the same set of qualification for all solicitor's. Is that right? If this is so, then this is also similar to the medical industry. All doctors require a basic degree in medicine, and then work experiences added on top before the actual certified title can be achieved. From that point onwards, they can still study further to specialise in any specific areas.

 

But in comparison to IT. This is not the same. Anyone with an IT degree (or not), can enter the industry. They do not have to have the qualification to back themselves up, even within managerial positions. Some companies do require you to have a degree, but others do not. Also, some companies will want you to have vendor specific professional certification, than a general standard, and regulated certification. Microsoft's certification, and any other system certification is to qualify you to work on those specific systems, but it can also mean that anyone can support them once implemented. So this is where it gets confusing and the salaries can fluctuate, and it is not even linked to work experiences, or certification. The certification are also market driven too. Meaning that it is provided by the product maker themselves, and not by an impartial entities that is agreed across the globe. This is the difference here.

 

With accountancy and with medicine, there is a global agreed standard and basic. There may be country specific regulations and a little bit of difference, but overall, this is set for any person. Whereas within IT, this is not so. This was the point I was trying to drive at. In those professional industries that has an existing global standard will seem to be at a much higher in salary level, than other jobs which do not have the same global standard and its associated entities to back them up.

 

In medicine, at leas the GMC can show the number of doctors that exist at any one time. So therefore if even hospitals and other health entities need to check salary levels against the number of candidate before deciding on salaries this can show that this is indeed a limiting resource pool of people. So maybe this can explain why salaries can also be higher too. Whereas with IT, you do not have a main register of people. Anybody who remotely touched a single button can claim themselves to be a professional, even if they have only provided support only or used the system only, then they can indeed place this on their own CV to promote themselves. This drives salaries down also, as well as it drives and dilute expertise too. Even when entities like BCS provides certain level of certification, employers do not necessarily also pay you more for this kind of professional certification as they do not recognise this. Plus they also do not want to pay more, even if the candidate can know and do so much more. They often try to squeeze the salary to match a certain level inline with the company's profit, rather than to give salaries inaccordance to what you have certified towards.

 

Professionally speaking, I'm rare, so I'm expensive (). A conveyancing solicitor is less rare, so less expensive. And a shop attendant is not rare at all, so very cheap. Standard market mechanics. Makes sense?

No. Or rather, "it's not as simple as that", is a better way of putting it. There are really very many factors influencing professional pay levels at any one time. Where the legal professions are concerned, that is, as I don't profess to know how the medical professions 'work' on that front.

 

It's just disingenuous to continue to portray the legal profession at large as enforcing some sort of numerus clausus to artificially inflate salary levels, 'looking after itself', out to fleece all its clients and charges, etc. It's moved on an awful lot since Lord Wolf's reforms (and many others most on here have never heard of).

I was trying to find an understanding as to why the difference in salaries. Yes, I know that there are regional differences as well as a supply and demand angle during the different times depending on the numbers available within the pool of candidates at any moment in time, but as I was saying, without that regulation, it can fluctuate even more so, than it would have done normally, comparatively in any profession.