Maximum "justifiable" wage for doing a job?

[Digsy]

Following on from my comments in the "Jeremy Clarkson" thread.

 

 

When I was a young, naive, impressionable and right-on student I had a big disagreement with my girlfriend (who came from a self-made wealthy family) about what the biggest gross salary that one could reasonable justify for any regular job. The argument actually focussed on a "rich" uncle who worked as an accountant for Shell, who raked in what seemed to me at the time to be an obscene amount for simply sorting out even more massive sums of money. I forget what he was on now, and this was probably nigh on 20 years ago.

 

 

I was reading some comments in the media about the people who the current anger is being directed at, and the term "the rich" comes up a lot.. Now, granted that there are a lot of people who are rich and famous for no apparent reason but there must also be even more people who make themselves rich. Correspondingly, these must be the successful entrepreneurs that society should encourage as they bring wealth and jobs to the country, and yet the people who are angry because the economy is failing are angry at a subset of society which must by definition include the very people the next generation of which could be instrumental in solving the problem.

 

 

I have commented in threads before that a person's concept of what is obscenely and unjustifiably expensive often seems to be defined by what is immediately out of that person's grasp. I.e. Everyone complains that they deserve a pay rise and pay too much in tax, and people who earn more than them seldom deserve it and should be taxed more heavily. What I have realised as I have grown towards my 40's is that your lifestyle almost automatically expands to consume (and in some cases, exceed) whatever pay you bring in. Therefore this subjective impression of who are "the rich" must shift as you progress through life - unless you make some kind of pact with yourself that at some point, no matter how successful you become, your will not allow your lifestyle to get any more excessive.

 

 

So I am wondering what people's current thinking is on who "the rich" are on here if you disregard celebrities and heirs and other hangers on and focus on people who simply go out and do a 9-5 job every day?

 

 

What I don't want people to do is post up what their salaries are - we've had enough threads like that in the past and that isn't the question (although it might have a bearing on your answer but keep it to yourself). Just select what you think the biggest income anyone could ever want to do proper work for might be - what the CEO for a UK-based multi national company might earn, for example. You may think they spend very little of their time doing "real work" as they just sit in meetings and jet around the world all day, or maybe you think that the stress and responsibility for the thousands of workers below them means that deserve every penny.

 

 

Here's a few stats that might help:

The 2011 figure for AVERAGE GROSS earnings in the UK is £463 per week including bonuses and £436 per week basic.

The 2010 figure for AVERAGE mortgage payments (capital and interest) was £44.9 per week.

The 2010 figure for AVERAGE total household expenditure (including mortgages) was £473.60 per week.

The basic minimum wage for a person over 21 is £6.08 per hour (gross).

The AVERAGE number of hours worked per person per week in 2011 is 37.

I have also attached a chart of how gross yearly salary breaks down into tax and NI. This is very simplified and not 100% accurate but it is close enough for this thread.

(All data comes from the National Statistics website http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/index.html).

 

 

Twenty years ago I used to think the answer to this question was £50000. I haven't reached that myself yet but I no longer believe that it is the correct answer and haven't for some time.

[Scott]

I voted £100k. It's a very tricky question though, as you say.

 

Anyone earning more than 100k for me isn't justified unless it is a business IMO. 9-5 I can't see how anything over that sort of money could be justified. To say that accounting for money is worth more than saving peoples lives is just ridiculous in my opinion but I guess it all comes down to who is paying you. Anyone earning more than 100k and doing a 9-5 job is a waste for me. That type of salery should be for pioneers, entrepreneurs and businesses. Making that sort of money through stock and trading is fair enough.

 

 

Here's a little analogy I just thought of....

 

I know there are a lot of PC techies in here so lets say that ITBodNo1 gets a phonecall asking to come out and look at a PC. He turns up at the address in a very run down area to find that it's a single parent that's having difficulty with her PC, and it is one of the few relatively cost free pleasures that all of the family enjoy. ITBodNo1 sources the route of the problem, fixes it and charges his fee.

 

Now lets say that ITBodNo1 got the call to go to a private mansion instead, where a servant answered the door and took him past room after room till he got to the Study where one of the many PCs of the home was having the same issue as the above scenario. ITBodNo1 of course sorces the route of the problem, fixes it and charges his fee.

 

Would the fees be the same? On paper they should be but in reality, or I guess IMO really, they won't be.

 

 

The point of your question is that there should be a limit, and there certainly should be. Regardless of who the above job was done for there is a maximum charge that could be put on the work done, this maximum charge will most likely be taken at the mansion where the covering of expenses would most likely be taken at the poorer home.

 

It's the world we live in though

[Attero]

Justifiable?

 

A justifiable wage is anything that the person deserves. If you own a business, you are IMO, entitled to as much of the money that your share of the company takes in revenue. If you were a real entrepreneur, you would know not to take more than the company can survive on and if you are a good person, you wouldn't take more than you would need just for the hell of having money.

 

As for any casual worker, it's hard to put a pay cap on them as everyone's work varies. Some people deserve more than others, but if somebody has done a bloody good job for the past 5-10 years in making a company earn an extra £100m in revenue, then I don't see why that person shouldn't have a nice wage packet to go with it.

 

I would say £200k would be a nessecary top for anyone who doesn't co-own or entirely own a business.

[welshbuddy]

all dependant on where you live i Say.

[johnny g]

I've put £200,000 - don't know why, just a empirical figure.

[DamanC]

No limit.

 

As a business owner, I wish to be able to employ the very best staff I could, sometimes that want commands top dollar. If said manager/CEO whatever effects company turnover/profit then they are worth every penny imo.

[jonathanc]

Most of the people I know earn well above £50k minus any bonus they are entitled to so I presume that's the norm? I would love to earn over 100k but can't imagine the tax...

[johnny g]

No limit.

 

As a business owner, I wish to be able to employ the very best staff I could, sometimes that want commands top dollar. If said manager/CEO whatever effects company turnover/profit then they are worth every penny imo.

 

Positively affects

[DamanC]

 

 

Here's a little analogy I just thought of....

 

I know there are a lot of PC techies in here so lets say that ITBodNo1 gets a phonecall asking to come out and look at a PC. He turns up at the address in a very run down area to find that it's a single parent that's having difficulty with her PC, and it is one of the few relatively cost free pleasures that all of the family enjoy. ITBodNo1 sources the route of the problem, fixes it and charges his fee.

 

Now lets say that ITBodNo1 got the call to go to a private mansion instead, where a servant answered the door and took him past room after room till he got to the Study where one of the many PCs of the home was having the same issue as the above scenario. ITBodNo1 of course sorces the route of the problem, fixes it and charges his fee.

 

Would the fees be the same? On paper they should be but in reality, or I guess IMO really, they won't be.

 

As an Ex IT Bod that went out on call, the fees remained the same for all.

[DamanC]

Positively affects

 

Of course.

[johnny g]

As an Ex IT Bod that went out on call, the fees remained the same for all.

 

This. I did some IT call-out work in my first couple of years at Uni to bring in the money - and yes, it's a job - and you have to maintain a professional outlook.

 

Same works today some of our clients are Medium company's (30000 workers) - and our rates are constant.

[Scott]

As an Ex IT Bod that went out on call, the fees remained the same for all.

 

I'm too much of a softy then

[jonathanc]

I work closely with the "IT bods" and I do notice there is a large divide of salary earned. Normal tech supports somewhere in the region of 21-30k while those in management level earns well above 50k... IT is definitely the sector to be in

[Scott]

This. I did some IT call-out work in my first couple of years at Uni to bring in the money - and yes, it's a job - and you have to maintain a professional outlook.

 

Same works today some of our clients are Medium company's (30000 workers) - and our rates are constant.

 

 

That kind of goes against the trend of the point the Op made.

 

He explained that a Shell accountant would make more than a-n-other accountant. A-n-other accountant could very well be better than the Shell accountant, he could work harder and do more, but the sole fact that Shell is a huge organisation with massive profit margins means that his pay is reflected by this.

 

If working for a higher profile organisation I would expect to get paid more for doing the same job. Which is fair enough I guess, but there should be a limit IMO.

[mwilkinson]

No limit from me too.

 

Why have a limit? If they can earn it good on them. I wouldn't be complaining if it was me.

 

There will always be someone richer than you out there. (Unless you are the undisputed richest person!!).

[sdistc]

I don't believe there is any limit to "justifiable". However, this is one of the marks of a capitalist economy - "worth" is determined by both demand and how deep pockets are.

 

I deal with both senior banking and senior private medical consultants, and they both work very very hard to achieve their pay packets. Some might say that banking is less worthwhile than medicine, as it produces nothing but more money - but you can't blame people for operating within the framework of established society! I myself wouldn't compromise on my personal happiness by working longer hours than the 40 I already do (and I'm intending to reduce those) - but of course, my background is relatively privileged so perhaps my perception of value/worth is skewed upward already.

[tooquicktostop]

It's actually so true that the more you earn your lifestyle adjusts and I don't feel much "richer" today than when I was earning half what I do now, the average mortgage figure did make me chuckle, here in the SE of England you don't get much of a family home for less than 300k

I would say I work with people who earn big money but I actually think in most cases they deserve it based on their output for the business

[Snooze]

In the private sector, it's all justifiable - if you don't justify your salary, you don't keep your job. Simple as that.

 

Public sector, this becomes a much more interesting question, as you have to balance the salary against the value to society. In this regard you can clearly see some issues with salary/value comparisons (eg. nurses?).

 

Wouldn't like to guess what the person with the "highest" value to society is..... although I don't like it (and I'll probably get flamed to death for saying it!) the correct answer is probably senior politicians.

 

To explain - I think the current political process is too heavyweight, beaurocratic, corrupt and expensive, and we probably all think we could do a better job, but I suspect that it's not true when it comes down to it - the good politicians who put the work in and manage to get things done despite the process are probably the pinnacle of true value to society. Personally - I believe that the top politicians are probably underpaid in truth. They earn many, many time less than their private sector counterparts - I think it would be fascinating if characters such as Richard Branson and Willie Walsh were in politics..... but I don't think they'd accept the massive pay cut!

[Shane]

The guy at the head of the organisation I work for earns millions of dollars every year, how many millions I have no idea. He doesn't, nor has he ever done a day's work in the terms of what most people on this forum would regard as a days work. He hasn't built up a business like many rich successful high earning business men have done, he earns what he earns from being part of a family, some would say dynasty. However all this said, does he deserve to earn this, is it "justifiable"?

 

In my opinion, depending on what school of thought you are from an argument could be made for the yes vote, but equally for the no argument. This guy employs thousands of staff here in the UK as well as similar amounts in the US, mainland Eu. and the Middle East. Staff in the UK include, bog cleaners, kitchen porters, Valets, Drivers, Plumbers, Architects, Surveyors, Facility Staff, Security guys, IT teams, TV uplinking Engineers, Telephone Engineers, Curators, Interior design staff, swimming pool attendants, Gardeners, Telephonists, Pilots, Electricians, Carpenters, Painters, Horse trainers, Jockeys, Vets, Drs, Financial advisers, Estate Managers etc and believe me the list goes on and on.

 

So, does his income seem justified? I don't know how to measure justification, but the amount of tax his income contributes to the UK and the tax he pays on his income is pretty substantial and the amount investment he makes in the UK is immense. I reckon so long as the income is spent here in the UK and the earner isn't doing any harm with the money like funding terrorism I cant see the issue of how much someone earns.

 

If the issue is on the grounds of morality, then there are bigger issues in the world to be concerned over.

[j_jza80]

People should be entitled to earn a fair proportion of the assets received by a business because of their contribution.

 

People who say otherwise are either poor, hypocrites or Jesus/Mohammed

[Septic]

People should be entitled to earn a fair proportion of the assets received by a business because of their contribution.

 

People who say otherwise are either poor, hypocrites or Jesus/Mohammed

 

I'm sorry what??

[Lbm]

I'm sorry what??

 

I think he wants everyone to be a John Lewis 'Partner'

 

Actually, I have no idea.

 

So I put it all into Google translater.

 

But it failed to come up with a punchline for me.

[sdistc]

I think he wants everyone to be a John Lewis 'Partner'

 

Actually, I have no idea.

 

So I put it all into Google translater.

 

But it failed to come up with a punchline for me.

I thought for a sec

That you had written your post

just like a haiku.

[j_jza80]

I think he wants everyone to be a John Lewis 'Partner'

 

Actually, I have no idea.

 

So I put it all into Google translater.

 

But it failed to come up with a punchline for me.

 

I am the punchline

[Swampy442]

IMO the abillity to justify a wage depends on how much you earn. A person like myself on a servicemans wage would think the CEO of BP's wage as unjustisifiable. The CEO of lloyds TSB could justify it.

We all want to be rich, I just want enough money to not worry about money.