Maximum "justifiable" wage for doing a job?

[caseys]

I think as Snooze said, in the private sector it's all about how much you can earn for the company you work for, or inversely how much you can avoid them losing.

 

If for instance a car salesman pulled in £3m to the business maybe you'd pay him 10% + a nominal base salary.

 

Don't pay enough and someone will offer 11% + a nominal base salary and they'd move - you'd have a net loss of £3m.

 

I don't think many are altruistic enough to say "no, I'm ok on the raise, I earn enough to get by thanks."

 

Most people get market worth - not much more, not much less and salary is always applicable to the market you work in.

 

But to give an example - a quantative analyst working for say a school as a physicist/maths teacher will get a school teacher's pay, where as working as a quantative analyst doing risk assessment for financials would probably pay multiples of that. Same skills, different market.

[Digsy]

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.

 

This happens everywhere, though. There are bigger markups on items that go into "luxury" cars even if the same item also goes into a more every day product. I used to know someone whose wife worked in sales for industrial components and if someone rang up saying they needed something urgently or for an emergency she would put the price up automatically even if they had the item in stock simply because she knew they would have no choice but to pay up.

 

all dependant on where you live i Say.

 

Are you saying that because of the cost of living in that area? This obviously already happens already in the UK with "city" wages being higher than "rural" ones. However, it does beg the question why there is still such a focus on expensive areas like London for big business. Global communications mean that a company could be based almost anywhere now, so why are these institutions not more spread out? Manufacturing was quick enough to move abroad when it got too expensive in the UK, why have the banks and investors not moved out to smaller cities where the price of living and hence labour cost isn't so high?

 

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...

 

Then you havn't looked at the attachment in my original post

 

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.

 

In fact I'm not suggesting there should be a limit at all. What I am trying to gauge is where this mythical line between "them" and "us" exists when the general public talks about "the rich" not being affected by the current and proposed cuts, etc as much as "the poor".

[Scott]

This happens everywhere, though. There are bigger markups on items that go into "luxury" cars even if the same item also goes into a more every day product. I used to know someone whose wife worked in sales for industrial components and if someone rang up saying they needed something urgently or for an emergency she would put the price up automatically even if they had the item in stock simply because she knew they would have no choice but to pay up.

 

That's the point I was making really, it happens all the time in many different scenarios. My point is that it isn't really justified, it's opportunistic.

[tbourner]

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.

 

Snap

[Digsy]

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.

 

This is very true. Working within the capitalist framework almost everyone is out to create as much personal wealth as possible - one would hope by making themselves as "worthy" as possibly for a potential employer. In order for any kind of change from this people would have to readily accept working as hard as they could specifically for the purposes of benefitting others, or the "greater good" (which is a fairly good definition of communisim, I suppose). This would also assume some kind of nationally accepted minimum standard of living. However, consider those working in the armed forces who are paid to be in a situation where your "boss" could very probably order you into a situation which you would get killed. Arguments over precisely what those in service actually get paid aside, surely no wage on earth could ever make up for that fact that getting killed something you have to deal with, possibly on a daily basis. Also consider those working in health care. Saving lives and the value that represents for the families affected simply cannot be expressed in terms of a wage. Therefore, something within such people must have already accepted that not matter how much good they do at their chosen profession, their wage will never reflect it.

 

 

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

 

As you guessed, the mortgage figure average tells a distorted picture. The range is very large and the report is difficult to interpret.

 

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?).

 

As I mentioned above I don't think you can have a meaningful discussion about value versus salary for people who work in health care, etc. as it is impossible to put a value on the work they do. Staying with the public sector, what would make someone in a less specialised job work there? Is it because the jobs are (were) more plentiful, secure and until recently had better long term prospects that the private sector? Or is it a desire to be part of the workforce that helps run the country?

 

We've already seen what happens when public services get privatised - the private sector company gets greedy and standards drop to preserve the bottom line for the shareholders. Does this mean that it would be better to have more public sector industry to create more, albeit lower paid, jobs? Again this would drive more people down to a lowest common denominator standard of living and maybe create a bigger wealth divide than before.

 

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!

 

I think you might be right, but I suspect "senior" politicians are not always the best ones - but then again you never get to hear about the good apples in the barrel.

 

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.

 

Good points

 

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

 

Sounds a bit like "performance related pay" to me. Trouble is that depends on the performance of the whole orgainsation rather than the individual.

[sdistc]

However, it does beg the question why there is still such a focus on expensive areas like London for big business. Global communications mean that a company could be based almost anywhere now, so why are these institutions not more spread out? Manufacturing was quick enough to move abroad when it got too expensive in the UK, why have the banks and investors not moved out to smaller cities where the price of living and hence labour cost isn't so high?

 

The reasons are multiple: ease of international transport, spacial proximity for networking / business meetings / competition, perception of affluence / premium branding through location (e.g. Mayfair) etc. etc.

[sdistc]

Also consider those working in health care. Saving lives and the value that represents for the families affected simply cannot be expressed in terms of a wage. Therefore, something within such people must have already accepted that not matter how much good they do at their chosen profession, their wage will never reflect it.

 

Strangely enough, I work in healthcare so I'm confronted quite frequently with the perception that altruism is synonymous with charity. For example, ask how much people would be prepared to pay for an hour with a doctor, and compare that with how much you would expect to pay for an hour with a lawyer.