The top 1% and the one to twelve ratio...

Buzz Killington the third

It's something they're talking about on Newstalk at the moment. The idea is that within a company, the top earner can not earn more in a month than the lowest paid worker earns in a year.

I think it's something that should be enforced and would work well in the Civil/Public service but in a private company I think limiting wages is just wrong. When someone starts a company, why should they not benefit from it?

The Dagda

Yes?

solomafioso

How can I subscribe to your newsletter?

Celly Smunt

No.You pay the best to get the best.


The less meddling by governments in the private sector the better.

lennyloulou

why should this be applied to public/civil service?
what about a highly qualified person who has studied here for 4-6 yrs, studied abroad for 5 yrs and conducted research? They are top of their field and happen to work for public sector??? Are they not entitled to their just wage?
You have got to be joking!!!!!
A ridiculous thread!

Valetta

Private companies should be allowed pay whatever the hell they like.

shruikan2553

I don't see why someone should get above minimum wage in a company just because the people at the top earn more. Unskilled work is still unskilled no matter what wages anyone else earns.

Buzz Killington the third

lennyloulou wrote: »

why should this be applied to public/civil service?

Because it's the tax payer that funds their wages!

lennyloulou wrote: »

what about a highly qualified person who has studied here for 4-6 yrs, studied abroad for 5 yrs and conducted research? They are top of their field and happen to work for public sector??? Are they not entitled to their just wage?

They can contract or they can go abroad. Simple.

folan

lennyloulou wrote: »

what about a highly qualified person who has studied here for 4-6 yrs, studied abroad for 5 yrs and conducted research? They are top of their field and happen to work for public sector??? Are they not entitled to their just wage?

1) Happen to work in the public sector? what, they slipped and fell and it just kinda happened? They choose to work there.
2)they are totally entitled to their just wage. if they are not getting it where they are currently working, then they should leave.
3) Money is not the only motivator: see Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Perhaps they are having more of the higher points met in the public sector and are happier to stay there
4) if that "just wage" means even 1 less hospital bed, then its not worth it.

Riskymove

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

Because it's the tax payer that funds their wages!

so therefore random ideas or ratios should be automatically applied??

folan

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

The idea is that within a company, the top earner can not earn more in a month than the lowest paid worker earns in a year.

needs so much more information. Private company? Public company? who are earners? Shareholders, board members, private contractors?

let each company do it their way, profit share or whatever.

folan

Riskymove wrote: »

so therefore random ideas or ratios should be automatically applied??

I reckon BKIII would prefer if they were in some way not random, but yes

kiffer

lennyloulou wrote: »

why should this be applied to public/civil service?
what about a highly qualified person who has studied here for 4-6 yrs, studied abroad for 5 yrs and conducted research? They are top of their field and happen to work for public sector??? Are they not entitled to their just wage?
You have got to be joking!!!!!
A ridiculous thread!

What's a just wage?
If the lowest paid employee is getting 20k, then 12 times that is 240,000...
That's plenty.

Fr_Dougal

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

Because it's the tax payer that funds their wages!

They can contract or they can go abroad. Simple.

In this country with the public sector, contracting would only increase the cost of employment.

folan

kiffer wrote: »

What's a just wage?
If the lowest paid employee is getting 20k, then 12 times that is 240,000...
That's plenty.

maybe for you, but im aiming for 12 times 240,000.

which might be more achievable if my language and math skills were higher.

evolving_doors

do the maths fella , lowest wage in public service would be about 20k... 12x20k = 240k

Who in the public service is getting that? Maybe a few but would reducing their wage a few k to make the ratio wouldnt really get you that much.

And how does it help the person on the lowest wage!

Buzz Killington the third

Riskymove wrote: »

so therefore random ideas or ratios should be automatically applied??

It's not random, read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_ratio

It wasn't passed in Switzerland after a vote but there's a lot of people pushing their countries to consider it.

Frynge

kiffer wrote: »

What's a just wage?
If the lowest paid employee is getting 20k, then 12 times that is 240,000...
That's plenty.

But that is only your point of view. I fully agree that 240000 is such a ridiculously high wage it is hard to comprehend but someone on that wage has probably gotten used to spending serious amounts of money every month. Is it fair for the government to then step in and say you are not allowed to earn any more until you start paying your lowest paid workers more.

Also it isn't a very accurate name as for one scenario it would probably be a 1:6 and another person maybe 1:8 if it is based on net earning (which would be unlikely)

All such a system would achieve to do is creat a bigger tax advice sector in this country as the easiest way around it is with a relatively straightforward company structure whereby you would work for your company as a consultant and the company would be invoiced as such by a company also owned by you but which also pays you. Even with certain limitations for directors included in any such law I can already see at least 10 ways to get around it.

In short it is pointless to even entertain the idea.

kiffer

folan wrote: »

maybe for you, but im aiming for 12 times 240,000.

which might be more achievable if my language and math skills were higher.

No that's simple you just have a company that owns a company that empoys your workers... so you work for Folan Management Inc. which owns Folan Donkeywork ltd. FM has 2 emploees, FD has loads.
The lowest paid employee of Folan Donkeywork is paid 19k and there is one top guy getting whatever...
then Folan Management is paid all the profits of the actual work for management services and that company's lowest paid employee gets 240k and you the other employee get 2.8 million or so...

kiffer

Frynge wrote: »

But that is only your point of view.
...

In short it is pointless to even entertain the idea.

Yes... of course it's my point of view, that's why I said it...

Yeah it's way to easy to dodge, as a moral rule of thumb it's good, but functionally it's a crazy idea.

GarIT

If your wage is 240k, after tax you are probably only getting under 100k it's not that much.

Some people actually deserve higher wages due to their qualifications/knowledge in the field.

If this was brought in I'd be forced to leave the country.

Frynge

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

It's not random, read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_ratio

It wasn't passed in Switzerland after a vote but there's a lot of people pushing their countries to consider it.

If anything that wiki page makes it appear to be a completely random number plucked out of nowhere. There is also two numbers for which certain groups want used as benchmarks and absolutely no explanation for how a system would/could or should be implemented. Also wanting to bring things to a pre 1950 level for a completely unexplained reason.

This idea seems to have been dreamed up by someone who quite simply hasn't a clue.

The only positive I can see would be the use of it as a marketing ploy along the vein of organic, fair trade and such.

KahBoom

Been waiting to post this somewhere for a while

"The Highest-Paid CEOs Are The Worst Performers"
forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/the-highest-paid-ceos-are-the-worst-performers-new-study-says/

cross the board, the more CEOs get paid, the worse their companies do over the next three years, according to extensive new research. This is true whether they’re CEOs at the highest end of the pay spectrum or the lowest.
...

Dravokivich

You'll just boost the Managed Services business, so all you lower skilled work is paid through someone else.

folan

GarIT wrote: »

If your wage is 240k, after tax you are probably only getting under 100k it's not that much.

1) its loads
2) thanks for paying 58% tax

GarIT wrote: »

Some people actually deserve higher wages due to their qualifications/knowledge in the field.

1) only if said qualifications/knowledge in the field yields really good results. Results are what matter.

GarIT wrote: »

If this was brought in I'd be forced to leave the country.

by who?

GarIT

I think something like this would be the thing needed to make bitcoin a widely used currency.

Bubbaclaus

There are 2 main types of people:

1. The person that looks at the person at the top earning a mass amount of money and thinking to himself, "I'm going to work my best to be up there some day"

2. The person that looks at the person at the top earning a mass amount of money and thinking to himself, "What a bastard, he should be brought closer down to my menial level"


Please don't be #2, as it's basically dragging the country through a pile of ****e and is the height of begrudgery. Some people clearly would prefer if there was no such thing as a "rich" person, which is full on bat**** insanity.

Buzz Killington the third

GarIT wrote: »

I think something like this would be the thing needed to make bitcoin a widely used currency.

Have you seen bitcoin share prices? I salute anyone who made money from it and got out because it's never going to be popular!

shruikan2553

What are people hoping to achieve by this?
Either one persons wages go up or another goes down.
1)The part time waiter to get a wage of 50k
2)The guy who runs the resteraunt gets a cap on his wages because.....umm that bastard has more than me?

kiffer

GarIT wrote: »

If your wage is 240k, after tax you are probably only getting under 100k it's not that much.

Some people actually deserve higher wages due to their qualifications/knowledge in the field.

If this was brought in I'd be forced to leave the country.

Forced!
poor you only earning a measly 100k after tax, it's not like that's 3 times the median household income...

Frynge

kiffer wrote: »

Yes... of course it's my point of view, that's why I said it...

Yeah it's way to easy to dodge, as a moral rule of thumb it's good, but functionally it's a crazy idea.

Just had a quick look at pay roll for the month of May, and according to such a rule I have been paid in excess by just under €2000. Not because I am so well paid, but because one employee only worked 8 hrs in the entire month.

GarIT

folan wrote: »

1) its loads
2) thanks for paying 58% tax


1) only if said qualifications/knowledge in the field yields really good results. Results are what matter.


by who?

I assume you are being sarcastic, but when you add base tax, prsi and USC it all adds up.

Yeah results are probably what matter but your wage is usually decided before you start working.

By not being able to earn a fair wage for my work. I'm not going to stick around here when I could earn double in the states or in Germany.

GarIT

kiffer wrote: »

Forced!
poor you only earning a measly 100k after tax, it's not like that's 3 times the median household income...

What's the problem if someone studies for 10 year, consistently gets perfect results, has an amazing degree do they not deserve to get paid a wage relative to their effort?

kiffer

GarIT wrote: »

What's the problem if someone studies for 10 year, consistently gets perfect results, has an amazing degree do they not deserve to get paid a wage relative to their effort?

Do you feel you put more than 12 times the effort in than a normal person?
Or should effort be rewarded exponentially?
Of course people should be rewarded for their efforts.

Buzz Killington the third

GarIT wrote: »

What's the problem if someone studies for 10 year, consistently gets perfect results, has an amazing degree do they not deserve to get paid a wage relative to their effort?

You do realise that there are thousands of people every year that finish long degree courses that still enter industries with low wages, don't you? Do you think a degree deserves an extortionate salary? Because I don't, I believe you get paid based on your work, not a bit of paper from college.

Frynge

GarIT wrote: »

What's the problem if someone studies for 10 year, consistently gets perfect results, has an amazing degree do they not deserve to get paid a wage relative to their effort?

I bought a brand new car last year that was not cheap. Lots of people bitched and moaned about how it wasn't fair that I was able to buy such a car at my age. These people all had one thing in common. They all completely ignored how much I work and the proven results I have gotten in work.

Yes you do deserve to get paid a very good wage considering the amount of effort you have put in but unfortunately the is a very vocal minority who think differently.

KahBoom

Well the logic for this is simple - given the article/study I posted earlier, showing higher paid CEO's are generally the worst performers, then by capping the highest wages we can either 1: make companies perform better, and/or 2: stop rewarding people excessively, when they aren't doing a better job.

We can pick a cap, of 12x or even 20x the lowest wage, and it will still be a huge amount of money.

Dyr

Celly Smunt wrote: »

No.You pay the best to get the best.


The less meddling by governments in the private sector the better.

There's actually research to show the opposite, CEO's receiving silly money often drops profits for companies

folan

GarIT wrote: »

I assume you are being sarcastic, but when you add base tax, prsi and USC it all adds up.

i understand how tax works, yes. Do you?

GarIT wrote: »

Yeah results are probably what matter but your wage is usually decided before you start working.

only your initial wage. theres things like 6 month probation periods, yearly performance reviews etc.

GarIT wrote: »

By not being able to earn a fair wage for my work. I'm not going to stick around here when I could earn double in the states or in Germany.

no one except you is "forcing" you to leave. you've decided what a fair wage is.

Bubbaclaus

KahBoom wrote: »

Well the logic for this is simple - given the article/study I posted earlier, showing higher paid CEO's are generally the worst performers, then by capping the highest wages we can either 1: make companies perform better, and/or 2: stop rewarding people excessively, when they aren't doing a better job.

We can pick a cap, of 12x or even 20x the lowest wage, and it will still be a huge amount of money.

You forgot 3...

3: Disencentivise people from attempting to climb the ladder

KahBoom

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

You forgot 3...

3: Disencentivise people from attempting to climb the ladder

Proof?

folan

GarIT wrote: »

What's the problem if someone studies for 10 year, consistently gets perfect results, has an amazing degree do they not deserve to get paid a wage relative to their effort?

theve gotten their degree, thats their reward.

if, and only if, they can turn all that into actual results, then they will get paid a wage to reflect that. If their currently not being paid well enough to reflect that, they can move to the states or germany, where i am told you can be paid twice as much.

KahBoom

folan wrote: »

no one except you is "forcing" you to leave. you've decided what a fair wage is.

Yea if anything, going by the studies it will force away the worst performing CEO's demanding excessive pay, so will be good for the companies :pac:

Bubbaclaus

KahBoom wrote: »

Proof?

Why is proof required? Reduce the wage for a important high risk job and people will be less incline to take it as it's no longer worth the hassle.

kiffer

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

You forgot 3...

3: Disencentivise people from attempting to climb the ladder

Yeah, because loads more money, more status and the satisfaction of victory isn't enough to encourage people to excel, sure if you couldn't be a millionaire you'd be a hobo.

KahBoom

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Why is proof required? Reduce the wage for a important high risk job and people will be less incline to take it as it's no longer worth the hassle.

Because if you make a claim - that people will be disincentivized from climbing the ladder - you need to back it with proof, not with superficial reasoning.

kiffer

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Why is proof required? Reduce the wage for a important high risk job and people will be less incline to take it as it's no longer worth the hassle.

High risk job eh? Fight tigers in those civil service jobs now?
Garda on the street gets half a million a year does he?
No, the guy in an office pushing a pen around at zero personal risk gets the big money.

Dyr

GarIT wrote: »

By not being able to earn a fair wage for my work. I'm not going to stick around here when I could earn double in the states or in Germany.

So Long, Farewell, Auf Weiderschen, Adieu

Bubbaclaus

KahBoom wrote: »

Because if you make a claim - that people will be disincentivized from climbing the ladder - you need to back it with proof, not with superficial reasoning.

If you reduce the wage increases going up the ladder it will clearly disincentivise people to climb the ladder. Many would just decide they are happy at the level they are at, and that the extra responsibility the next level brings isn't worth the money being offered. There's no need to be stubborn enough to try and deny this obvious scenario, you can still fit it around your argument.

The reason I chose my current job is due to the opportunity to earn an exceptional salary 10/15 years down the line. Take that opportunity away from me and I'm not going to bother trying to stand out and just relax back into the pack, or even change career.

Bubbaclaus

kiffer wrote: »

High risk job eh? Fight tigers in those civil service jobs now?
Garda on the street gets half a million a year does he?
No, the guy in an office pushing a pen around at zero personal risk gets the big money.

Instead of being such a begrudger, why don't you become "the guy in an office pushing a pen around", you know, since its so easy?

KahBoom

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

If you reduce the wage increases going up the ladder it will clearly disincentivise people to climb the ladder. Many would just decide they are happy at the level they are at, and that the extra responsibility the next level brings isn't worth the money being offered. There's no need to be stubborn enough to try and deny this obvious scenario, you can still fit it around your argument.

The reason I chose my current job is due to the opportunity to earn an exceptional salary 10/15 years down the line. Take that opportunity away from me and I'm not going to bother trying to stand out and just relax back into the pack, or even change career.

"clearly", "many", "obvious" - weasel words mixed with superficial reasoning and unbacked claims, along with trying to generalize your personal anecdote to everybody.

Provide a study, evidence - something a bit more substantive - prove it. You haven't shown it would cause any kind of a problem.