| Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption |
| OtleyLad |
Equal pay rate - what do you think?My partner and I often get into a discussion about pay. I think the only solution is that everyone regardless of what they do gets the same (decent) pay rate.This would mean that the only way 1 person could earn more than anyone else is by working longer hours. My reasoning is that differential pay rates breed greed, envy and discontent. Inequality drives a big wedge into societies. The old argument against is that the person(s) at the 'top' have more responsibility or training. However, any organisation is only as effective as its least member - if anyone does not do their job properly the whole business will be inefficient and may even go bust. Look how many poorly paid jobs have a high staff turnover - because there is no loyalty or prospects for the employee. And why then would people 'take on' more responsibility or train for years? Well, simply because they want to! People who are paid a decent wage are better workers (and happier) - its a myth that people are lazy and will do the least possible they can get away with (unless they are badly treated or course). How we can get there is a challenge but not impossible. If we ever get to the position of employing anyone we will all be on the same rate (assuming I can convince the OH of course). |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Northern_Lad |
I think they tried this in Russia but it didn't work out too well. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Bebo |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_theory_Y
Depends on whether you think X or Y. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Treacodactyl |
Re: Equal pay rate - what do you think?
So you've honestly never, ever, worked with someone who doesn't pull their weight? I've worked in all sorts of jobs and there's always been a mix of people, some really hard workers, some average and one or two who try to do as little as possible. I can't see how you can pay everyone like that the same otherwise the best staff will leave. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Fee |
Re: Equal pay rate - what do you think?
Decent pay = better worker = not true. I've known plenty of people who are on excellent pay and are appalling at their jobs and unhappy. I believe to make better workers, people have to be doing what they enjoy doing, better pay just keeps people who are bad at a job in that position for longer than they should be. As TD says, it isn't a myth that people are lazy and will do the minimum, I can think of several people from my corporate days off the top of my head, probably quite well paid too. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Silas |
Quite. I wouldn't pay the current 'Apprentices' in buttons, let alone six figure salaries. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Nick |
How would it work for self-employed people? If you're anticipating some kind of state given pay for those people, I'm not sure that'd be a great incentive for people to start up on their own.
Additionally, I'm not sure people would happily move between companies if there was no potential increase in wages. An increase will often help compensate for the risk of moving. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| gil |
Re: Equal pay rate - what do you think?
As in workers cooperatives. But in those organisations, people working there believe in the principle of equal pay, and are thus willing in some cases e.g. finance, to forgo the higher salaries they could command in hierarchical organisations. Another option sometimes practiced in co-ops is pay on the basis of need, e.g. people with dependents get paid more than those without. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| OtleyLad |
Its definately a myth that it was tried in Russia - Lenin/Stalins Russia was all about autocratic power - never about people. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| bagpuss |
What about a one of those pay scales where the highest paid person doesn't get paid more than a certain multiplier of the lowest paid. It is a more transparent system which means those at the bottom don't get screwed over and those at the top don't get paid too much | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Northern_Lad |
Whilst Communism wasn't fully adhered to, paying everyone the same, regardless of occupation was, in general. People just got better perks the higher up the food-chain they got. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| OtleyLad |
Re: Equal pay rate - what do you think?
Equal pay rates would stop people who are useless grabbing more than their worth - at the same time rewarding those who do pull their weight. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Nick |
Re: Equal pay rate - what do you think?
No it wouldn't! If you had two employees, doing the same job, and paid the same amount, but one worked hard, and the other did the square root of toss all, the former would get the same as the latter. The latter is being paid more than he is worth, and the former isn't getting rewarded for working harder. By your very definition, your logic is flawed. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Fee |
Re: Equal pay rate - what do you think?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| hamster |
It was, however, used in Cuba and was abolished last year. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7449776.stm |
||||||||||||||||||||
| OtleyLad |
Re: Equal pay rate - what do you think?
The outcome is that the useless person does not take what is due to the hard worker - thats the important thing here. The hardworker still gets a decent wage despite what the useless person does. In any case most people do work as good as the next person - your argument does not justify the current system either. So you have not in fact justified not having an equal pay rate. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| sally_in_wales |
but if person A turns up for an 8 hours shift and works hard, and person B turns up for an 8 hour shift and spends the day on facebook, they both clock 8 hours, but only one has done their job. How do you balance that under your system? Under current methods, person A may progress and get promoted, b will stay in entry level positions | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Treacodactyl |
Re: Equal pay rate - what do you think?
Where does the money come from to pay the useless person? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| bagpuss |
Re: Equal pay rate - what do you think?
Again I return to my suggestion of a standard payscale where everyone starts at the bottom and the top is a relatively small multiplier (say between 10 and 20 times) the bottom. This means that everyone gets a fair wage but people still have the opportunity to gain more money |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Hairyloon |
Re: Equal pay rate - what do you think?
Not a new idea: An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics. Plutarch (46-120AD) |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Behemoth |
Oh for a Republic! 
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| bagpuss |
Re: Equal pay rate - what do you think?
No its currently I believe used by at this Whole Food Markets with a scale of about 14 |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Loum |
http://www.amazingjokes.com/
A Lesson on Socialism An economics professor said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. The class had insisted that socialism worked - and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer for all, for society. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. He said that all grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone was given a B. The students who studied hard were upset, and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who hadn't studied much for the first test had studied even less, and the ones who studied hard weren't motivated to study hard again, and they decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little. The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed .... and the professor told them that the socialism they wanted would ultimately fail, as they had, because the reward of success normally goes to those that work harder, but when government takes the reward away; few will try so no one will succeed. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| vegplot |
Re: Equal pay rate - what do you think?
forged £ coins |
||||||||||||||||||||
| vegplot |
The argument assumes all who work are workers. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| jema |
I seem to recall that Marx never particularly touted equal pay, but made the assumption that the mechanization of production would lead to a society where "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" could come about.
I think also that in the early days of the Soviet Union there could be a 4-1 pay scale between highest and lowest paid. Tressell in the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists posed the idea that pay rates might be equalized but unattractive jobs might have to be worked for less hours. The trend of the points I'm making is that equal pay is not an idea that is easy to get beyond a Utopian idea on. It can happen to some degree within the discipline and shared ideal of a co-op set up, but the real world does not tend to work quite like that. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Hairyloon |
I think in the context, "republic" can be taken as synonymous with "society". |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Rob R |
Pay me this mythical wage, and I'll think about it. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| twoscoops |
Re: Equal pay rate - what do you think?
Well, it is Good Friday, and I well remember the days when I worked in an office. I'd be just starting a four day weekend and two four-day working weeks on the trot to boot. Then I remortgaged my house and put all my savings into starting a business. I lived below the poverty line for the two years before I made a real profit. I'm working here today, tomorrow, driving to Yorkshire tomorrow evening to play with my band, driving home afterwards, here again Sunday and Monday and then a day off on Tuesday before coming back to work on Wednesday and maybe getting a day off next Sunday. If I woke up in the morning knowing that I was going to get paid the same as everybody else I would still be working in that office job. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| OtleyLad |
That happens already, but at least with equal pay rates A still gets a decent wage.
If only that were true! The assumption that concientious/intelligent workers who are good at what they do getting promoted does not seem to be the norm in my experience. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Jonnyboy |
Sums it up nicely. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| OtleyLad |
Re: Equal pay rate - what do you think?
In existing organisations there are lots of people who do less than others - and the business carries on. Giving people equal pay-rates does not mean you can't discipline people who are idle. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| OtleyLad |
People do like rewards and incentives, without then work can seem pretty dull. However, there are many different kinds of rewards apart from money. Status and respect can be earned in many ways. There is no reason why people who show initiative can't move into more creative roles or where they can do more organising. A lot of people get a great deal of satisfaction from doing a good job. Looking at figures, if the national average salary is say £25,000, then in theory that is what everyone could be earning. It might be a brake on rampant consumerism - but thats not bad a side effect is it? Surely thats sufficient to live on, given the finite resources of the planet? We have been brainwashed to be greedy and take the view that having money gives you rights to grab whatever resources takes your fancy and damn the rest. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Hairyloon |
That is because it is quite hard to sack a numpty, but quite easy to promote them out of your department. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Treacodactyl |
Re: Equal pay rate - what do you think?
What tends to happen, or what should happen, is those that do the work will get better pay increases than those who are idle. That seems to be the least that should happen, ideally the idle ones should be replaced but that can be rather difficult. Even with this the hard-workers get less than they deserve and under your scheme they get even less. What will happen is the hard workers will leave, the company will be left with the idle people and it will forced out of the market. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| OtleyLad |
Re: Equal pay rate - what do you think?
But what should happen is not what does most of the time.
The whole point is that no-one can get less than anyone else (unless they work less hours of course). Everyone gets a decent amount of money.
That is not what happens now - so why should it be different? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Rob R |
Like I say, give me 25k, and I'll think about it. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Treacodactyl |
Re: Equal pay rate - what do you think?
So you agree the hard workers should get paid more?
There is only a finite amount of pay. If a lazy worker gets more than they deserve then that means the hard worker will get less than they deserve (bearing in mind it's mostly their work that has earned the money for both the salaries). It might work in a deep recession but if there's a reasonable jobs market the hard worker will leave. That happens all the time.
Now as in the middle of a deep recession? I don't know but in the past yes it did happen, all the time in the various places I've worked. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Hairyloon |
Don't pay by the hour, pay by the result. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| jema |
Except in that example, it is quite possible to argue it the other way, that faced with a common issue, the students pulled together to help their weaker colleagues and hence the overall grades rose! It reminds me of "game theory" where there are two players who can independently on each turn choose to cooperate of compete. If they both compete they score 0 each, if they cooperate 1 each, if one cooperates and one competes then the competing one scores 2 the other 0. It generally works out better if people choose to cooperate. Society is a very complex mix of situations, some of which are served best by competition and incentive, other which work far better on the basis of cooperation and mutual support. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Hairyloon |
I'm inclined to believe the experimental evidence, even if it is made up. Do the experiment and prove me wrong.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the majority don't trust the other enough and go for the compete option. Unfortunate, but there you go.
I'm not sure that any of it is best served with either/or, but by a balance of the two. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Rob R |
I just can't envisage a world where a shelf stacker would/should get the same rate of pay as a Doctor. There isn't just variability between workers, but huge differences between jobs. How on earth do you train someone up if they require supervision 50% of the time but you are paying the trainer & trainee the same rate 
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| OtleyLad |
That makes sense if we stick with current working practices and strict job demarkation. A shelf stacker is only a shelf stacker because they are often not allowed to do anything else (look at the jobs nurses could do on a ward but are not allowed in case they encroach on a Doctors domain). How many times have you had jobs and seen this yourself? The incentive to train/learn would still be there, it just would not include money. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Treacodactyl |
Not in my experience. While at university I worked in a DIY store as a shelf stacker / cashier along with many other people. Some did the bare minimum and often had to be watched to ensure they did their job and others who worked well got more work and more responsibilities. I ended up running the refund desk when I worked, which was a supervisor role, and was one of the first to be offered extra bank holiday work which meant triple pay. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dr Rob |
Transporting 'Sir' Fred Goodwin back to the late 1640s and forcing him to join the Diggers might be fun. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Rob R |
I can't comment on retail jobs as my only experience is as a stockman & tractor driver. Both required increasing levels of skill & experience, and I have noticed that scenario, my enthusiasm to progress was restricted in many ways but pay was the reward, not the cause. The ability to move upwards was often attained through professional qualifications & certificates, all of which cost money & who is going to pay if we all get the same rate? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| cab |
Presumably by not paying higher earners as much, there would be better resources for paying for said training. Its an excellent model, and OtleyLad had described and defended it well. I think its a model that ultimately fails, largely because without big reward no one takes big risks, no one really gets very inventive, so at that level you see stagnation. Communist states don't fail because of steps they take towards egalitarianism, they fail because of corruption (which can become rife), and because they can't innovate. China has moved forward massively in recent years 'cos it isn't really a communist state; it rewards innovation. Of course, to a great extent, capitalist states that fail to reward innovation by putting barriers in the way of exploitation of ideas (and construct false models of 'value' based purely on financial worth) also end up in a mess. The proponents of that model of how to run a state tend to point out how much money everyone has, largely because they're brought up to see 'value', 'worth' and 'money' as synonymous. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Rob R |
Making education & training free for all would certainly make it more attractive. I think if it can be done then it should be, are there any companies running such a system (ie paying everyone the same)?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| cab |
Agreed. Although I'd hesitate to say that all educational courses should be free; I'd be more inclined to pick out those that we need and pripritise those.
Errm... Dunno. Theres one model I've seen in practice thats quite interesting: http://www.dailybread.co.uk/information/ethics.html
Ignore, if you would for the moment, the religious overtones there. Its a common fallacy in religious organisations that morality and ethics are the domain of the religious, when really someone who is religious is no more likely to be ethical than anyone else. The point is that this is an organisation that has looked at how it could pay people, and decided that the typical pay pyramid is missing the point. There are other ways to decide how to pay people. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| jema |
Co-ops can buck the trend as their members are driven by a common ideology religious or otherwise.
This of course raises the question as to whether the "selfish" conditioning of society could be seriously reversed. Perhaps some uplifting posters? 
Frankly whilst I will fight tooth and nail with anyone who things human society is driven primarily by the "selfish gene" I do think that people differ so much in drive and capability that level wages are never going to work. If they did then I think we would see the organisations that adopted it show signs of success over those that did not. But where are these "Socialistic Tigers"? They did not evolve anywhere in the soviet block, and the Chinese Tigers are in the deregulated zones 
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| cab |
Ahh, the rather controversial view (these days) that the capitalist/selfish viewpoint is nothing more than another learned ideology, that it isn't the natural state of man. Dunno. Complex issue that one. My inclination, my idealism, tells me that it really is just conditioning.
But such systems... Do they fail because of equal pay or because of the lack of need or reward for taking risks? I think its the latter; communist societies stagnate, even if they're free of corruption (which historically they're not) they fail to reward invention sufficiently to prevent stagnation. But like I said before, by putting all our eggs in the 'money' basket and forgetting that 'value', 'happiness', 'wealth' and 'welfare' are not synonymous with 'money', to a great extent capitalist cultures make the same mistake. There is a reason why drugs to combat infectious diseases in the developing world, diseases that kill millions, gets less money than, say, research on cancers in the developed world that kill a lot less. So, an equal pay society rewarding people who achieve more in non-financial ways? Why not..? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Brownbear |
A world of cooperation would not contain tigers. Tigers are parasitic exploiters of the common beast. A world of perfect socialism would contain several billion compliant drones, their physical needs met admirably, and nobody else. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| cab |
Thats another stereotype though isn't it, just like the idea that a 'capitalist' culture is entirely made up of selfish, decadent, heartless individuals. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Brownbear |
No. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| cab |
Eloquently put. I work with many Chinese chaps and ladies. I also see people at Daily Bread probably every fortnight. None of them are drones. Cubans living under Castro, they weren't drones. Those putting forward the belief that equal pay (or something closer to it) is a good idea, they're not drones... Its a stereotype, part of the cold-war era portrayal of Communism and Communist countries, and it bears little relation to reality or indeed human nature (two people paid the same are not the same person; a million people paid the same do not become the same person). |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Behemoth |
Edit @ BB
What/who would they be complying to? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Brownbear |
The common good. Drones, the workers in the hive or common enterprise - for such would be their economic purpose, and none would gain greater reward. Each would work to the best of their ability and get what each needed. Compliance to the needs of the common enterprise at the expense of selfishness and greed are the essentials of socialism, aren't they? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| bagpuss |
Does anyone else know much about the Finnish system
I know they have much a smaller population that many countries but those who I do know who are finish suggest their very good welfare state and very high tax demands don't necessarily stifle innovation, Nokia is possibly one of the of the most innovative mobile communication companies and is a very different company to work for even outside Finland than many other large high tech corporations |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Northern_Lad |
They have a cunning fine system where the amount you pay is determined by how fast you were going and how much you earn - someone got a fine over $1m a couple of years back. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| bagpuss |
I assume you are referring to speeding tickets? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Rob R |
You're right, it is interesting, bizarre, but interesting. Kind of turning millenia of natural progression on its head- instead of our needs rising to meet our resources, resources are rising to meet our needs I can't quite get my head round how that would work in reality.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Behemoth |
Would it be compliance or agreement? I read 'compliance' as having some form of coercion (rather than reward) behind it. There seem to 57 varieties of socialism and I'm sure your comment fits some of them. Could it be said they we're compliant capitalists? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| cab |
Go to one of their shops and see. Seems to work okay. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| cab |
It could be said with as much validity (i.e. no more than any other sweeping generalisation), yes. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Rob R |
Maybe, lots of charity shops work with a volunteer workforce, but I think OtleyLad was suggesting that this could work for the whole of society, and there seems such scope for exploitation (eg workers increasing their needs, or employers discriminating against certain people because of their needs) that I can't envisage it being any better than the pay-reward system we have. Deciding what constitutes 'want' and 'need' can't be easy. That said, I need a house right now, hmmm... | ||||||||||||||||||||
| cab |
You couldn't replace a system where money is the reward with one where there are no rewards. But the question really becomes a simpler one when you ask whether an entirely capitalist, money oriented culture is what we want, or whether rewards for harder work, better work, bigger achievements could be much more diverse, ultimately to the point where a financial incentive is not the most desired outcome. Financial rewards being the prime motivating factor ain't working out all that well for the world. Our environment, human health, equal and good access to education, even the economy itself... They're all on the ropes. So before writing off such a system as unworkable, I'm inclined to ask whats so very good about the way we do things now that there are not other options worth exploring. 'Capitalism' is a dogma. Isn't the worst dogma there is, but its a dogma nonetheless. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| jema |
I am pretty critical of how socialist economies fail to work, but I still class myself as a socialist.
Why? Because the capitalist economy is driving us off an environmental cliff edge and in my view cannot be regulated otherwise. The capitalist economy has also failed to deal with world hunger/poverty despite all its technical achievements. A real socialistic economy might face a lot of problems, but could I think be quite benign, at any rate better than what capitalism has achieved. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Rob R |
I agree with you there, but as the above paragraph is quite removed from the question posed by OL, we are disgressing somewhat. I think it's a case of putting your money where your mouth is & doing what Daily Bread are doing [putting their model into practise] to prove its worth. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| scoop |
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages." Adam Smith - The Wealth of Nations
Communism doesn't work which is why it has been abandoned by most countries. Capitalism has many advantages in terms of generating wealth that cascades down to most in our society ( I'm thinking UK - Health care, education, social housing etc ), but it does need regulation and ongoing tuning to ensure that all benefit. I certainly would not have worked so hard the last 30 years if I was going to receive the same reward as some lay about who was happy to coast along. The biggest problem with the capitalist system at the moment, in my humble opinion isn't the current recession but its effect on the environment. Dunno what the answer is to that. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| OtleyLad |
I would suggest that most of us already do work alongside people (or for people) who are sometimes idle/incompetent/both but who get far more pay than you do.
The recession was inevitable when so many people could borrow so much money with little real prospect of every paying it back (whether its mortgages/loans/credit cards, etc). And as the number 1 (in fact the only) thing of value is money in capitalist societies, then the environment/people/working conditions just don't count for much at all. I can understand peoples skeptism about the suggestion that we should be on the same pay-rate, but as yet I have not heard a really convincing argument for not having a go at it. All I have to do is grow my business enough to actually be able to employ some people to try it with... |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Rob R |
That's because there isn't one, it would be interesting to hear how you get on- and it'll be admirable to you to pay your employees the same as yourself whilst taking the financial risk in return for the non-financial rewards that a business can give you. Good luck! |
||||||||||||||||||||
| jema |
thinking about my business, 6 years trying to grow it and not making much out of it, say it takes off for a few years and makes serious money and I need an employee, am I meant to share the profit equally? and then what happens when things are on the slide again?
There has to be some benefit to the people taking the risk. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| gil |
I'd suggest a workers cooperative - a point I raised back on the first page of this thread.
That way, you form a company limited by guarantee, and the liability of all the worker-directors is limited to £1 each in the event of winding-up/business failure. Subject to the usual Companies Act provisos regarding fraud etc, which remove the right of directors to remain legally separate from the business. It works, but you do have to be committed to the idea[l]. Yes, it can have problems, but so can any business/organisation. In the 80s I worked in a co-op for four years, and was involved in the workers co-op movement, and on into the early 90s. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Rob R |
With a co-op there'd still be differentiation between different companies though, so in the wider jobs market all the best people would move to the best companies & the struggling businesses would find it harder to improve. As far as I can see, if it was a universal system, it relies on everyone in the country pulling in the same direction for the common good.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| gil |
No, all the best people don't work for the best companies - what do you mean by 'best' anyway ? a) companies have a finite number of job vacancies, diminishing as you go up the hierarchy, so if you want to take responsibility / do strategic planning as a career, you'd be better off moving to anotehr firm or starting up your own b) the ethos/ atmosphere / etc of one company may be offputting to some, who might prefer to work elsewhere. e.g. Big 5 accountancy firms were supposed to be the graduate destination of choice. However, not everyone wants to be a minion for ages, nor to spend months working away from home - medium and small firms provided the opportunity for responsibility at an earliuer stage, not having to live in a hotel, etc, a wider range of clients, and in some cases the training provided was just as good as the big 5. You're not including the fact that some people enjoy the challenge of turning round ailing businesses. And yes, there was/is differentiation between different co=ops in the same industry - they are run by different individuals, and have different markets / approaxches to ustomers / etc, also different producrtion equipmewnt, specialisations etc. I've not time to edit my typos, now you all know how bad my typing is. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| cab |
Indeed. And thats one of the areas where communism fails. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Rob R |
The best at making the company money, the ones with good skills & abilities- not everyone wants/has the ability to proceed up the ladder. To go back to the original post;
If we assume each company runs the same system then, eventually, the ones making more money will attract the highly skilled people whilst the others will have what's left. Some will fail & others will plod along not making much so, instead of a disparity between people within a company, there will be a disparity between companies & therefore you haven't stamped out the pay differential- you've just shifted it. Also, many businesses work on profit in arrears, whereas employess get paid almost immediately (farming being a prime example, and that's why there are special tax rules that apply to it). So, jema sets up his company, spends 3 years scrimping to make it work & then it starts to take off & he needs to employ someone- how do you account for all the hours he has put in building it up when you have to start paying the new employee? If you pay the same the employee is getting the benefit of jema's work, and if you somehow change the balance in jema's favour you're back to the boss earning more than the employees... The only way I can see it working fairly is for everyone to be in from the start. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| donthre |
Excellent thread - well reasoned - but it won't work of course - it's even been tried in literature.
when the animals took over the farm & drove away the humans, they decided that all would be equal. After a while it was noticed that the pigs became selfish & took more than their share. The pigs explained "Of course all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.." The other animals were driven from the house & later, looking inthrough the window, they saw that the pigs had invited humans rouind for a party - but the disturbing thing was that as they looked from pig to human, human to pig & back again, they noticed the pigs were looking more & more human, until eventually, standing outside in the cold, looking in at the revellers, the other animals were unable to tell the difference. The book is of course - "Animal Farm" - George Orwell |
||||||||||||||||||||
| OtleyLad |
I don't think the outcome of a work of fiction really counts as rigorous proof that something works or not, do you? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| donthre |
I don't suppose you think Eric Blair's other great work 1984 has the power of foretecasting with accuracy either. Animal Farm is a great book - a Classic, - Because it is psychologically sound 
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| OtleyLad |
Again, no works of fiction have any bearing on this discussion. We are talking about the potential of equal pay rates, not the merits of any particular book(s). Have you anything to say about an actual case of equal pay rates being used? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Rob R |
It was a bit hidden in the BNP thread but it touched upon employing your system for paying MP's. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| donthre |
Well if you think human p-sychology is irrellevant to human behaviour, .... I suppose you could consider Richard Branson - His autobiography points out that when the business was first started - Everyone (including RB himself) got paid £20 per week - that seems to have worked well - for him [it also points out that off his £20 per week - he was able to run a Rolls Royce (because he cheated - by having an outside income stream )] - That's something your idealised society can never take account of.
Let's put it like this :- Humans are designed to live in groups (tribes) where there is one "boss-man", a group of "Insiders" or "Elders" & "the rest of those who are Equal" - ALL Democratic or Socialist populations organise themselves in this way. Then those at the top, & in the "Chosen group" automatically become worthy (in their own eyes) of greater rewards - they ALWAYS cheat - whether you look at Soviet Russia, or even our own little democracy with it's cheating political leaders. - It's just the way we're made
Trying to fight it - is, always has been & always will be totally futile. Many of us had similar thoughts to yours, when we were students, but having watched people's interactions & learned a bit about the world as it really IS, we got tired of getting wet feet & stopped thinking in those terms as a real alternative. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Rob R |
Obviously a creationist, many would disagree 
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Behemoth |
I'd say its a behaviour we learn because other choose to do it. It may have it's physio/psycho roots in survival strategies and is generally unneccesary now but the behaviour has been transferred to material aquisition. We no longer think it acceptable method of aquisition to pull our longboat up alongside a hapless village and take their stuff, territory and trade. We do it through competitive economic behaviour. We accept it and our young learn it. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| donthre |
& I believe a surprising number of Americans would agree 
Personally - I think the term "creationist" is a little outdated now - surely they're calling it "Intelligent design" now ?
NOW That IS interesting B - the old nature / nurture debate
But if that were true, then surely there would be somewhere a population which lived "Equality" successfully ? Insofar as people are prepared to accept all sorts of dominance ("knowing their place" - in the "pecking order") that observation seems valid. Then we have the so-called "kidnap syndrome" where the "Victim" eventually takes on thebeliefs of (her) kidnappers & becomes an active member of the group. Not exactly "learned behaviour - but rationalisation of a totally abusive situation - leading to acceptance as a survival mechanism ("making the best of it" if you will ?) I feel that the need to have someone to "be in charge" is ingrained deeper than "Learned behaviour" - it seems to me a consequence of our "thinking" ability - note how many times in totally different populations, "God figures" appear - the Ultimate "Authority figures" & vwery often abusive ones, needing to be pacified by those lower in the "scheme of things" - even these "all powerful" God- beings have a retinue of "chosen intermediaries" (priests, Shamen - etc) Even Maslow's "basic needs" (Food, shelter, sex [especially sex]) - are usually achieved in a competitive situation. - those "At the top" - getting the best share of each. The fact that we've turned our "tribalism" to Religion, Work & Politics is true - but as to "no longer finding it acceptable to pull our longboats ----" Just ask the Iraqis if They believe that
|