To think we can feel for poor people without bashing on those who have more ?

[bereal7]

I've just been reading a thread where the OP is going through a very hard time and everyone, ofcourse, sympathises. Then , like is usual, someone brings up the fact that CEOs are earning millions plus and we should be angry about this. This isn't a TAAT; it happens too many times where people divert the thread to attacking people who are earning more than average (I.e lawyers, bankers, CEOs etc). I just think this doesn't help the OP , or anyone for that matter, and just contributes to a divide amongst the well - paid and average/below - average earners. So AIBU to think we can all (or most) feel sympathy for poor people whilst celebrating other people's success?

A few people get massive slices of the cake and the rest of us are left with crumbs.
The OP thinks that the people who get the crumbs are supposed to celebrate the fact that the lucky ones at the top are hoarding most of the cake?

Does she not realize that the people with all the cake make the rules, the rules which leave us with the crumbs and allow them to hold on to their slices??

BeautifulBatman- but could those companies have succeeded if not for the hard work of all the minimum wage employees? Surely if a company does well, it shouldnt only be the very top that benefit. Not in anyway suggesting that everyone gets paid the same, but there is a huge difference between paying your hard working staff a fair wage and paying them minimum wage whilst given insane amounts to the already very very well paid people at the top. It's not right,.it doesn't need to be such an insanely massive gap.

Does she think that we live in a meritocracy, that some people are really worth several thousand times what others are worth

Does she not appreciate the harmful effects of inequality, the destructive and destabilizing effects on society? ?

Wait so now only well off people can have children? That's ridiculous.

And Ps people, not all CEOs are on telephone number salaries and not all high earners were gifted their jobs or got them because they were born with a silver spoon in their mouths.

I had just typed in a long reply and lost it all [angry

Anyway, basically I was saying that for me part of the problem is not that CEOS etc are paid too much but that workers are paid too little.

I may be a lone voice on here but I actually believe that tube drivers are worth £50,000 a year. One of the transport union bosses said something along the lines of 'The issue isn't that tube drivers are paid too much, but rather that most London workers are paid too little!'

See redannie's post as an example, a senior civil servant of 20 years experience barely earning minimum wage, clearly that's not right is it?

And the current paramedic shortage. London Ambulance Service is having to recruit in Australia... again. Why are there not enough paramedics or people interested in becoming paramedics in London? I think partly because a wage of £21 - £25k [or thereabouts] is probably okayish for a newly qualified paramedic in their 20s with no dependents. The problem is an experienced paramedic with additional training and perhaps operating as a team leader [so management level] only earns up to £34k and that is too low imo for someone with a mortgage and children living in London. How on earth do you afford to buy a house on £34,000 nowadays? DSo why would you spend 3 years at university to basically have to live in rental accommodation or social housing and have your income topped up with tax credits?

£50,000 should be the average London wage imo. And CEOs should not be awarding themselves such massive salaries and bonuses whilst keeping their staff on minimum wage

I didn't say that Inim. But to think you can afford a child based on how much ctc/wtc you'll get is just stupid.

BeautifulBatman- and not all people can just work a bit harder and become a high earner and therefore be deemed worthy to breed

Batman so you think those who are less well off shouldn't have children?

Yes low paid workers need higher pay, but for that to happen the highly paid will need to take a haircut
They don't want to so they continue to spin the line that they are worth it ?

If everyone just worked a bit harder to become a higher earner these companies would collapse because no one would be cleaning toilets, doing the admin, answering phone calls and doing the other low paid but very necessary work...you can't have a society of CEOs. So it's only fair everyone gets a living wage!

Annoyed I agree with 99% of what you say. But how can you set a salary around the needs of an employee? No, £34K in London would not house and feed a family properly. So do you offer the family paramedic more of a salary than a single paramedic. Where do you draw the line?

It's not stupid though is it. It's stupid that people who work 50 hours a week need to rely on tax credits. It's stupid that nursery fees are 50 quid a fucking day. It's stupid that skilled, qualified people often even get paid minimum wage. (E.g most of the aircraft engineers at my partners work get paid just over minimum wage) because the very rich people who own the place can pay them that they do. Whilst paying themselves insanely.

How many people would be able to afford to have children if there were no tax credits....... to subsidise the nursery nurses' wages?

Come back when you're paying your childminder 30K a year and I might start taking you seriously.

BeautifulBatman sorry to be so blunt, but if you are a woman it is possible that 40 years old may be too late to start trying for a baby in fertility terms...

Possibly also more difficult for some men

So, yes I understand that it may be ideal in a financial sense to wait to conceive if you see that you may earn more in the future or have reached a stage of financial security. But it may be risky to delay trying to conceive due to fertility levels failing and the higher risks associated.

Really not trying to be goady but just wanted to point that out.

It was drummed into me from childhood that it was madness to have kids before getting an education, a job etc. I don't think that only the rich should breed, but as always the debate on here becomes about extremes ie rich (ceos in London) vs poor (foodbank clients).

The vast majority of people do not fall into either of these categories.

I'm with Inim

Yeah let's all pretend that income inequality is governed by the laws of nature, and that it's nothing at all to do with fair distribution of resources...

Never mind whether you think lawyers and bankers deserve as much as they get - do you really think that minimum wage workers earn as little as they get?

Annoyed I'm due my first dc in 8 weeks. Yes, it was a risk to wait, but for me, not being able to provide for a child is worse than not havinf a child.

There is tonnes of threads where a poster has fallen on hardtimes and had tonnes of support im not sure where a pp thought sympathy was just reserved for those on benefits anyway people get angry about inequality and tend to froth on threads about it i think

earn deserve as little as they get, sorry.

Batmsn what about the strain you're putting on the NHS by having a baby at 40? If we're looking at this in purely financial terms...

Congratulations BeautifulBatman

To clarify I don't think there's anything wrong with it however I think it's a bit cheeky to suggest having a child when you're a lower earner is irresponsible when there are just as many cons to having one at 40

I pay privately for all my ante natal care. I've worked PAYE for 25 years. My dh is is a 40% tax payer and has been for 20 years. PAYE also with no fancy accountant. I've never been entitled to any benefits. I think we've contributed enough to afford me a nhs hospital birth.