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?

But is the husband who goes self-employed assuming enough risk to need paying twice as much? I can see that being self-employed is a risk and the salary would need to mitigate this, but does it need to double? Really?

And not everyone can just work harder at school, get AAA at A level and get into the uni of their choice to study law. Some people just aren't academic no matter how hard they try. Those people may wind up, for example, working as factory workers or carers doing 12 hours shifts, doing extra shifts and putting in 60 hours a week, and still only earning minimum wage. I don't think you could claim that it is inherently 'working harder' to be the lawyer who works 60 hours a week than it is to be the carer. That's what I see people claiming, and that does grate. "Well, I worked hard to get here" doesn't mean a thing.

there are far more hardworking clever people than there are highly paid jobs
Most graduates 'in non-graduate jobs', says CIPD

Surely just by being alive one deserves at least enough to keep body and soul together and a roof over your head in rich first world economy.

And yes, many 'working class' people study and work hard, make sacrifices and end up often in good well paid jobs (although they have to make much more effort than the priviliged middle/upper classes).

But face it, many many people are just not academic at all, and don't have the option of studying for professional careers. They still work long and hard at basic, often shitty jobs which benefit us all, such as cleaning, labouring, refuse collection or care work etc. Should they always have to struggle, and never be allowed a family?

'Society' despise anyone who is physically and mentally able to work and does not. if they can, then they must 'contribute' to society. Then, to get a job, we make them compete and practically beg for menial jobs that are always fewer than demand, sanction them if they don't gratefully follow to the letter all the rules, then pay them shit and expect them to be satisfied and good citizens with zero hour slave labour contracts.

It's not really the comparative numbers, but the sheer bloody unfairness of it all that gets to people. People who are given no choice, just because they were born, but to take part in this sick farce.

None of this applies to me personally. But I have seen grown men in tears begging for work in the country where I now live, because there is no safety net here as there is in the UK.

But is the husband who goes self-employed assuming enough risk to need paying twice as much? I can see that being self-employed is a risk and the salary would need to mitigate this, but does it need to double? Really?

As someone who is self employed it is not just about risk, you need to also consider:

no holiday pay
no sickness pay
no maternity cover (does not apply to me!)
no pension
no health care cover
no other benefits in kind (say car allowance, training, equipment etc)
much shorter notice periods (in some cases days)

Being paid twice as much as a contractor is probably not going to net you any huge gains.

most of the benefits of modern living have come from the accumulated work of previous generations, there is no such thing as a self made person.

without the infrastructure, physical and social/cultural/legal institutions which have been built up via the collective efforts of many people none of us would be able to achieve anything over and above very basic subsistence.

The technological and cultural achievements human beings hinge upon our ability to co operate and communicate.
On suppressing the basic instinct to look after personal short term interests in favor of what benefits the group in the long term

Tooextra I disagree. I do believe hard work plays a very large role in success (and a little bit of luck). I was tone of the bright ones at school and worked very hard (no social life) to finish with him grades. On the other hand, some just partied and "lived life whilst young" meaning they got into a shit uni or didn't get in at all. Surely, you can't be expected to have much sympathy for these people ? I know that there are plenty of people who do all the 'right' things and fall on hard times; I sympathise and pray for these people. However, that doesn't mean I can't appreciate that others worked hard and were successful.

I do however think a true living wage should be made law. No one should ever be in a position where they can't feed their families. No one.

should we not be angry that people are earning less than living wage instead of the fact that people are earning good salaries? The whole tube drivers argument is a good example of this

bereal7 we should be both. There are plenty of highly qualified people who earn less than they should, or at least less than they would have, had their salaries kept pace with wage inflation elsewhere in the economy, and not just because their jobs are becoming less useful in a changing economy. For example teachers, nurses and paramedics who are very good examples of pay erosion which is both a symptom and a cause of greater inequality.

Tesco employ 500,000 around the world and make £1.8 billion in profit. By my calculation, that means that if they increased wages by £1.53 an hour (across the whole organisation) they would be loss-making.

I wasn't one of the bright ones at school and worked very hard to finish with high grades. ? that's what it should read.

Issy but why does that mean we should be angry that a consultant (for e.g.) is earning £150k?

Grovel exactly. It's not black and white.

But face it, many many people are just not academic at all, and don't have the option of studying for professional careers. They still work long and hard at basic, often shitty jobs which benefit us all, such as cleaning, labouring, refuse collection or care work etc. Should they always have to struggle, and never be allowed a family?

There's no doubt that luck plays a role in life. But even in the absence of "intellect", I strongly suspect that just being enthusiastic/reliable/committed/shrewd would likely set one on a management trajectory at McDonalds/the local council etc.

There are some jobs that seem more dead-end than others e.g. being a carer in a nursing home vs working at Poundland.

I would love to see shelf-stackers and street-cleaners making £15/hr. But then we'd have a different problem in the form of more expensive stuff.

^your husband assumes the risk of being self-employed, rather than his employer assuming the risk of taking on an employee. Contractors are far more attractive for this reason. This is a bad example of the "same job" fetching different sums.

But in many cases, especially at the bottom of the wage scale, going self-employed does not come with a doubling in pay. The increasing casualisation of work is a force in reducing pay. Just listening to The New WorkplaceWho: Do I Really Work For? on Radio 4. In many sectors employees are being 'offered' the 'opportunity' to go self-employed which means the employees are now off the books (so no employer NI contributions etc) and cost the company much less, but the worker has no sickness/holiday or even guarantee of work despite doing to the same work as they were doing before.

bereal7 'I do believe hard work plays a very large role in success'

But non academic people in physically hard and sometimes risky jobs work long hard hours as well. Try working with some adults with severe special needs who may need total physical care (yes I do mean bum wiping) and who can be twice the size of a carer, and often aggressive physically and verbally abusive. Don't you think theey work hard??

Hmmm, As a former council employee I can categorically state that hard word and initiative will get rewarded with more responsibility and no more pay. I got to be the 'go to' person whenever there was a problem.

the truth is that no one in the history of the world who ever 'owned' anything, has ever agreed to share it or accept less until they were forced to. Once upon a time they simply didn't care that little kids and women were working up chimneys and down coal mines. These days they 'care' but have a million ways of justifying why they are entitled to everything they have in our 'because I'm worth it' society.

dejar Ofcourse they work hard but it's a different kind of hard work and one that didn't require hard work(and planning) from earlier on life (I.e. school). I believe carers earn above the minimum wage? And all the posts I've seen whilst looking for work show that they earn above living wage aswell.

I guess, I just believe that most , not all, high paid jobs are also very pressurised/stressful with a lot of responsibility that lower paid jobs don't have. For example, a doctor will earn more than a nurse because they ultimately have more responsibility and stress (though a nurse may arguably do more physically demanding work) iyswim?

dejar Ofcourse they work hard but it's a different kind of hard work and one that didn't require hard work(and planning) from earlier on life

How do you know that? For that particular individual that might have been what they really wanted to do, and they might have had to work hard to get their qualifications, not everyone can get As.

That comment stinks of ignorance!

there are far more hardworking clever people than there are highly paid jobs

That just goes to demonstrate what an utterly bonkers idea it was to try and send 50% of school levers to uni in the first place when industry did not demand it. To put it bluntly, many of them would not be 'clever' in the academic sense and should not have been anywhere near higher education in the first place and instead should have trained for something a bit more vocational or entered the work place straight from school. It would be interesting to see what degrees many of these grads in non grad roles gained. Not a single person from my engineering degree failed to get a job out of uni, same goes to my law, maths, architecture and medicine friends. I feel sorry for many grads, mostly because they were sold the lie that traditional trades were inferior and that getting a degree, any degree, even from a crap institution was worth the shed load of debt.

to get in a position of power and influence so that you can make money flow into your pockets you need to be opportunistic and often predatory.
You need to to 'leverage' your advantages, capitalize your assets.

sheer hard graft and dedication by themselves are not often rewarded in direct proportion to the effort and time invested.

Iam if that's what they planned to do then good for them; they need not complain as they planned it with all the information available to them. I have friends who do this so I know the level of qualifications and work the job entails.

Pangala I agree with your last post

bereal yes they do, just because they know it's low paid doesn't mean they deserve low wages.

Also are you seriously suggesting those who don't know what they want to do at 15ish are inferior?

IAmACat . No I am not suggesting that. But they still should have worked hard and even harder at Alevels. By the time you sit Alevels you are old enough to understand the importance of education.
And it's not just about grades, attitude has a lot to do with it.

Anyway, this is diverting from my original question.

There doesn't seem to be a single mention of the biggest driver of pay grades - supply and demand.
Lower paid jobs are lower paid because, by and large, lots of people can do them, and lots of people apply to do them. The salary is therefore governed not by how much those people deserve to be paid for their labour, but how much a company needs to pay in order to attract competent people who can do the job.
If a company advertises a role and none of the applicants are up to scratch, they would usually re-advertise it at a higher rate.
Similarly, when jobs are advertised and hundreds of capable applicants come forward, there is little incentive for the organisation to offer more money when they can already get the person they need at that salary.

Of course you get issues like nursing where there are too many vacancies, but the workaround there is looking outside the UK. The issue there is still that the costs of recruiting internationally are still lower than raising the pay across the board for grades, and the unionisation of the profession means you can't pay more for a few roles to fill them, without others coming forward to ask for the same money.