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?

bereal how do you know they didn't? Not everyone has the potential for high grades and not everyone is mature enough to know what they want to do. some people also have other circumstances. Don't be so judgemental

IAmACat, but that's not to say we should 'punish' those who can and who are by limiting their salaries and making unnecessary hateful comments about their morals.
I'm not judging but merely giving an argument as to why others may earn more. This is just one argument, there's a lot more such as the one given by sparechange

It isn't always as simple as academic jobs equals good pay. There are many jobs that demand post graduate qualifications that only barely pay a living wage, particularly in the arts and humanities.

What spare change says explains it it doesn't mean it's moral.

It's not punishing them to cap salaries, no one needs £500,000 a year.

Cynically watching the way bereal7 is justifying his/her attitude. Or should that be 'watching the way bereal7 is cynically justifying his/her attitude. Bet s/he truly believes every word, as well.

Not sure where s/he gets the idea that carers are paid above the minimum wage. Many work for much less than minimim wage when travel time between clients, petrol costs etc are taken into account. And the reason there are almost always vacancies for carer jobs is that it's so hard, demanding, sometimes dangerous, and badly paid that the turnover is extremely high. People often do this work because they are forced to by Job Centre etc to take what is available, and then can't cope with it, give a very poor service because of time constraints, or, in a few unfortunate cases, become abusive to their clients. So low pay can lead directly to abuse and neglect of our most vulnerable people.. But for the executives and/or shareholders of the privatised 'care' providers - more profit i.e. result!

IAmACat
Who says no one needs £500k a year? I could quite happily have and spend that.

And there are plenty of people who personally, or as head of a team, bring their company several times that in profit each year thanks to their work. How is it more moral that the shareholders, who do nothing, get a massive chunk of that money because of your arbitrary salary cap?
It is just as unfair to say someone in upper levels of management shouldn't get a fair % of the money they make, as it is to say those at the bottom rungs of the ladder shouldn't

dejard are you fucking joking me???? You're blaming abuse on elderly vulnerable care patients on low wages?????

to add to previous post, sanctioning people for not taking available work, however shit the work might be, is actually the government providing a steady stream of low paid workers for those higher up the food chain to exploit.

and I say this not as some crazed lefty loon, but as a former private care provider, but one who had morals and appreciated the input of my well paid staff, and who did not expect (and did not!) to make a fortune out of something that I chose to do and loved doing.

Also I get cross at the assumption that those in humble jobs can't have worked very hard at school. I am currently a minimum wage earner who has two degrees and is reasonably intelligent. I am not my job and my 'worth' is not defined by my payslip (luckily).

sparechange of course you could spend it but are you honestly going to argue that it's ever necessary? And no I'm not saying everyone should earn £20k and live frugally giving the rest away, but let's not be obtuse, that is obscene.

If you abuse or neglect clients in your care, it's because you got a screw loose or you're an utter arsehole. I cannot believe I just read that.

Beautiful Batman.. yes. I think the argument is quite clear, and I have had over thirty years of experience at all levels, including quality monitoring, in the care industry, both public and private. What's your experience?

IamCat
Sorry, but I completely disagree.
A £500k salary means you can buy a house like this, a terraced house in a non-descript part of South London, which is frankly a long way off being the pinnacle of capitalist achievement.
www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/36521085?search_identifier=52c56d9d1933742ca1968d3d48134111#K52yvbJzOqmezcgT.97

I can't see anything remotely 'obscene' about living that sort of lifestyle. Factor in a couple of private school fees and a nice holiday a year and we are getting firmly into the politics of envy, rather than any bold socio-economic move.

And you didn't answer my earlier point. Why is it more moral for shareholders of a company to benefit from the labour of the workforce than it is for the workers to do so?
Because if you impose a salary cap, it just means more profit left over at the end of each year to be distributed as dividends to shareholders.

And to my last point, the shareholders getting their dividends can be paying 20% tax
The workers earning it as salary will be paying 40 or 50%

Sparechange London house prices are a separate issue, and no one needs private school, again another debate. It's so unnecessary and to be honest quite tasteless.

I'm currently off my tits on meds so my answer might be incoherent but no I don't think shareholders should get massive sums instead of workers I think the profits should be used to ensure everyone's paid fairly.

But what about those of us who are not salaried?

Those of us who are self employed? How can our profits be capped? If I sell more of my product/skill/information, do I just not get paid after a certain amount? And who keeps the profits?

beautiful batman.

Abuse can be handling someone too quickly or roughly because of pressure of time imposed from above failing to do things such as incontinence or skin care, it can mean not having time to notice things that might indicate a health or social problem, or time to talk to or listen to the service use and treat them with respect. Abuse is not just bashing people about. Is that what you would want for your parents?

However, if people are basically coerced into care work because it ¡s the only work going, and it does not suit their natural inclination, or they react aggressively to stress etc, then unsuitable people will get into this work, as has been shown time and time again.

With good pay and a proper career structure, with the time to give good care etc, there would be less turn over of staff, better quality applicants wanting to do the job instead of being forced to do it, and therefore less neglect and/or abuse. I do not see why that is so fucking hard to understand.

dejard are you fucking joking me???? You're blaming abuse on elderly vulnerable care patients on low wages?????

Am I the only one who doesn't think that's even remotely outrageous?

sparechange. don't understand your last post. Surely if salary is capped for ceo, for example, but more of the company earnings paid as wages to the employees, then the overall profit will be less so the shareholders will not get any more. And how many employees, assuming we are talking about lifting the lowest paid into living wage territory, will be paying 40/50% tax. this is a complete red herring.

IamCat
So this is just about the politics of envy then.
It isn't about paying low paid workers more, so much as preventing high income people doing things you don't like.
Your Utopian vision where no one needs more than their standard issue Soviet apartment and a standard issue education in the local comp. We all get issued with our hair shirts and knapsacks, and designer labels are banned. And aspiration for anything more than that is just 'obscene'.

What about people who work on commission? Do they get their payments capped as well? Or are they allowed to get their fixed % even if it takes them over the magic cap?

Oh, God,not that bloody "politics of envy" line again. Soooooooooo tedious!

sparechange not envy at all, while I don't earn £500,000 I had a privileged upbringing and recognise that. I don't however think it's fair. Also not everyone's envious, you couldn't get me to send my kids to private school if you paid me.

I also said that I'm not suggesting everyone earns the same and lives extremely cheaply, so your hyperbole about soviet Russia is a bit dramatic.

In my view earnings inequality is a complete red herring and it allows the govt and people in this thread to blame each other for poor or immoral choices. That's bollocks.

If someone earned 20p a year but could house themselves and their family in a house appropriate to their needs, feed themselves properly and have some treats and holidays would it matter if someone else earned 100x that.

The problem is that in certain areas of the country you need to be on 50k+ to have much prospect of that which has huge impacts for single people, people living in expensive areas etc.

There should be a massive house building programme and restrictions on new builds being sold as btl. In addition a landlord register with regular inspections of properties to ensure they're basically safe and habitable wouldn't go amiss. Housing has got out of control except for downsizes or the lucky few with a social housing tenancy.

deja
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand?
You are assuming that the majority of companies with execs earning over £500k have legions of low paid workers underneath them.
This is just not the case.
It might apply to Tesco, but it doesn't to Google.
So what do you do in the case of a tech company, where even the receptionist is on £30k a year, but the CEO is on £2m, and their top sales staff are on £700k? Everyone gets capped at Iam's arbitrary maximum salary, and the rest gets distributed to shareholders? Or does the receptionist and the cleaners now get £70k to even things out a bit?
Where does that leave the NHS that can't pay their cleaners and clerical staff that much?

There are so many holes in this ridiculous scheme that I'm amazed people are still attempting to defend it

dejard then thank fuck, because of my dhs bourgeois earnings, my parents will never be at the mercy of care workers under your kind of 'quality monitoring'.