Universal salry - could it ever work?

[manicinsomniac]

This occurred to me as I was reading another thread but I didn't want to derail.

Do you think we could ever live in a society that paid adults for the hours of work they do, not the type of work? So people would be paid by the hour, regardless of what job they were doing, rather than having an annual salary.

For example, people in the UK are to earn £15 per hour. So someone who cleans for 3 hours earns £45 but someone who cleans for 10 hours earns £150 and a doctor who does a 15 hour shift earn £225 while a lawyer who works 6 hours earns £90. People log their hours every day and get paid their sum total of working hours at the end of the week or month.

The incentive to work hard is still there because the more you work the more you get. You would still have people in a full range of jobs because people have different skills, interests, circumstances and degrees of intelligence.

I suppose the issue is - do people ever choose a job based on the money it pays alone and are there any jobs that nobody would do if they weren't as highly paid as they are? I work in a middle salary job (teacher) and didn't consider money when I was deciding what I want to do. I imagine most people choose on what they want or are able to do and are either pleased or resigned about the salary?

Obviously you couldn't do this to current adults. It would have to be phased in for people entering employment for the first time.

Is it crazy? It is, isn't it? There's some huge flaw I'm failing to see.

OP, in order to get people to do stuff, you have to incenztivise them (or disincentivise the alternative).

If you aren't using money as an incentive, what do you propose instead?

Cleaners and childminders etc could be employed by the state and assigned to people as they were needed.

whatthe - I've explained upthread than I meant choosing a job you want rather than choosing a job specifically because it pays well, not literally working for no money. I am a single parent. My job is not a hobby but, as it's a career, I knew it would pay me enough so didn't consider whether I should be a lawyer, architect, policewoman, shopkeeper, banker, nurse etc in case some of them might pay me more. Obviously I needed to make sure I was going to earn enough. But, in this idea, everyone would earn enough so it would only be about preference and aptitude.

But it wouldn't work anyway so there's no real point to this reply except to try and show I'm not as stupid as you think!

Might work for childminders. How so for cleaners? There is no objective measure of how much someone wants a cleaner.

You are a teacher? Dear God.

If everyone earns the same, a lot if lower paid service jobs (usually done by women) would disappear for starters.

It's interesting you came at it from this way, because one of the points of the book which famously argued this point is that a flat wage was essentially an easy and surefire way to guarantee equal pay for women and thus close a huge gender gap with the hope of heading to a fairer society (at least for women and the disadvantaged).

OP "And careers all pay more than enough to live on."

um....how are you defining career? And what kind of pay are you thinking of that is always enough to live on?

I really want a more equal society. But even if your intentions are good, you sound like you are coming from a place of "no idea how real people live". How do you think we'd motivate anyone to become a sewage worker without good pay?

I think it's great that you are recognising the problems mentioned here, live and learn etc. But I am genuinely keen to know what hourly rate you would have proposed. The reason I ask that is it might lead to a more realistic proposition/belief for you - should the minimum wage be higher? The poster who mentioned differentials - I do think there is a big problem there. But an hourly rate for all jobs is the kind of question I'd expect a child to ask!

You're loopy OP. No way this would or should ever happen.

How much would we each earn ion a full time job - enough to support 2 children and SAHP? Single people would get away with 10 hours a week?
What about the un/under employed and pensioners?

But if you base it on hours worked then it penalised women and the disabled who can't/ won't work the same hours.

This thread is funny. It's a moral panic about money.

God help the kids you teach.

I think the point a pp made about who would employ all these cleaners at £15 an hour is an important one. Will taxi drivers need to work at the equivalent of £15ph? What about petrol and car costs?
Will the price of drinks at my local pub have to go up so they can pay the bar staff?
What about teachers? Are you going to pay them for the 80 plus hours they actually work or just the time physically in school?
What about sick pay? overtime? Differences in holiday allowance?
It just doesn't work

OP The fact that you are a teacher (if that is even true) is of great worry to me.

I think the middle ground that the OP is heading for is: everyone should have equality of opportunity to pursue the career they want and we should support those who are unable to achieve decent wages.

trufflesnout What I've read on that idea is that a different category is created for people who can't work to protect them and pay them more according to need. This should cover people with disabilities plus crippling mental health conditions, pensionable aged citizens etc.

I work as a midwife. Many non midwives would say it's their dream job. But I tell you ime the majority of midwives dislike the job. Not the caring for women side of things, but the stress, the pressure, the shifts, the being overworked, short staffed, paperwork, blame culture. People I work with are leaving in droves, others desperate to leave but can't find work that pays as well.

I imagine it's the same for teachers, doctors, plenty of other careers.

Believe me if I could work in a shop and earn the same I would, and ive worked in retail before so I don't have some romantic view of shop work.

Not being funny OP, because I am in a similar position to you (not a teacher but in a public sector role thereabouts a teacher salary, decent pension etc) it's pretty easy to not be motivated by money when your career choice means you'll always earn what is average wage (with the exception of initial years), with scope to earn higher, a decent pension etc before we look at sick pay, maternity pay etc. I appreciate teachers aren't on mega bucks, but it's not minimum wage either. Most teachers (and many of my friends are teachers) shouldn't be struggling, with the exception of expensive areas. I have never had to worry about money despite only earning a little over average wage because i know whilst i stay employed i am paying into a pension, i have good sick leave provision, i can cover my bills (and save a little)etc.

I don't know if you have a partner, but as a graduate and professional, you're more likely to move in social circles with other graduates and professionals which means you're more likely to end up with a partner who has at least an average income. So, without making any choices at all about whether money is a motivating factor in your career choice, it's more likely you'll find yourself not struggling hence saying money wasn't a factor. It may not have been, but as i say, you still had the luxury of making that choice, others don't.

You said "this reply except to try and show I'm not as stupid as you think!"

Opinion obviously varies :)

My assumption was that it was far more common to work for work rather than work for money

No ones that naive, are they? I'm quite certain I'm not alone in saying that I work for the money not the love of the job. If the money was irrelevant there's not a cat in hell's chance I'd do the job I do.

lorelei - to me, a career is something that has progression, prospects, satisfaction, probably an annual rather an hourly salary and usually requires a fairly high level of education or skill. A job is more on one level and more likely to be something you do to pay the bills that doesn't require particularly high qualifications. That might be a sterotype though.

I pulled the £15 figure completely out of the air as an example but, by somebody else's maths, that gave about £35K after tax. That may be a little high but somewhere in the £12-£15 would be good, I think. Te tax implications are then another reason why it isn't a workable idea though, I suppose.

sorry, just seen you don't have a partner, my other point still applies though

talking Your comment was rude.

Anyway, op on those wages you suggested - how would a cleaner get paid? You need to have a fair bit to employ one.

I don't see the need to dole out biscuits, or reply with snappy comments.

I've read more peculiar things on here.

I also think some people study/train purely so they can feel superior!
Your proposal would eliminate all that

Jeff so you would basically just cover the costs of living for any disabled person? If that's what you mean then I really like that idea. Or do you mean they would be given X amount to live on per month? If so, that seems more like our current system which is massively flawed imo. Or is there a third way I'm not seeing?

NotGoingout17 - yes, that's all very true. Other than not having a partner. But you're right, on a teaching salary, I don't need one; I will always be okay but not wealthy on my own.