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 - based on what's been said here, can you see the value of raising the minimum wage? Your definition of "career" is quite narrow. We will always need shop workers and cleaners and we don't value them enough, in my view, but your definition doesn't include them (I appreciate you have mentioned them many times though).

I totally get cruikshank's point re salary differentials and if you are trying to say that we pay in a very wrong way, to some extent, I agree, we do.

but I don't think that reducing the salaries of millions would help!!

Yes, you're right Spicy, they couldn't. I put that on my list of reasons given that have caused me to accept IABU.

Yes, lorelei9 I definitely think we need to raise the minimum wage. And much more quickly than it's supposed to happen.

OP - your figures sounded very optimistic so I put them in salary calculator

£15 per hour, at 37.5 hours a week, 52 weeks a year (!) is £22,977.20. So nowhere near what you said.

OP - we cross posted. I too think minimum wage should be raised but then we'd also have to find a way to ensure that employers didn't under employ because they'd cut staff as soon as that was implemented...maybe we need a wage ceiling or a multiples rule so that senior staff aren't making 300 x that of what the office cleaner makes.

It would have to be a law - no way will this shit sort itself out.

The calculation was done at 15 X 45 X 52 I think (I didn't do it but I'm sure I read it on this thread somewhere) - probably because I said I didn't know what the official definition of full time was but assumed it was about 45 hours. If it is only 37.5 then yeah, that's not going to be high enough, clearly!

trufflesnout Yes I think it means to cover actual living costs. There are so many differentials when it comes to providing care and empowerment for people with disabilities, the system needs to be a lot more sensitive.

wage ceiling sounds good! Nobody needs to earn 7 figures, that's for sure! I'd need to hear a good argument for why anyone needs to earn 6 figures to be honest.

It's certainly a minefield.

£15 per hour = £35Kpa after tax! This idiot claims to be in charge of children! God help us.

There'd have to be very stringent management and appraisal to ensure people were being productive I suppose.

But who on earth would actually volunteer to do this stringent management and appraisal if they could have an easy stress-free role for the same money?

Managing people who are under-performing can be incredibly difficult. I had a number of issues in my team a few years ago, and I used to really dread going to work every day! Most managers I know can only fantasise about doing a job that doesn't have any line management responsibility! If they could afford to walk away and do something easier, I reckon most would leap at the opportunity.

Yes, there may be a certain status associated with being in a management role, but I really doubt that many people would consider that that alone would make all the stress worthwhile.

Are you intending to make this global? If not, all the people capable of earning the real market rate for their skills will go elsewhere.

Also, why would anyone take on a job with levels of responsibility and personal and financial risk? You'll have no boards of directors, no entrepreneurs or wealth creators, not to mention all the roles such as doctors, engineers as other have mentioned which not only carry responsibility but are expensive to train for

OP - I can't see it on the thread and it's hard for me to scroll back as not on proper PC but at 15 x 45 x 52 it would be £26,955.20

and bear in mind that figure assumes no sick pay or no holiday - because this is hourly, this not a salaried person.

I hope you realise I'm trying to engage in this genuinely but I really wonder if your view of money has been skewed in some way. I get a vibe that you don't realise how little some people are earning, essentially. I realise you care about it, which is good, but I think if you knew the real figures you might be even more horrified than you are already!

Kampeki: One of the main reasons for avoiding management roles is dealing with people like the OP who thinks that she should earn exactly the same wage as you.
Pass me the broom.

Oh, given the top small % pay the majority of the tax, what would happen to tax revenue and f we all earnt £524515 a year 35kish

It's there lorelei - I thought I read 'after tax' but I didn't. My fault.

But yes, I don't know the specifics of what most jobs earn. I've never done any other job. I'm hoping from a couple of comments on here that there may actually be fewer minimum wage jobs than I thought there were. But that's probably a vain hope. I just know that an awful lot of people don't have enough money. I don't know the ins and outs of what they do, how much they earn and why they don't have enough.

Why does there need to be university fees? A lot of people's objections to this idea are to do with bolting it on to the existing set-up. As well as terror at the thought that they personally might not do so well out of an equal society, ofc.

Where would be the incentive to go for a promotion if everyone earnt £15ph? Why

cruikshank - I feel as if you think most of us on this thread are really well paid, I'm not and I get the impression that probably most posters are earning an "average" salary. I don't find the OP's idea threatening - frankly I would be a person who might do better out of it financially than I do ATM - but I think most people are rejecting it because it's not been thought through.

OP "But yes, I don't know the specifics of what most jobs earn. I've never done any other job. I'm hoping from a couple of comments on here that there may actually be fewer minimum wage jobs than I thought there were"

er, no sorry. I'm now a bit worried that you are a teacher and have so little knowledge of the real world?

I actually felt really cheated by both schools and uni careers advice because when I left - I hope things have changed? - I realised that an awful lot of their "advice" came from a place of knowing nothing about wages and types of working conditions. I don't know what the heck it was based on actually.

btw if you are referring to the milkman, which I see you have described as "well paid" - it isn't. The person whose partner is a milkman may be earning more than a cleaner but that does not make it "well paid". What's your definition of "well paid".

I am quite confused by your posts because you talk as if you have never even had a starting salary in your life, as if you've always had more than enough. have you never had even a bit of a "having to count pennies" element to your life?

Also, you say you thought uni was fun - I didn't, I would have been better off earning in that time for sure.

I'm still trying to get past the idea that being a doctor isn't stressful.

I work 24h shifts once a week. 10h (8-6) at work, 14h (6-8) on call. Last night on call I was in until 1am trying to stop a frail 80yo from bleeding to death (succeeded), in theatres with emergency surgery on unprepared patients (most of which went well) and on call during all of this for emergency obstetrics (trying to keep mothers and babies alive), ICU, A&E...

And this is not stressful how?

I love my job. If I could earn the same gardening or shelf stacking I'd leave tomorrow.

Stupid idea

your idea ignores added levels of risk and responsibilities, variance accross the population of motivational factors etc.

Hic - yes, I wasn't going to get into it but I have a relative who is a doctor and yes she finds it rewarding in some ways but the stress...! She lost so much weight when she started, I asked if she was doing coke - and I wouldn't have blamed her if she was!

It's nothing to do with people being scared of an equal society. A lot of people's objections are based on the fact that this stupid idea completely ignores the relative attractiveness (or otherwise) of jobs when money is taken out of the equation. Why on earth would someone choose to do a risky or stressful job or one that requires years of experience or training if they're going to be paid exactly the same as someone with an easy, stress free job.

Of course I count pennies, I'm a single mother of 3 children! But I'm a long, long way from the breadline and I never have to worry that I won't manage. Yes, I had a starting salary but it was a decent one - 20K plus perks of free childcare and subsidised housing. I was only 22 and I just had one toddler; there just wasn't that much that I needed. Now I earn twice that but I need to spend a hell of a lot more. I'm just the same - perfectly, averagely, 'fine' financially. I don't cross paths with that many people who aren't either the same or better off.

Okay op, I think there is a real argument that no one in an organisation should earn more than 100x the wage of the lowest ft worker (whether agency or not).

A flat wage of the sort you describe wouldn't work. Not just because I'd be a net loser - I'd probably stop work and home ed my children rather than paying childcare.

If childminders and cleaners are allocated by the state, how are they paid for?

I'm also interested in the idea that it would be better for women. I can see that a citizens basic income can help, but I can't see anything about the effect on a completely flat income.