To believe that some professions deserve higher pay than others, regardless of education?

[OneKindDreamer]

I think it’s time we recognise that some jobs require unique skills or are more essential than others, even if they don’t require a degree. Is it wrong to believe that certain professions should be paid more simply based on their impact?

The government doesn't make up that difference though. There is a certain amount of money a person/household needs to live a decent life. This can be calculated. If wages need to be topped up by benefits, then the wages are too low.

Wages are simply supply and demand.

If I have a role that loads of people apply for, I’m in the driving seat - don’t like my offer? no problem you have a lot of competitors who want this job I can talk to.
Yet if I need a specialist skills or experience or contacts and there’s only one I can find… they are in the driving seat. They name their terms and I need to either take it or leave it.

People will always look to maximise their compensation.
Companies will always pay the minimum they need to get the job done satisfactorily.

Health and social care professionals, teachers and teaching assistants, police, fire service...yes

Bankers, lawyers, footballers, CEOs of utility and train companies and accountants...not so much.

I think Covid has shown who society really relies on when things get tough.

" you still need highly qualified people to want to become highly qualified, and why would they bother if they could earn more by being a carer with fewer qualifications for e ample, so you would have lots of highly paid carers but no one working in engineering research"

No, because plenty of people would be more interested in engineering research than in caring so you'd still get some. It's already the case now that researchers are out-earned by bankers and lawyers, but people still go into research. A lot of people I think would do almost anything than caring.

Communist countries still had doctors etc.

That's private sector only though.

'@alwaysmovingforwards · Today 10:52

Wages are simply supply and demand.'

It's not really that simple...

We have shortages of care, teaching, nursing, hospitality and retail staff because although there is a huge demand, employers still fail to pay decent wages and can't attract employees.

If these jobs were paid correctly then the shortages might be less acute.

But my point is that your version and definition of ‘decent’ could be completely different to mine. Therefore, there will always be someone who says that they’re not living a decent life.

it's a good job i do my job as a vocation and not for the money! i don't have a degree, therefore i must be stupid yet there are very few people have the mindset to do what i do.. and yet i get paid just above minimum wage and i am constantly being told 'i pay your wage' yes i work in the public sector, keeping you all safe. i am the first person people turn too in crisis, i am the one expected to sort out there social media squabbles and their stupid neighbour parking issues, along with talking people off high ledges!

yet i could earn more at aldi

@Gwenhwyfar I totally agree with you by the way, wages in the UK aren’t great at all the most part. And I’m not arguing that people shouldn’t have enough to live on. They absolutely should but what is that amount? It’s not really something that everybody can agree on.

This is something that can be counted though. It's not 'my version' or 'your version'.

It is though because we see it on here all the time someone would post that they only have 800 left for the month and that’s not enough to live on. Others will chime in that it’s a perfect amount to live on… some people who say they only have 200 left some people will say no they need more and that 800 is not enough. It’s depending on circumstance clearly and what you feel you need to live on.

This is how benefits are calculated isn't it? It not just one person's opinion.
They're clearly too low in the UK. We saw this during Covid when furlough payments had to be given because unemployment benefit wasn't enough for people to live on, but the point is that this amount is not just plucked from thin air.

Those people aren't on benefits though.

Not tube specifically but train drivers in general deserve a pay rise because ITS A BLOODY SKILLED JOB! not 3 million ffs. My husband was a passenger train driver and left to go on freight when the strikes started and now gets a better wage but that is much harder than normal train driving. If everyone could do it it would be minimum wage

Whenever this conversation comes up, this point is usually made. Whilst it is a fair one, I don't think anybody is necessarily saying a street cleaner ought to be paid the same as, say, a heart surgeon. It's the size of the gap.

Also, people do different jobs for different reasons. It's not just about the money. I can't imagine someone with a genuine interest in engineering research and ability in that area would choose to wipe arses just because the pay was equivalent. I doubt someone capable of being a heart surgeon is going to clean streets either.

Benefits or not it’s still a difference of opinion and expenditures

We need to accept that wages are a part of the cost of living and perhaps that they should form a higher proportion of the costs we pay for everything we buy, relative to other elements such as corporate profit and raw materials. This would lead to better service and, I hope, fewer and better quality though more expensive goods.

There is a depressing tendency to view service or labour costs (even in the private sector) as some sort of tax that should be scrimped to the bone rather than a purchase of something to be valued and appreciated.

Who would decide this relative level of moral worth of the various roles? How would you compare the value of a scientist to a firefighter to a teacher? And how would you mandate what private companies can pay their staff? Or do you propose that if we, say, decide a doctor is worth more than a banker then all doctors should have their pay raise above that of bankers and additional taxes should fund this? How would you restrict the earnings of self-employed people to what you think they "deserve"?

What you propose is completely unworkable. Pay reflects the scarcity of the skill/ abilities/ experience necessary to perform the role, plus the value added economically, although obviously this is subject to distortions when public sector pay is artifically reduce by Governments, or artifically inflated by union activities.

It's also very difficult to compare because you need to consider pensions, likely retirement age, working conditions, and hours as well as headline salary.

What is interesting is that sectors which are male dominated are generally better paid. There is evidence to show that when more men enter a field (e.g. IT/ tech which was originally female dominated) pay increases, and vice versa. This may be due to cultural biases, as well as the fact men are generally more aggressive with negotiating salary rises.

Ultimately the best thing to do would be to focus on improving the economy so that the wage stagnation that has dominated the last two decades is ended and salaries can rise sustainably above inflation, raising living standards. The only way that can happen is through productivity increases (the UK is woeful on this).

"Also, people do different jobs for different reasons. It's not just about the money. I can't imagine someone with a genuine interest in engineering research and ability in that area would choose to wipe arses just because the pay was equivalent. I doubt someone capable of being a heart surgeon is going to clean streets either."

Exactly and we can see evidence of this from former Communist countries. Professionals still existed even when not paid more than others.

"I don't think anybody is necessarily saying a street cleaner ought to be paid the same as, say, a heart surgeon. It's the size of the gap."

Yes, and, this varies between countries. Look at the UK and Germany below.

Some European countries have compulsory wage rises in line with inflation every year.

Again, valued how? What helps someone sick right now is a doctor. But without scientists doing research the doctor would be pretty useless and still using leeches and herbal potions and calling a priest.

Someone has to generate the profit to pay taxes to pay for education and healthcare. Those huge tax bills pay for multiple doctors and teachers to be available.

Society by definition once it becomes complex and roles are specialised is interdependent. Squabbles about distribution increase dramatically when resources are scarce and living standards decline, which happens when productivity flatlines. Fix that and everyone's living standards will rise.

It's worth pointing out that there is an 'income generated' factor. Jim Parsons was apparently being paid 1 million dollars per episode of The Big Bang Theory. He isn't saving lives, or keeping the streets clean, or feeding the population. We could live without his talents. His value to society on a practical level isn't that high. But the show he was an integral part of was syndicated worldwide and generated billions of dollars. To the creators of the show, Jim Parsons makes them way more than he costs, in a similar way to the manner in which top footballers increase the revenue of their club.

Sadly, many of the 'essential' cogs in our society's wheels aren't massive income generators in the same way.

A large study of civil servants found the opposite - mortality was greater at lower grades, and once they had corrected for smoking, obesity etc, they attributed the remaining difference to stress resulting from lack of control in their job.

unhealthywork.org/classic-studies/the-whitehall-study/

would choose to wipe arses Carers will never be paid more while people sum up their entire job as “wiping arses”

Yes, and, this varies between countries. Look at the UK and Germany below.And 50 years ago the ratio was more like 25 times rather than 201 times. Yet we didn’t have any shortage of able people wanting to be CEOs.