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?

This is largely because the average salaries in the UK have fallen behind due to low productivity. Recruiting a CEO for a large international organisation is a global market, so companies have to pay global rates. The Germany economy is also structured very differently with a very successful tier of medium-sized companies but whose CEOs will be paid comparatively less than those running international organisations. The US is obviously a different case again with very poor employment law and job security despite high overall productivity, and as home to some of the largest and most successful corporations worldwide which obviously mean their CEOs are paid more. A company with just 10 employees may have a "CEO". The distribution of sizes of companies in an economy as well as the types of industries and whether employees in these these tend to be low-skilled or high-skilled will affect the figures enormously, so a straightforward ration comparison provides little meaningful information.

Ok, fine. Let's consider income inequality in general then.

"When comparing the GINI coefficient of the United Kingdom with its neighboring countries, distinct differences in income inequality emerge. Countries such as Norway and Denmark typically showcase lower GINI coefficients, indicative of more equitable income distributions. These nations have robust social welfare systems and policies that promote income equality more aggressively than the UK. In contrast, the UK's GINI coefficient often aligns more closely with countries like the United States, where income inequality is more pronounced. These comparisons not only highlight the UK's position in terms of income disparity but also reflect broader socioeconomic dynamics and the effectiveness of policies aimed at reducing inequality within these societies."

GINI Coefficient of United Kingdom | Gateway (who.int)

Income as a whole, apart from some exceptions, increases with the level of responsibility and stress. The two are usually linked.

Who would take on stressful in terms of responsibilities jobs for lower pay? Then skills go next.

@Gwenhwyfar I'm not sure what your point is. That is stating the blindingly obvious! Surely everybody is aware that Scandinvian countries have high tax rates and redistributional policies, which is by far the main reason for their lower levels of inequality.

The thread was about the relative salaries paid for various jobs, not the tax applied to them as far as I understood it. The OP didn't argue that there should be more benefits paid to lower earners. The post stated that salaries should be determined based on an assessment of social value not difficulty/ rarity of skillset.

It's a job I have done, and whilst it certainly isn't the entirety, it's a part of it that is off-putting to people and is a factor in why, if by some miracle, carers were paid the same as scientific researchers, you aren't going to suddenly find nobody wants to be a scientific researcher in favour of being a carer. And actually, doing the rather less savoury aspects of caring for individuals who cannot manage this by themselves, with respect and dignity is precisely one reason why the job should be paid more.
I shouldn't have been so flippant, and do apologise for that, though.

I think it comes down to a combination of the level of skill required for the job, and how desirable the jobs is.

Lots of jobs that require a high level of skill/expertise aren't well paid (e.g. academic jobs). I think that this is largely down to the oversupply of people wanting to do the job.

People are arguing that less inequality in wages isn't possible so I'm giving examples.

You are absolutely right.

People are arguing that less inequality in wages isn't possible so I'm giving examples.

That is what we were originally talking about but then you started talking about inequalitymeasures that aren't just driven by wages and salaries: the primary reason for lower inequality in Scandinvian countries is redustribution of wealth from higher taxes, which is a separate issue to relative gross salary levels and how these are determined.

But people don't get paid according to their qualifications. If they did your pharmacist would get paid more than a footballer.

So why don't they? Because a footballer can generate more wealth for investors than a pharmacist. So can a train driver.

It's the free market. You get paid in proportion to how valuable your skills are considered by the people who pay you. This is why nurses struggle. We haven't figured out a way of making lots of money out of them.

Well, no, we have. We scrap the NHS, charge everyone a fucking fortune for a blood test and suddenly nurses are moneyspinners.

Salaries are based on a combination of: scarcity of skillset (which can include unusual skills like being one of the best in the world at a sport, or highly intelligent and having qualifications many people would not be capable of achieving, or having extensive experience in a niche area) and how much money their activity will generate for the organisation. This determines what they need to pay to attract appropriate candidates. It's not rocket science to figure out that few people are capable of being a premier league footballer, fewer people have the aptitude to be a competent doctor/ accountant/ lawyer than a cleaner. Scarcity is also impacted by the number of people who wish to do something so in fields that many find "fun" or desireable such as the arts because so many people wish to do it there will be more appropriate candidates to choose from and therefore there is little salary pressure because plenty of people want the role.

Poorly paid roles that are also undesireable can however, obviously become hard to recruit for while people - even if unskilled - have more appealing options. Many would choose supermarket work over being a carer for the reasons mentioned upthread. Market forces dictate therefore that either salaries will rise, or fewer people will do this role and people will have to choose between paying more or not having the service/ product if they don't deem it worth the required price to get people to work in that industry. This issue, in the case of the UK and carers, recent Governments have tried to address by enticing low-qualified immigrants to move here to do these undesireable roles that are low paid because from their perspective the pay is a sufficient upgrade on the current living standards in their own countries.

This is all really just basic econ

Sorry, all just basic economics of supply and demand. Salaries will be determined by the value of the skillset to the employer and what their customers are prepared to pay for the product or service.

Obviously in the case of the public sector it works differently and most people are enormously underpaid in the UK for their skillsets in professional public sector roles. Therefore, either unions will intervene or staff will leave and go to countries that will pay them appropriately.

But you can't raise the tax to pay them appropriately unless you raise productivity in the economy so that PPP can be raised sustainably, per my earlier posts.

Sad that the UK seems to be incapable of forming a Government that has the slightest intention of addressing the problem that underlies falling living standards for the last two decades.

I think it's important to remember the impact that good old fashioned sexism has had over the years. And is still having.

Carers, cleaners and checkout staff are traditionally female roles. Bin people and tube drivers are more likely to be male. Look at the cases where warehouse workers have been paid more than shop floor staff. Shop staff are being awarded compensation due to the inherent sexism.

Although the world has moved on and women have been able to work in previously male dominated occupations, societies ideas about what work is valued is largely still based upon man job worthy, woman job not as worthy.

You just have to look at nursing. A traditionally female job that's so undervalued we bring in staff from other countries rather than pay them more. Regarding scarcity pushing up wages; we have a nursing crisis yet they're still undervalued.

You just have to look at nursing. A traditionally female job that's so undervalued we bring in staff from other countries rather than pay them more. Regarding scarcity pushing up wages; we have a nursing crisis yet they're still undervalued.

Agree, I raised this issue earlier in the thread, too, that there is a measurable effect in that when a sector becomes more male dominated pay increases and vice versa.

The issue around public sector pay is because it isn't driven by market forces and has been artificially depressed by Governments in the UK because they cannot afford international market rates for those skills now because of their mismanagement of the economy, hence highly qualified people in the public sector moving abroad, and fewer people with the appropriate abilities being prepared to enter professions where the majority employers are public sector.

The Government need to raise productivity in the economy so that tax revenues rise and then public sector salaries at appropriate rates can be funded, as well as living standards rising for private sector workers.

Weird to put some moral take on salary. The market determines salary, how much someone else wants to pay you for the job you do. Low paid jobs are not "valued" by the market as they reason they can automate or have a large pool of candidates for the job. Unique, very desirable skills demand higher salary. Desirable is not determined by any moral value, it is what the company needs (usually to make money). There is no "deserves" in salary.
It all changes for entrepreneurs, but even they have to create a market for their product and get people to want to buy. The market pays the minimum it can get away with.
I hope you're very young OP because if you're over 30 and don't know this, you haven't been paying attention.

The numerous people who aren't only in those positions for the pay. Some people thrive on the stress and challenge of certain jobs. They want to do those jobs. This is evidenced by those who go on working long after they have any financial need.

The need for personal fulfilment won't die without financial incentive. If you have the capacity to do a job which stimulates you, it's highly unlikely you will select a job that bores you or that you find actively distasteful.

There is an argument that removing the financial equation of employment rather frees people up to do what they are suited to, rather than what will get them x y z salary. Because we don't live in that sort of economic set-up, we naturally imagine 'everybody' will only ever want to take the 'easy' option. But is the 'easy' option really doing something you have no interest in? Wouldn't that make it stressful, even if the job itself isn't stressful?

Added to that, jobs have different stresses. It may be more mentally taxing to be a CEO, but that doesn't mean all the CEOs would jump at the opportunity to be out in the rain digging a ditch if it paid the same, because that's going to be taxing in a different way.

Not everyone is just looking for a cushy number, and even if they were, most of the NMW jobs people perceived as 'easier' from the point of view of stress actually aren't. The stress is just different.

If you have the capacity to do a job which stimulates you, it's highly unlikely you will select a job that bores you or that you find actively distasteful
You are talking about stimulation, challenges, fulfilment. That's not what I'm referring to at all. I'm talking about responsibilities and the stress that comes with it.

Responsibilities in terms of making decisions, especially in a stressful environment, which will significantly impact on many people.

If you make the wrong decision, the blame is on you with the consequences that go with it.

Yes, I know that's what you meant. And I repeat, people in those positions often aren't just doing it for financial reward and wouldn't cease doing it if they could earn the same on the till at Sainsbury's.

Yes. A free market in employment would theoretically do all of that for you, because if a job wasn't paid enough for the effort it required then it wouldn't have enough people willing to do it, so you'd have to pay more until you attracted enough people.

But we don't have a free market in employment because people have to work to pay rent/mortgage and to eat.

OneKindDreamer ah but the trouble is as already pointed out, is that work dealing with money is better paid because of the gain whereas dealing with people is finite and there is an endless source of the product!!

the wage gap is closing and middle tier staff are beginning to wonder what the point is

the point is that you get to work in a nice warm office and don't have to clean up shit, carry heavy bins, deliver pizza in the snow or risk getting stabbed in your daily work. The people who do those things should be getting paid the most.

The issue is that it's not as clear cut as that.

The people on minimum wage in my nice warm office are still in my nice warm office.

In one of my jobs I was one grade above minimum wage, they then put minimum wage up, but not my role so the gap was tiny but I had more responsibility and some difficulties that they didn't have. It was no longer really worth the stress. The minimum wage job was nicer..

If you are a person carrying heavy bins, out in all weather's at antisocial hours, to my mind you should get a premium over the nicer indoor job but, there should still be a gap between you and the team leader, who sat the lorry driving test, has to work out the cover etc but is still out in all weathers

Fully agree on this one.
The truth about all this debate with the Budget and the Hole is that they are not brave enough, at least yet, to say the truth: they need to tackle excessive corporations profit levels or tax them out of making record highs while there is a cost of living crisis, caused by these guys fully transferring costs increases to customers and a bit more, for good measure.

They are very clever, they have tied our pensions to the profits that these companies make. But we really need to get a grasp on their greediness or they would bleed us dry.
Fully liberal capitalism does not work. Capitalism, with controls in place, including common sense when it comes to take profits out, does work.
UK does need to get a grasp on house prices too. They are far far far too expensive, including renting. Yet, again, a good proportion of the market is on the hands of big companies.....
And, here hoping, that UK will become again a main manufacturer and that we will make our own goods like in the good old days. I think it is much more sustainable if each country manufacturers their own daily goods. If we carry out like this, we will not even have one person in UK that knows how to make a spoon or be able to afford to import a spoon!

Wages of footballers is always a really odd arguement to bring in to these debates. At the very top level footballers have very very rare and desirable skills- skills that only a few hundred people in the world have. They have a short window for their employer to use those skills to generate money and they do generate a huge amount of money.