General Chat Thread, Wage Gap in General; The BBC have run a story here: BBC News - TUC: Wage stagnation over decades as income gap widens on ...
7th June 2011, 07:33 AM #1
The BBC have run a story here: BBC News - TUC: Wage stagnation over decades as income gap widens on how some wages have increased astronomically; doctors, judges, teachers etc, and how some have stalled or even fallen behind such as bakers and fork lift truck drivers. Most of the best and higest pay increases are from professions funded via taxation and having powerful negotiating bodies such as unions (although the doctors really scooped a big win they wern't expecting a few years back curtesy of Nu Labour). What amuses me though is the comments section pillorying the rich 'professions' and how they 'don't contribute'. Considering the amount of footballers/sportsmen, 'celebs', musicians and other types all being payed for out of their (Joe Publics) pockets and happily avoiding tax why does nobody mention these?
Perhaps I should have put this in BTRD, but it's not realy a rant, more of a discussion with an interesting point.
Why is it OK to be rich and successful in one thing, but not another?
Last edited by Dos_Box; 7th June 2011 at 11:01 AM.
IDG Tech News
7th June 2011, 07:43 AM #2
Because one thing requires a degree and is seen as unatainable by the masses and for the most part the others don't. I was watching this just the other night from TED which addresses some of this, it is quite long though.
I agree with the sentiments though, I am perturbed by the ever widening wage gap between those with horrifyingly overpowered and unrestrained unions.
Last edited by SYNACK; 7th June 2011 at 07:48 AM.
7th June 2011, 08:14 AM #3
Also, looking at that list, the list of jobs which have been reduced in pay will also have been heavily automated now. Packing, bottling, etc... can in most cases be done entirely by machine now.
Not to mention, those jobs are untrained jobs, compared with those at the top being jobs which require years of training etc...
To me, people like footballers don't deserve the riches they receive as they simply don't do the amount of work that any normal person would have to do to get them. Someone working for 40 years and landing themselves a CEO job on £1m+, fine they've worked hard, they deserve it. But someone who is 22 and can kick a ball? Why should they earn £100k a week? They've done nothing!
Last edited by localzuk; 7th June 2011 at 08:20 AM.
7th June 2011, 10:25 AM #4
Because they can kick a ball better then you. Don't assume footballers haven't worked for their high fees else pub teams would be a fair match against cup-winning international sides. They do train between matches and have little or no private lives as a consequence of their career. The reason they become a target is because they don't know how to spend their money without getting people's backs up.
7th June 2011, 10:28 AM #5
Sorry but if someone can get to be a multi-millionaire before they are my age, then they will simply not have worked as hard as 99% of the rest of the population.
Originally Posted by CAM
7th June 2011, 10:32 AM #6
Whilst I agree about footballers, there are instances where people have started companies whilst still at school, worked their socks off and developed a multi-million pound company.People like that work pretty much all the time and sacrifice everything for their company, and they definitely do work hard.
Originally Posted by localzuk
7th June 2011, 10:43 AM #7
Indeed, but they're the exception rather than the rule. So called 'celebs' are another I can put in the category with footballers.
Originally Posted by witch
7th June 2011, 10:50 AM #8
i dont want to defend footballers, but this is more about the FA and related worldwide footballing associations.
if someone came into your school and said "we want to pay any IT guys here £50k a week" would you refuse it saying "well ive simply not worked hard enough?"
and CAM is right to a degree. they have chosen an athletic profession and do it to a high level. if you had the footballing skill and love of the game, wouldn't you pursue a career in it? surely a lot of us ended up in IT because we have a passion for IT.
it would be like a tesco shelf stacker saying "look at all them IT people earning thousands, i can install anti virus, i'm as good as them"....we train and develop for our profession, so do they.
as CAM said, its more the fact that they get £100,000 a week but don't know what to do with it.
3 Thanks to MK-2:
CAM (7th June 2011), gmj (7th June 2011), korifugi (7th June 2011)
7th June 2011, 10:56 AM #9
I recently read "Whoops" by John Lancaster - which is a fantastic book about the causes of the banking crash/credit crunch etc - it actually makes credit default swaps entertaining and understandable. In the introduction he talks about the increasing gap between the very well paid and the rest and his thesis is that post WW2 and during the cold war, it was seen as important that the western capitalist system was seen as "better" and "fairer" that the soviet model, so politicians ensured that top wages were restricted or heavily taxed and lower earners were assisted. Now that the cold war is over, there is no need for the rich and powerful to make these concessions, so this trend has been speedily reversed.
I'm not sure I agree - but its an interesting thought. I heavily recommend you to read the book though.
Thanks to SpuffMonkey from:
7th June 2011, 10:58 AM #10
At the end of the day a football club is a business. Businesses need income. Players of the top rated variety (I doubt I'd really include any England players in this groups after Saturdays game) generate huge amount of income for these clubs/businesses. So if they're making money of a plater then why shouldn't they get a slice?
7th June 2011, 11:01 AM #11
exactly. if you went for a job interview at a school and when they said "shall we discuss salary" you knew that asking for £10k a week would be taken seriously, wouldn't you ask for it?
Originally Posted by bodminman
7th June 2011, 11:03 AM #12
Look at Richard Branson, a Millionaire by the time he was 25, a billionaire by the time he was 40...Peter Jones, A millionaire at the age of 20, Arnold Schwarzenegger A millionaire before he won Mr Universe and Mr Olympia...each one because they did smart investments and worked at it! Saying someone who is a millionaire before they are your age is wrong. The first .com millionaire (i forget his name, but he sold adspace at 1 pixel in size on a webpage, for £10 a piece) and sold out his page (800x600) before the year was up...he did that whilst at school!!
People do work hard for their money, and regardless of wage, footballers lose 60% of it in tax and national insurance.
7th June 2011, 11:08 AM #13
Did you miss my comment above about exceptions to the rule. I am referring to footballers and 'celebs'.
Originally Posted by nephilim
7th June 2011, 11:09 AM #14
Ahh, I missed that bit lol
7th June 2011, 11:30 AM #15
I'd argue that footballers are possibly the most deserving! They are earning that money purely on talent and ability which they have to display consistently and publicly - definitely not a case of the 'old boys network' getting them into a cushy job or being able to hide behind anyone. If the club is making loads of money then the players are entitled to their share. Celebs on the other hand....
By Fatmas in forum General Chat
Last Post: 3rd June 2011, 12:12 AM
By mattx in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
Last Post: 21st March 2010, 04:51 PM
By mac_shinobi in forum General Chat
Last Post: 17th July 2009, 10:47 PM
By mightywhite in forum Virtual Learning Platforms
Last Post: 28th January 2009, 09:37 PM
By Corky in forum Educational IT Jobs
Last Post: 27th November 2008, 10:13 PM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)