Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
Originally Posted by abucha3
Footballers and popstars have talent, which is why they are paid so much. Both of these contribute to society and promote the entertainment industry.
Like I have said, in general people need qualifications to further in life and get a good job. Someone with a degree in History could get a well paying job, but someone with less qualifications (no degree) would have to get an inferior paying job, to suit their inferior level of education.
Again, you're just arguing for what you're arguing against (only really badly). And actually history graduates tend not to get fantastic pay because it doesn't qualify them for anything anyone else with any other degree can do, really, 60% of graduate jobs not specifying a degree and all - a history grad can easily earn less than someone 'unqualified' who has skills that are in high demand, e.g. a plumber. You really would do well to actually listen to what everyone else is saying, for once.
Anyway, you've pretty much stopped arguing your original point which is that hard work is the only factor contributing to pay so can we assume you've admitted defeat on this?
Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
Originally Posted by Metrobeans
Do you realise you're contradicting yourself? This whole section is describing the market, where the salary of a neurosurgeon is high is because supply is fairly inelastic, whereas the supply of a cleaner wouldn't be.
I could go to Train Anorak school and learn the names of every single rail station in the UK and know about all the types of rolling stock that are available and the differences between them. I could be a highly qualified rail anorak, one of the best in the country! Would I get a high-paying job? Probably not. There's little demand for rail anoraks in industry.
You would not get a high-paying job because there is no Train Anorak school and it is not a qualification. It is merely an unnecessary skill. A qualification in Maths or English would get someone a high paying job. People without these qualifications are then forced to have inferior paying jobs.
Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
Originally Posted by Gremlins
Again, you're just arguing for what you're arguing against (only really badly). And actually history graduates tend not to get fantastic pay because it doesn't qualify them for anything anyone else with any other degree can do, really, 60% of graduate jobs not specifying a degree and all - a history grad can easily earn less than someone 'unqualified' who has skills that are in high demand, e.g. a plumber.
That website shows all the careers open to someone with a degree in History. I think you will find that most of the jobs on that page are well-paying. Well that is the problem with society, that plumbers are in some cases earning more despite the fact that they have less qualifications than someone else. A plumber usually earns well because they own their own business so there are options open to them.
Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
The market does not reward hard work or education, it rewards satisfying the wants of others in society. If you are able to do this with minimal effort then so much the better.
Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
Quite. We should stop spreading this fallacy that the free market intrinsically promotes hard work and intelligence. It doesn't, it only achieves the fulfilling of market needs. Objectively, and regardless of the qualities of the person fulfilling them.
Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
Originally Posted by abucha3
You would not get a high-paying job because there is no Train Anorak school and it is not a qualification. It is merely an unnecessary skill. A qualification in Maths or English would get someone a high paying job. People without these qualifications are then forced to have inferior paying jobs.
Clearly it was hypothetical, but the point that everyone is making is that if you are highly qualified but the market has no demand for your particular qualifications, your earnings potential is quite reduced.
Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
Originally Posted by Metrobeans
Clearly it was hypothetical, but the point that everyone is making is that if you are highly qualified but the market has no demand for your particular qualifications, your earnings potential is quite reduced.
I don't really see a problem for this. If you want to spend 25 years getting a PhD in something totally irrelevant to the market (i.e. other people) I don't see why you should deserve high earnings.
Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
Originally Posted by Metrobeans
Clearly it was hypothetical, but the point that everyone is making is that if you are highly qualified but the market has no demand for your particular qualifications, your earnings potential is quite reduced.
In theory I agree, but can you actually give me an example of this. When I mean highly qualified, I am talking about degrees etc.
Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
Originally Posted by abucha3
In theory I agree, but can you actually give me an example of this. When I mean highly qualified, I am talking about degrees etc.
Like bags said, there aren't many high paying jobs for people who've spent the last 15 years writing an ethnography of some obscure tribe in Papa New Guinea, or whatever. Why do you place so much importance on degrees, btw? I'm currently doing one and I can tell you I'm working n times less hard than my friends who just got jobs out of school. TBH you just sound like an enormous snob.
Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
Originally Posted by Gremlins
Like bags said, there aren't many high paying jobs for people who've spent the last 15 years writing an ethnography of some obscure tribe in Papa New Guinea, or whatever. Why do you place so much importance on degrees, btw? I'm currently doing one and I can tell you I'm working n times less hard than my friends who just got jobs out of school. TBH you just sound like an enormous snob.
I am not talking about Papa New Guinea. I am talking about the United Kingdom and how degrees should and does play an important role in employment. May I ask what sort of jobs these friends have obtained? I mean most people would only be able to get some sort of low-paying job which requires little or no qualifications. Yes, they might be taxing but in the physical sense and they do not require the person to think or be creative.
Other jobs from a degree require thoughts and ideas. They require the employee to use their education and their brain, another taxing job. This is reflected in their salary.
Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
Originally Posted by abucha3
Other jobs from a degree require thoughts and ideas. They require the employee to use their education and their brain, another taxing job. This is reflected in their salary.
No, creative jobs pay higher because (apparently) not everyone can do them, so supply of potential people to do the job is lower than for manual tasks which (apparently) anyone can do. Pay has very little to do with hard work. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? TBH you're just coming off as an annoying snob who presumes he's going to do a degree, and thinks that because of this he has a right to a higher salary.
Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
Originally Posted by abucha3
Footballers and popstars have talent, which is why they are paid so much. Both of these contribute to society and promote the entertainment industry.
Like I have said, in general people need qualifications to further in life and get a good job. Someone with a degree in History could get a well paying job, but someone with less qualifications (no degree) would have to get an inferior paying job, to suit their inferior level of education.
To put it mildly, you're completely missing the point of this.
While yes, professional footballers are trained to a high level of skill, you cannot seriously compare them to the likes of neurosurgeons. Likewise with popstars; are you actually trying to tell me that Voctoria Beckham should be paid more than a University lecturer because she has more qualifications? If you are, you are quite frankly an idiot and Don should reconsider your position as an MP. The market is a massive factor in pay; we do not live in a meritocracy. There are, rightly, some elements of that in our wages system but it is not a fairytale land where those who put in the most work get the most reward. You need to open your eyes or you will not do well in the adult world.
Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
Originally Posted by Thunder and Jazz
To put it mildly, you're completely missing the point of this.
While yes, professional footballers are trained to a high level of skill, you cannot seriously compare them to the likes of neurosurgeons. Likewise with popstars; are you actually trying to tell me that Voctoria Beckham should be paid more than a University lecturer because she has more qualifications? If you are, you are quite frankly an idiot and Don should reconsider your position as an MP. The market is a massive factor in pay; we do not live in a meritocracy. There are, rightly, some elements of that in our wages system but it is not a fairytale land where those who put in the most work get the most reward. You need to open your eyes or you will not do well in the adult world.
I have not said that Victoria Beckham should be paid more than a university lecturer or a neurosurgeon. If you had read what I have written, then you would realise that I said that although footballers and popstars do not need qualifications, their salary is based on talent and how they entertain the general public. Therefore, it is you that is the idiot for failing to see what I have written and completely taken matters out of perspective.
The reality is that people with more qualifications will generally get paid a higher salary than someone with less or no qualifications. The comparison can be compared with an accountant and a cleaner. The accountant has a degree in Maths, allowing him to have this career and thus earning a good wage. The cleaner has no qualifications to offer, otherwise a superior job would have been chosen, and the wage reflects this.
You need to forget your little dream world, that everyone should be paid the same regardless of qualifications, because at the end of the day society will not be like that.
Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
Originally Posted by Gremlins
No, creative jobs pay higher because (apparently) not everyone can do them, so supply of potential people to do the job is lower than for manual tasks which (apparently) anyone can do. Pay has very little to do with hard work. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? TBH you're just coming off as an annoying snob who presumes he's going to do a degree, and thinks that because of this he has a right to a higher salary.
Anyone can do manual work because no qualifications are required for the job, hence why they work hard. Accountants and businessmen may work less manually but have been consistently working hard throughout their life to gain the position that they are now at. They don't get to the top through no work and their salary reflects that.
People with degrees should and do have a higher salary than someone who has nothing to offer and is stuck as working as a cleaner.
Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
Originally Posted by abucha3
I have not said that Victoria Beckham should be paid more than a university lecturer or a neurosurgeon. If you had read what I have written, then you would realise that I said that although footballers and popstars do not need qualifications, their salary is based on talent and how they entertain the general public. Therefore, it is you that is the idiot for failing to see what I have written and completely taken matters out of perspective.
The reality is that people with more qualifications will generally get paid a higher salary than someone with less or no qualifications. The comparison can be compared with an accountant and a cleaner. The accountant has a degree in Maths, allowing him to have this career and thus earning a good wage. The cleaner has no qualifications to offer, otherwise a superior job would have been chosen, and the wage reflects this.
You need to forget your little dream world, that everyone should be paid the same regardless of qualifications, because at the end of the day society will not be like that.
Bold: These two contradict each other. You have conceded that the market is a factor but then decided to continue saying that qualifications are the most important thing. However, I'm sorry I was rude. You really are missing the point though; the cleaner has less qualifications but then so do popstars. The market is a factor; you having admitted it, I'm done with this discussion.
Italics: I never said that and don't believe it. But you're in the dreamworld; this is not a meritocracy.
TSR's model parliament.
Useful Resources:
Re: Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist'
