This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Everyone should earn the same wage

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

Hannibal Lecter

Original post by OedipusTheKing

Then what would be the point in becoming a lawyer or a doctor? Everybody would be bin men.

Nonsense, money is not the only motivator for a career.

Reply 21

TheGuy117

Trolls are supposed say something that divides people and be funny for anyone who realises it's a troll. This was neither, 0/10.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 22

OedipusTheKing

Original post by Hannibal Lecter

Nonsense, money is not the only motivator for a career.

But it is the main motivator for most people, and if you asked the general public would you work for 3 years earning a law degree to earn the same as a binman at the end, they would fanatically shout 'No!'. Effort = reward; without reward people do not put in the effort.

Reply 23

Kugelmugel

Original post by Hannibal Lecter

Only then can we have a more fair, just and equal society.

From lawyer to binman, everyone should earn the same average wage. This would get rid of notions of 'class' if the binman could afford the same things as the lawyer or doctor.

This is a fantastic idea and it should be implemented, hopefully a party with guts will do it one day.

Have you heard of this thing called communism? Yeah... It doesn't always work out great.

Reply 24

Hannibal Lecter

Original post by OedipusTheKing

Education should be free for all.

Reply 25

MatureStudent36

Original post by Hannibal Lecter

Education should be free for all.

Who pays for it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Wx5PYZIWcQ

Reply 26

OedipusTheKing

Original post by Hannibal Lecter

Education should be free for all.

How does that have any relevance to what I just stated? If education were free, people would still have to work 3 years to get their law degrees and they wouldn't do it without a financial incentive i.e. getting a well-paid job at the end of it. You think students sit around and read odious books on property law for self-betterment and fun? :lolwut:

Reply 27

Davelittle

No one would strive to improve themselves and therefore society would stagnate and begin to crumble

Reply 28

Hannibal Lecter

Original post by OedipusTheKing

So you would rather be a binman than experience the university lifestyle (for free) for three years and then the career that you will enjoy?

If that's the case, then why don't wannabe criminal lawyers, for example, currently pursue more vocational work? A lot of jobs which don't require degrees pay as much as criminal lawyers.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 29

shezshez

Troll rating - North Korea/10.

Seriously, no.

Original post by Hannibal Lecter

So you would rather be a binman then experience the university lifestyle (for free) for three years and then the career that you will enjoy?

If that's the case, then why don't wannabe criminal lawyers, for example, currently pursue more vocational work? A lot of jobs which don't require degrees pay as much as criminal lawyers. (2)

Sorry to break your bubble, but not everybody is intelligent enough to go to university (which is a message I wish our current government would get into their heads, but alas they are concerned with youth unemployment figures). You would have us believe everybody is equal, and quite frankly they are not. And simply because education is made free, does not mean that everyone will take up the opportunity nor does it mean everyone can. Education is never 'free'; you lose money by taking time out to study.

(2) And you don't think everybody is on the look out for these jobs? Law is a safer profession inasmuch as it will always have a reasonable level of recruitment.

Reply 32

Tridentus

Original post by Hannibal Lecter

How is it fair that a labourer who works his ass off everyday has a hugely lower wage than someone who has walked into a prestigious job (because of mummy and daddy's contacts) and does the bare minimum?

Which "prestigious" jobs are these? lawyer? doctor? accountant?

the reason why a labourer makes far less is because a single labourer's contribution to society is much smaller than a lawyer's.

you might as well argue the case for labourer vs footballer- but the fact of the matter is a footballer provides a spectacle and enriches millions of people's lives every week. a labourer working on a house might be 1/5 of a team making a difference for a family of 3 over the course of the months it takes to complete it. similarly, a lawyer could be part of a team handling a multinational corporate merger, affecting billions of pounds and many thousands of people's jobs, etc. etc.

there's also the issue of scarcity- anyone can be a labourer.. it takes years of training, and not everyone can be a good lawyer. "mummy and daddy" and social capital (i.e.the way you were brought up, and the social class you belong to) can get your foot in the door for sure, and that might be unfair, but you've massively exaggerated to say that anyone can get a "prestigious job" by doing the bare minimum.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 33

Barksy II

Original post by Hannibal Lecter

Pick up an economics book. It would be a better use of your time and hopefully you would avoid embarrassing yourself again.

Reply 34

Spaz Man

Marxists have never respected the productive power of free enterprise and private ownership.

Reply 35

Paul3012

Though I appreciate to pay everybody the same would cause massive tension and whilst may theoretically sound ideal I know it is unrealistic and would lead to unhappiness of course, the way to create equality I don't think is to give everyone the same but to encourage those who have more to help those who struggle and for everyone to contribute what they can another Marxist idea I know. But whilst the debate about equality is massively complex and hard to sum up in one comment I believe that the attitude shown commonly in this thread that if you paid everyone the same there would be no doctors etc. is a silly one, many people choose jobs for the intrinsic value and for the fact they would be helping others, so there would be doctors, perhaps those who miss out on training in this society where there is undoubtedly class bias in education. Furthermore the attitude that a binman should by rights earn less than a lawyer as they are less valuable is a silly idea, it isn't an easy job and what's more I would like to see you live in a world without binmen as their contribution to what we may see as a civilised society is vital.

Reply 36

InsertWittyName

People shouldn't be paid the same. Their wages should be proportional to their benefit to society. Should an MP or a manager or a call centre worker be paid the same as a nurse or a serviceman? I think public sector workers should be cared for better than academics. But hey, when has capitalism ever been fair?

Reply 37

MatureStudent36

Original post by Paul3012

That would be a minority of people. The majority of people will ideally aim for a job that they enjoy doing and pays well. Many would do a job they hate but pays well.

You're assuming that all people are motivated the same.

Nurses like to help people - They've been on strike over pay in the past
Firemen like to help people- They've been on strike over pay in the past
Ambulancemen like to help people - They've been on strike over pay in the past
Police like to help people-They've been on strike over pay in the past

If those people doing a job they love are willing to strike over pay, you can be sure that within a moth or wo they'd be asking questions why they're run ragged and stressed for the same monetary gain as some feckless idiot doing a mundane job poorly because there's no incentive as he knows he'll get paid the same.

Reply 38

Will95206

Original post by Hannibal Lecter

That is exactly my point! Equality of opportunity makes sure that everyone has the same chance of getting in/the job! But Communism or equality of out come means that everyone gets the same which is actually unfair! Life is unfair only equality of opportunity can solve this, not a unrealistic fantasy of total equality.

And yes I know the gap between rich are poor is huge but only proper measures to buffer/limit capitalism in a liberal democracy can reduce this gap not to scarp this system. Communism is great in de jure but in de facto no. Communism does not and has not work(ed) as seen with the Cold War and even modern day China.

Reply 39

Rakas21

Original post by Hannibal Lecter

That's an awful ideal and it's called communism. It completely removes the incentive to work hard and innovate, you'd see massive labour shortages in skilled sectors, massive unemployment due to an oversupply of unskilled labour and you'd severely diminish technological advancement since fewer people would want to dedicate years to something like fusion when they live it up as a bar tender.

Capitalism may not produce the perfect meritocracy (entertainers are valued far too highly, academics not enough) but it does generate technological advancement and employment mostly rewarding hard work at least to some degree. It is without a doubt a superior alternative to communism.

By all means call for equality of opportunity but equality outcome would destroy our way of life. Additionally i'm not a patriot but if the only way to prevent communist rule was to fight, i'd call for war because at least capitalism rewards me for succeeding..