*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

[OngBonga]

It's immoral for a company to pay some of its employees many thousands of times more than others, IMO.

I mean the problem here is you're wanting to regulate the freedom of individuals and entities to agree to an economic relationship. Such regulation already exists in the form of minimum wage and discrimination laws, but you want to go further.

And I'm not sure here if you're referring to people doing similar jobs or not. Take Liverpool FC. They pay Mohammed Salah a great deal more than they pay their tea lady, but both are employees of Liverpool FC. The tea lady is likely on £9.50 an hour, which Salah earns in a nanosecond [citation needed]. But of course, they pay Salah what they have agreed with his agent is his fair economic value to the club.

In an ideal world people get paid their economic value. Some people are worth more than others for a variety of reasons. Who decides what reasons are and are not "fair"? I would argue that decision should be left to the markets. If Salah isn't worth what he's paid, then Liverpool FC lose money. The markets punish their poor financial choices. If they make too many mistakes like this, they will no longer be a top football club. The ultimate punishment is bankruptcy and relegation. So they are incentivised to make good, "fair" decisions. And by "fair" I mean the true economic value of the person they are employing, "fair" in this context has absolutely nothing to do with what anyone else earns, or the general standard of living.

It's not about absolute wealth. It's about whether people have relatively as much as their neighbors.

I find this problematic, as it is basically envy. Poor for me is about necessity. If other people have things you would like, non-essential things that just make life better, that doesn't make you poor, but it should incentivise you to be wealthier.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I mean the problem here is you're wanting to regulate the freedom of individuals and entities to agree to an economic relationship. Such regulation already exists in the form of minimum wage and discrimination laws, but you want to go further.

I'm saying that what is happening cannot go on. It is not a net good for society to have its wealth is only a few hands. The distance between the top and the bottom needs to be addressed as not an infinite ceiling. The more wealth is consolidated, the less there is invested in infrastructure and public betterment.

Some amount of wealth consolidation is good. Too much is too much.

We're heading well into the too much zone, IMO.

And I'm not sure here if you're referring to people doing similar jobs or not. Take Liverpool FC. They pay Mohammed Salah a great deal more than they pay their tea lady, but both are employees of Liverpool FC. The tea lady is likely on £9.50 an hour, which Salah earns in a nanosecond [citation needed]. But of course, they pay Salah what they have agreed with his agent is his fair economic value to the club.

The tea lady should be making a fuckload more. What's your argument? That the tea lady needs an agent? We all need agents?

That's kinda my point. If it's gotten to the point where only the rich who can afford the perk of having an agent can expect to be paid a commensurate share of their employer's income... that's messed up.

If the tea lady is working for a company that makes enough to pay some people a million times her wage, then that's a huge problem. That is not a just and fair employment relationship. The fact that laws allow for that situation is obscenely problematic, IMO.

In an ideal world people get paid their economic value. Some people are worth more than others for a variety of reasons. Who decides what reasons are and are not "fair"? I would argue that decision should be left to the markets.

We're doing that, and look what's happening.

I'm fine with rewarding advancement. I'm fine with people negotiating their wages. I'm fine with markets determining value.

I'm not fine with looking at the biggest picture and seeing the world's wealth being funneled into fewer and fewer hands.

I'm not claiming to know how to solve this problem. You're saying I don't have answers. Well... so we agree there.
You're claiming the problem doesn't exist. That's where we disagree. Not in how to go about solving it. Just that there is something that's a problem.

If Salah isn't worth what he's paid, then Liverpool FC lose money. The markets punish their poor financial choices. If they make too many mistakes like this, they will no longer be a top football club. The ultimate punishment is bankruptcy and relegation. So they are incentivised to make good, "fair" decisions. And by "fair" I mean the true economic value of the person they are employing, "fair" in this context has absolutely nothing to do with what anyone else earns, or the general standard of living.

Why does the tea lady not deserve her fair share of the company's profits? It's a company effort to bring in all the bucks. It's the players, and the coaches, and the advertisers and the sponsors, and the owners... and the tea ladies. All of them play a role.

It's totally messed up of any one of them is earning less than 0.01% what someone else in that same company makes, IMO.
The fact that we've been told culturally that anyone in a company can be of so little value to the company is fucked up.
The fact that we've been told to blame the victim for not working harder or negotiating better or whatever is also fucked up.

I bet the tea lady is busting her ass. Putting in the time. Knows more about tea than anyone else in the place. Can tell the temperature of water from across the room by the color of the vapor coming from the kettle. She's prob. fucking GOATED on the tea. You think Salah trust his tea from some back-alley tea monger?!?

So why doesn't the tea lady deserve her fair share?

I find this problematic, as it is basically envy. Poor for me is about necessity. If other people have things you would like, non-essential things that just make life better, that doesn't make you poor, but it should incentivise you to be wealthier.

It's exactly envy. I'm glad you see that. That's exactly what it is and nothing more or less will do it any justice.
It's about limiting envy for the safety and prosperity of the whole society.
Some envy is good. Too much is too much.
Marie Antoinette saying "Let them eat cake." is the scenario I think we're racing toward, but on a scale much larger than just one nation.