Establishing a Fair and Balanced National Economic System (Addressing the GAP from Top to Bottom)

This is a concept I was thinking about and I would LOVE to have input as to why this is a horrible idea, and why this is a great idea. Any productive thoughts are always welcome.

Why do certain jobs earn more than another job?

The answer may seem obvious, people who do more should be rewarded for their work, rewarded for skill and experience, and most importantly, that is just the

way things work... People say that they deserve the millions or hundreds of thousands they make (those who are well off). But I cannot fathom how someone can think somehow their day of work is worth hundreds or thousands when at the same time people EVERYWHERE in the world are working all day long just trying not to starve to death.

Well I have thought a lot about and do not agree that any job that humanity needs, should have a higher or lower base pay than any other job that humanity

needs. If there is a need for the job, and a person spends his day working hard, then he deserves what every other person who spent their day working hard got.

BASIC outline of the concept:
1. All jobs start at the same base rate (labor, front-line, management, executives, etc.)
2. Monthly pay rate increase based on # of hours worked in your field (it would be a monthly increase, so it would of course be somewhat small but the more hours you have worked in that field the more you are paid. The increase per hour is the same for everyone, but if you do well, then you will get the chance to work more hours which means overtime pay and means more hours worked - and in turn, more monthly increase.)
3. Workers will earn privilege to work overtime and move out of entry level positions based on exemplary performance coupled with experience (just like now)
4. If a worker is not performing up to par, the company has the right to fire that employee (just like now)
5. Pay is received based on hourly work, with overtime available, if you work longer you are paid for it (overtime is a privilege available to top performers) (like now with most companies).


Motivators:
1. Opportunity to earn more money working more hours and receiving overtime pay.
2. Opportunity to be promoted to position of more respect, responsibility, and authority to influence policy/process/etc.
3. Opportunity to help others and improve the efficiency of the organization.
4. You can still be fired if you are not doing your job.
5. Honor, self respect, community respect, and prestige of doing your job well and helping the organization and community.
6. Training and professional education is provided free by the corporation/organization or local/state government. (in most cases the workers would be able to learn on the job in addition to classroom training, making training much faster and specific to the job they will do.)


Pros:
1. Removes class system and gets people who want to work an honest days work all on the same page.
2. Increases average earnings for most workers.
3. Prevents politicians and "fat cats" from earning exorbitant salaries.
4. Helps prevent small groups of billionaires from unilaterally influencing and controlling political policy/events.
5. Removes the feeling of inferiority between classes that exists.
6. People would work for respect and honor once again, in addition to opportunity to earn more (remember the increase ability).


Cons:
1. Too difficult to change the current process.


For me, even if we compare a Surgeon to a Janitor, we need things cleaned up and we need doctors too. The main concept comes down to 2 basic ideas: 1. People want to do what they do well, that's how we attract a mate - ultimately its a base instinct in addition to the "motivators" listed above. 2. A days work for a days pay should be fair and balanced (which is a complete joke right now). So if you think a person doesn't deserve as much as a surgeon (or any other job), then try eliminating that position altogether, then you will see you didn't need them after all, OR you will start to see the trash piling up, and realize you made a mistake.

TOTALLY a rough concept, but I want to know why this is a horrible plan, and why this is a good plan. Any thoughts?

Interesting concept but here is what I see as a problem with this type of system.

Using your example of a surgeon and a janitor here, yes both are needed, however a surgeon requires several years of education, training and certification. A janitor can be trained on the job in less than a week. I as an employer would not pay a janitor the same pay as a surgeon, not going to happen. If I was a surgeon I would not accept the pay of a janitor as well. What would be the benefits of becoming a doctor/scientist/engineer etc, etc..Why would anyone want to work and toil for training and education if everyone is going to make the same amount, unless you want to work overtime? Also if you are only going to make more money by working overtime and not do to merit raises/experience etc, where is the benefit for that? You work more and make more, however you would not have any quality of life. This does not reward the hard work and effort of putting in a honest days work, no effort to create better an loyal employees, basically no advancement for the country. With that being said nobody should be paid some of these outrageous salaries either imo. Some are just ludicrous.

Grim

reply to post by Infinitis


It would be nice if it would be nice to see the problem addressed from the top.
I hear Obama talk the talk, but then his wife shows up to a state dinner in a dress that is estimated to have cost $12,000. Then there was the tweet by FLOTUS of the White House dogs seated at a table there, wearing jewelry. The table was set with china, crystal goblets and flowers. I thought the dress looked hideous.

reply to post by Infinitis


I could see a system like this working for Govt. employees. But how would you implement and enforce this in the private sector?

More Govt. control? After all the countless failures and demonstrated ineptitude of federal programs you really think they could make this work?

And as was mentioned, this type of system would crush creativity and initiative.
And it smells a lot like socialism.

Infinitis
Why do certain jobs earn more than another job?

Simply answered -- you may start employment at a more uniform pay for a given job title, but eventually you get paid what it is perceived your work is worth. A guy flipping burgers isn't contributing more to the company's wealth than a fraction of each burger he flips. If that guy keeps flipping burgers, that guy will never get paid more than a fraction of each burger.

A guy who comes up with some new concept like an iPad in a company which is capable of producing and marketing the same is definitely worth more to that employer than a burger flipper. That guy is worth a fraction of EVERY iPad the company sells, not just a few he touches (like the burger flipper).

If guys like the designer quit coming up with good ideas, they are eventually let go or at least moved to other areas more suitable for their skills (where they can do less damage to the company than creating an unworkable or unmarketable design). They will sink to their level of worth or go unemployed if they refuse to work for what it is perceived that they are worth. We can hire gazillions of burger flippers. There aren't many with enough knowledge and insight to actually design some product that is both within the ability of the technology and the capability of a company to manufacture.

You aren't born a burger flipper, you make choices which cause you to eventually become one. You don't have to remain a burger flipper, you can do something to improve your worth. If you want to pretend everyone is worth the same, go ahead. It's just not realistic. Even children want certain other children on their side in games and not others. Your time spent on a task doesn't mean anything if you don't add value. Even little kids get this. Even colony insects get this. How can anyone be so confused?

It may not seem fair but, if no one will pay you more than minimum wage and you have no skills, all you have to do is to look in the mirror to see why. Unless you have a real disability, there isn't an excuse. People with real disabilities should receive a reasonable level of care and comfort. And yes, those with real disabilities may possibly live more securely than the burger flipper. Society does not owe anyone anything for making bad choices or poor behavior. Society definitely owes no one anything for failing to correct those choices when they are old enough to know better.

It is not a good sign of future success in the real world to be confused about worth. Let me be blunt here: the best adapted to the current world and society will thrive, the rest may merely exist. Darwinism in action. Harsh? Yeah, but then it wasn't fair for the lion to tend to eat the slowest runner when we all lived in the bush. That same slow runner might have survived if he had just worked a little at improving some ability which mattered to his survival.

reply to post by Infinitis


while no system last forever due to human greed and incompetence, a reform would be most likely to work, although not likely to happen if one looks at history.

the german federal tax code is 500 pages long, the french is 1000 pages.
the american is 70,000 pages long, which is the cause of most inequalities here in the usa.

the wealthiest get the most breaks and subsidies.
professional sports couldn't pay those insane salaries without a corrupt tax code.

those who own the lobbyists feed off the treasury, the rest struggle to survive in an ever inflated economy.

only a crisis, such as a financial crash is likely to bring any hint of reform and justice.

Read or watch Atlas Shrugged to see why sociolistic ideas don't work.

That being said, I do believe that our current system of wealth distribution is so beyond broken it's laughable now. However, short of time travel or destruction, I see no viable solution.

The award system here in Australia is looking to be making some progress towards a fair and balanced system. It is not fully comprehensive or complete coverage in the workforce, but an ongoing work in progress that is gradually improving in refinement. Basically job roles are weighted and graded against other job roles with things like study, experience, pressure, responsibility, injury and other job issues factored together. There is a lot of debate, research and study going on between unions, industry and government bodies to set a fair value.

That's all well and nice, but due to increasing mechanization, there just are'nt enough jobs left to go around. I personally think that's a good thing. It means people don't have to kill themselves physically and intellectually, performing repetitive tasks, day in day out, as if that's what life should be about.

How about focusing on a system that takes increasing mechanization/automatization into account, and doesn't impose endless hours of mindless drudgery as prerequisite to social integration ?

watchitburn
reply to post by Infinitis

 

More Govt. control? After all the countless failures and demonstrated ineptitude of federal programs you really think they could make this work?

And as was mentioned, this type of system would crush creativity and initiative.
And it smells a lot like socialism.

Yes it does, and I for one like that smell. I just don't want it with the current political system. Those yahoos could screw up a 2 car funeral, I certainly wouldn't want to see them try to implement a socialist type workforce that would only work if it were based on the NEEDS of the American people.

The only way it would work is if the people voted into office were those who have plans written out and submitted to lawyers for approval. Those plans being a workforce whose wages are in tandem with the needs of the populace. Meaning the more we need your services, the more you are going to get paid. I don't NEED to see another Need For Speed movie, therefore the wage scale for everyone involved in the making of a movie is going to go down drastically. I NEED brain surgery ( for example, you don't need to agree with that ) therefore my insurance company, the hospital it's performed in, the doctor who performs it and all the other people who aid in the process should be compensated in the millions.......total of all. (yes, that's how much my brain is worth, feel free to agree with that )

You get the picture, and the only way to paint it is with a socialist brush. Will people cry about it? Certainly. They don't want want a few drastic solutions that could change things in a positive way. They want a whole bunch of conservative solutions that are really just band-aids on an open wound, because when people think of socialism, they think of the idiots in the past who screwed up a perfectly good idea with their own personal agendas.

People in America, by and large, don't have the guts for change and the people they elect in office are a reflection of that.

reply to post by Taupin Desciple


The problem with what you just wrote is that there is an awful lot of "you" in there.

Socialism is all about "the greater good" and not at all, ever, about "you" and "your good," so explain to us all why again the people involved in "your" brain surgery should be compensated so much more than the people making a movie that will entertain and lighten the psychological burden of the masses "for the greater good."

Why is "your brain" so much more important than "the greater psychological good?" Are you on the level of a Stephen Hawking or someone else who could be argued to be on the status of national treasure?

I think you need to re-think your level of selfishness.

As far the OP.

It sounds really great to think that it's unfair that some people command a greater wage, but some people have skills that others do not, and those skills are simply more valuable to society because so few other people have them or possess them at any real level of competency.

If I can teach you to do the entire job in a single afternoon, no real education necessary, why should you ever think that you should make as much as someone who went to school and studied hard throughout their basic education, four years of bachelor degree and then secondary collegiate degrees before getting to the actual job training where much of it presumes you know thoroughly well concepts that were covered in that education?

Now, once both of you have jobs, both of you have every right to expect that your respective employers recognize your willingness to put in long hours of hard work with raises and promotions, and that is where you are looking at fair recognition for hard work.

reply to post by BayesLike


I don't understand why people think that creative will die without monetary motivation.

Creative people are creative, people who want to lead others will still aspire to reach positions of greater authority, unbalanced pay was never needed as a motivator. It was introduced disproportionately as a false means of hope, and a means of control by those on top.

People are creative by nature. People came up with the iPAD because they wanted a device that does what the iPAD does. People will continue to be creative and come up with things that they enjoy regardless of whether they get paid way more to do it.

The iPAD for example generated a great amount of revenue, and most of it went to the people on top just cause "they thought up" that they wanted an iPAD (come on we all know every idea that new tech implements is something we all have been talking about wanting on our next tech, it's not that hard to know what YOU and other people want). But we do need people in those jobs, and as someone who is in a very creativity oriented (high level) corporate position, I can tell you that I and the people around me would still continue being creative if we were making the same as everyone else around us.

Infinitis
reply to post by BayesLike

 

I don't understand why people think that creativity will die without monetary motivation.

Because over time, businesses and people have put a price tag on it. People have put a price tag on everything. Have you seen The Wolf Of Wall Street where the woman is wearing a suit of real cash? It's gotten to the point where an idea, or a person, isn't considered creative or worth anything if it doesn't make a lot of money or isn't perceived as having that ability.

This is where I, and many others like me, come from when we push the "socialist" agenda of monetary redistribution. We're not selfish people and we're not bad people. We see how everything is structured and how it seems to be eating itself from the bottom up. Restructuring everything that is involved in the making and distribution of money is the only option we see, and it's an option that seems to upset people. You're still going to have your rich and your poor, but at least there would be a good reason behind that difference (Not disparity) that people couldn't really argue with, because that reason would be pushing the other aspects of society in the right direction. That direction being personal growth that drives professional growth. We all know what direction society is currently going in now and it's not getting them very far. That's obvious.

We can't change the fact that this is a money driven society. What we can change is the direction that vehicle is going by putting qualified people behind the wheel. If the only way to do that is by a method that people label socialist, then so be it....as long as the ends justify the means.