a reply to: ketsuko
Find me ever proposing a solution that did not emphasise and reward people for greater achievements and you'd have a point. I have ALWAYS advocated
for a wage gap. The only thing I have ever argued against is an infinite wage gap. I've also never argued for extremes on the bottom. I've argued
for the basics provided before work starts paying in. Some kind of basic, food, shelter, and medical care no matter what (not welfare which goes away
before you can even afford the same things from work), after which jobs ADD to that (which is what makes it different from welfare), all while placing
emphasis on those who do more get more. I just don't think there should no limit on that gain.
I look at society as a whole, not the individual. I don't see society as a bunch of individuals trying to one up each other. I think pushing such
ideals is unhealthy to society as a whole, not to mention the people within it. More and more people close themselves off to others and are becoming
miserable for it.
I'm ALL for rewarding hard work and innovation, never once even hinted at anything resembling everyone being directly comparable to each other. You
do more, you get more, WITHIN REASON. You provide for society to any degree, society provides for you, WITHIN REASON. BOTH sides limited to WITHIN
REASON. Making sure you're sheltered from the elements, gassed up with food, and healthy is a requirement to be a functional person in society, they
are the minimum necessary for a person to truly function as an effective worker, let alone a human being. Why should we need to work to get the
things required to be able to even function as a worker in the first place? You want people to work, make sure they're physically able to first.
You'll never get good workers when most of them work to simply be healthy enough to work more. Even worse when they can't even afford to be healthy
like that because the work isn't paying enough to do it. All I'm asking is to make sure people are healthy enough to work before demanding that they
do so, and that it's unreasonable to expect people to work to be paid just enough and sometimes not enough, to maintain the ability to work in the
first place. There's no incentive, it's just punishment avoidance.
People deserve to be rewarded for hard work, I personally think we do pay wrong at jobs, it should vary within a range for the same job weekly or
daily (which will better handle sick days), no more pay raises just pay ranges that fluctuate. It should have different rates with minimum rate
representing pay for the work reasonably expected from a person working while sick, worn out, or having a hard time, with the highest rate for the
cream of the crop. This allows for anyone to budget for the lowest rate, while giving incentive to perform at a higher rate, when you can. Oh and
this rate needs to be determined by a formula, not the bosses or team leader's opinion of a person, and it must account for machine malfunctions.
Time down due to machine maintenance is on the engineering side of thing, not the workers. They get the rate they were pulling before the machine
went down and after it's up running again. This is mostly focusing on factory work as is a decent starting point example. This is a side tangent
though and just one of my many brainstorms on the issue.
I firmly believe that those who contribute more to society should get more. Otherwise why do it? I can, however do that, and also believe that
there's a minimum anyone who contributes in any way must receive to even be functional enough to contribute.
Just because people want to restrict wealth to any degree does not mean they want everyone living equally in the gutter. They want balance, a
reasonable range of differences. They want there to be an incentive to do better, but they also want to make sure everyone is reasonably taken care
of without a welfare trap, which hurts everybody.
edit on 10/21/2019 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)