What happened to rewarding hard workers- Autumn Statement

gadgetmind

kabayiri wrote: »

You're not telling me the £16.50 barber is working harder are you? Product positioning, and sometimes sheer front gets you more.

Yes, I think he is working harder in many ways because product positioning and building a reputation aren't easy.

gadgetmind

J_i_m wrote: »

Nothing could be further from the truth, and if people really think that the only thing that makes a difference is effort and "smarts" then they are in many ways deluded.

No, there are other factors, but none that come anywhere near effort and smarts. And BTW, smarts also come from effort in many cases as the brain (like muscles) gets stronger when worked hard.

danielanthony

But 'smarts' can be measured in several ways.

I'm the product of a single parent who grew up on a council estate, got mediocre GCSE's and scraped through my IT degree from a mid-table university.

Despite my IT degree suggesting I'm not, I am actually good with computers though and will earn over £75k this year; the accumulation of working my way up the ladder over the last 15 years and spending my own time studying for industry certifications. One of my old school friends has a Phd in marine biology and earns half what I do, but when PayPal goes down they won't be calling him to fix the problem.

I've worked hard and overcome obstacles to get where I am today, I resent having to pay 42% tax so that others who can't be arsed to push themselves further than stacking shelves at Tescos can get Tax Credits so they don't really have to bother. BTW, before someone says "who's going to stack shelves if everyone is off trying to improve themselves", well I worked as a pot-wash, waiter, window cleaner, shop assistant, bouncer, bar man, lift attendant, envelope stuffer and paperboy all before starting my 'proper' career.

J_i_m

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I sense you have an issue with all this but I honestly can't grasp what it is.

Ok, take the opening post (I know it isn't yours, but the vibe of the thread is built upon it). My issue isn't a personal one with you but the insurrections made by the topic of discussion.

I'm sick of hearing the whinging coming from the lower dregs of society about how little income they have to live on. If they weren't so thick or lazy then they might be able to afford the better things in life without the taxpayer having to bail them out.

What about the real hardworkers, those with incomes of £75k+? Where is our reward for not being a burden on the rest of society.

It can be reasonably argued that these so-called "real hardworkers" are just as dependent upon the so-called "burden on the rest of society". I mean... where is the subordinate workforce going to come from to keep the "real hardworkers" in their roles?

Yet again the tax allowance is increasing, yet again the thick/lazy/!!!!less will get to keep more of their earnings AND be given an income in benefits paid for by hardworking people like me.

Everyone needs to be able to pay their bills. It's a well known fact that the cost of living is seeing significant rises whilst average earning are not. Should a "real hardworker" really feel their subordinates should not be able to earn the means to a modest lifestyle, would it not be more effective to make sure that they can? Isn't it ultimately to the benefit of everybody?

Does it really need to be so painful for someone earning maybe x5 average income to pay that little bit more tax proportionally?

It is not possible for these people on NMW or just above to be classed as hardworking. If they were hardworking they would be earning decent amounts of money.

I think we have already explored that there are many definitions of hard working and it is not indigenous to a high status or high earning individual.

Anyone on such salaries, less than the national average, are on such low rates because they don't deserve to be earning any more. That to me indicates that they are lazy, thick, useless and in most cases a combination of all 3. They are nothing but the dregs of society.

I would not deny that scroungers and people who are generally a waste of space exist, indeed I've known many examples myself and they are indeed exasperatingly annoying.

Yet to suggest that low earning is exclusive to people of the "lazy, thick, useless and in most cases a combination of all 3" description is such a blind view on reality that it boarders on the arrogant.

Why then, when this Government talks about rewarding the hardworking, are these lazy barstewards the only ones who seem to be rewarded.

That is the problem with this country, we reward failure.

Well quite.. a barstweard probably isn't a particularly attractive job yet along career. It's likely to be paid at the bare minimum with long unsocial hours with all manner of abuses to tolerate.

Meanwhile.. people in charge of the banks and who played significant parts in the economic crashes (and mis-selling scandals) are perfectly entitled to extortionately high salaries, very generous bonus packages and incredibly lucrative pensions.

These people contributed substantially to the economical problems that we a society face and yet are handsomely rewarded whilst people (perhaps on minimal wages who are actually adversely affected by their behavior are considered to be the "burden upon society".

There's this perception.. (and I'm not inferring that it's yours Loughton) that people earning (comfortable or lucrative) salaries are so much smarter, better, more deserving and indispensable than the people who don't or can't.

I'm pointing out that this not an entirely accurate view, it's largely unfair and actually on the arrogant side.

A little humility to appreciate those below you would not go a miss. After-all.. people with these highly paid jobs can not do them without the workforce, society and market which is inevitably not quite as smart as they think they are.

To conclude, we are dependent on each other and no one person is indispensable.

dtsazza

danielanthony wrote: »

BTW, before someone says "who's going to stack shelves if everyone is off trying to improve themselves", well I worked as a pot-wash, waiter, window cleaner, shop assistant, bouncer, bar man, lift attendant, envelope stuffer and paperboy all before starting my 'proper' career.

People also forget that pay reflects supply and demand.

If "everyone" improves themselves to be surgeons or software engineers, then the extra competition will reduce the pay for those jobs. At the same time, less people will be willing to stack shelves, and so the market pay for that will increase. In the extreme case, where everyone has every skill, effective pay for all jobs would be identical (else people would take the better-paid job*).

Not that this is likely to happen. But if it does, even to a small extent, market pay will adjust accordingly.



*OK, this is a simplistic argument that assumes pay is the only motivator, and overlooks things like work atmosphere, short commute, non-financial benefits, prestige etc. But the general point is valid, jobs would need to offer enough overall to be attractive compared to the alternatives, and they'll often do this by increasing pay.

gadgetmind

J_i_m wrote: »

where is the subordinate workforce going to come from to keep the "real hardworkers" in their roles?

Machines. Over the next couple of decades, I think the West is going to grab back a big share of manufacturing but with "smart" machines rather than unskilled/semi-skilled labour.

Has anyone read Azimov's "The Naked Sun"? What was the population of Solaria? ISTR 20k as everything else was handled by robots.

Of course, they started with a clean sheet.

kabayiri

gadgetmind wrote: »

Machines. Over the next couple of decades, I think the West is going to grab back a big share of manufacturing but with "smart" machines rather than unskilled/semi-skilled labour.

Has anyone read Azimov's "The Naked Sun"? What was the population of Solaria? ISTR 20k as everything else was handled by robots.

Of course, they started with a clean sheet.

I have argued the case with Hamish on here (correction, bored everyone ) about technology changing our labour force requirements.

It can all sound a bit Asimov / Futurescape though.

I was, however, struck by a simple gadget style show on yesterday with Richard Ayaode.

They were covering the latest top gadgets. It does seem there has been a spur of development

- a robotic floor cleaner, compact and able to deal with spills

- a robotic pool cleaner (one for LM there - he can fire the Puerto Rican!)

- a device to make hanging wall paper easier

- a relatively compact mobile robot demolisher/building support. The claim was 6 to 8 times more efficient.

I suspect there will be a mass of fully or semi automated devices coming on stream to replace currently labour intensive tasks.

That bloke filling in potholes may be a thing of the past soon...

This is indeed "working smarter", not "working harder" though.

Loughton_Monkey

kabayiri wrote: »

I have argued the case with Hamish on here (correction, bored everyone ) about technology changing our labour force requirements.

It can all sound a bit Asimov / Futurescape though.

I was, however, struck by a simple gadget style show on yesterday with Richard Ayaode.

They were covering the latest top gadgets. It does seem there has been a spur of development

- a robotic floor cleaner, compact and able to deal with spills

- a robotic pool cleaner (one for LM there - he can fire the Puerto Rican!)

- a device to make hanging wall paper easier

- a relatively compact mobile robot demolisher/building support. The claim was 6 to 8 times more efficient.

I suspect there will be a mass of fully or semi automated devices coming on stream to replace currently labour intensive tasks.

That bloke filling in potholes may be a thing of the past soon...

This is indeed "working smarter", not "working harder" though.

Robotic pool cleaners have been around a long time. Trouble is, they have to be attached to the recirculation pipe. Thus skimmers cannot be on. Thus all the crap on the top doesn't get skimmed off.

Our pool cleaner is pure British. It's me.

Jury is out on Robots. Yes, machines can be wonderful. Consistency is their 'bonus'. But cost to develop, build, test, instal, and maintain them is horrendous.

Remember Birds Eye? Not exactly robots but they developed machines to peel the Scottish Prawns. Then they found it far cheaper to send them out on a huge tanker to Indonesia, where they were peeled by hand, frozen, and sent all the way back.

I like this little sucker....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19506621

Runs faster than Usain Bolt.

Bought by Amazon, so I look forward to my future deliveries by remote drone helicopter, or Cheetah. Neither of these will bleat about minimum wage, turn up 2 minutes late, or take less than the 'standard' time.

As we all knew in the early 1970's, computerisation was going to make us all rich, with easy lives, and all retire at 50 to spend more time on leisure activities.......

Robots will do the same, with exactly the same success.

JencParker

It is not possible for these people on NMW or just above to be classed as
hardworking. If they were hardworking they would be earning decent amounts of
money

Anyone on such salaries, less than the national average, are on such low rates
because they don't deserve to be earning any more. That to me indicates that
they are lazy, thick, useless and in most cases a combination of all 3. They are
nothing but the dregs of society.

What arrogant, stupid comments. I would say the dregs of society are those who have these opinions regardless of what they earn!

gadgetmind

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

As we all knew in the early 1970's, computerisation was going to make us all rich, with easy lives, and all retire at 50 to spend more time on leisure activities.......

It's pretty much done that for me!