Hardworking=high earning

Legacy_user

I've noticed the way the government uses the word 'hard working' could be substituted with 'high earning'.

Raise the 40p thresholds? To help high earning people
Abolish 50p tax rate? Ditto

You could work all the hours god gave on minimum wage and never meet those thresholds, but using the term 'hard working' appeals to everyone and dupes people who wouldn't benefit from such policies to vote for them.

Some of these people genuinely believe that the reason a chief execs hourly rate is multiples higher is that he contributes multiples more to the company, in actual fact work has little to do with pay and its more about the supply of skills and importance of position, at the top, investor paronia making them pay over the top for 'the best' in a role they value most - I.e. rich football clubs bid ridiculous amounts for the best chances of winning

I look forward to the day upper management gets automated, it'll be better for shareholders, customers and staff, who are all currently robbed

Ozzuk

I'd agree that hard working shouldn't be resigned to a tax bracket, you can work hard at all levels.

I forget which country has the policy that the chief exec can only earn a certain multiple of the lowest employee but it is an interesting approach. At exec level though it's very common for a large chunk of pay to be in performance/profit related bonus so there is a bigger incentive to 'improve' the company - and it is a fact that those nearer the 'top' have the biggest influence on this (not taking away the fact the company that succeeds has buy-in and input at all levels).

You also need to factor in the stress/pressure and accountability that comes with the job - and the fact that most chief exec positions only last 2-3 years.

Your last line makes little commercial sense in my opinion and will never happen. I think it's a very common failing to look at your manager and wonder what they do all day and assume you have it tougher than them - that view quickly changes as you progress. Sure working to a tight deadline or being on your feet all day can be extremely stressful - but you can normally switch off when you go home. As your 'responsibility' increases the stress becomes more constant - you have people's lives/careers in your hands, you have to report to shareholders and meet their needs, bad customer experiences can be ultimately your issue to resolve, balancing profit versus staff compensation.

It's easy to complain if you don't see the bigger picture and impact.

Pennywise

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

You could work all the hours god gave on minimum wage and never meet those thresholds

"Hard working" isn't just about putting hours in. It's more than that.

It's working hard at school/college/uni to get a good set of qualifications. It's working hard in the workplace, not just hours, but also working towards promotions. It's working hard to move to different workplaces or to a different industry for a better job. Yes, it's working hard to meet the right people.

The people who've progressed havn't just done the hours, they've put themselves in a position to gain promotions and move to the top jobs. They havn't just done their 9-5 job and gone home to watch TV or go to the pub!

tomtontom

Work is about quantity (hours worked) and quality (skills and knowledge). Those who work 40+ hours at NMW will fulfil the hours criteria, but they won't attract higher pay without improving their skills.

SandC

CEOs don't just land in that position, it takes years of 'hard work'. But guess what, not everyone can progress to the highest levels. That's life.

I will say that there are a lot of people who are probably working as hard as they can and will never achieve their potential. Actually that was what Alan Sugar's Apprentice idea was initially about..... except for most 'hard working' people they couldn't possibly jack in their job to go off and go on a telly programme with odds that they wouldn't win the £100k job at the end of it.... but most high fliers do take risks and more important, make sacrifices in their personal lives to whatever capacity.

Being in the right place at the right time with the right people around them does count for a lot. Also it does seem when you reach a certain level of employment that it attracts other financial incentives (many senior execs hold senior positions for other companies as non execs, raking in a fair whack for their proven track record in business expertise but not actuall having to put many official hours in to do it).

System

Its fair enough that a stressful job pays more, or that pay has to compensate for study, but above professional level it can rise many multiples and get completely detached from actual work put in (whilst still being highly stressful jobs) - and this is just due to demand for THE BEST of managers, good point that they're short lived and I have read that due to that they tend to have a short term interest and milk it for what they can get. Likewise its easy to underrate the work done by lower staff, and supply and demand works against them. I think better careers advice would deliver people jobs they deserve more and avoid wasted education that never gets compensated. Self sacrifice is another good point, but really you could just sacrifice a few years and retire, I don't know why they persist in these jobs.

Finally I do think automation will surprise us, management can be data based, making it a ripe target, some share funds are automated now...

Ozzuk

I think 'they' persist because of success and the need to do that kind of job rather than the financial aspect. Though I'm sure corporate jets and huge bonuses don't exactly deter them.

I do agree that it can get to a level that seems 'detached' hence why I quite like the concept of a multiple defined by the lowest salary. I'm sure that also has issues but sounds good. Another common idea is capped salaries defined by shareholders.

PasturesNew

I believe lower paid people work harder than those who are higher paid. It's some psychological thing to make higher paid people feel good if they're told they're "hard working".

Which is a harder worker? The bog cleaner that gets up at 4.30am and uses 2 buses to get to work on NMW, to clean floors and loos all day, then comes home at 6pm to their studio flat and microwaves a shepherd's pie for one....? Or the exec that's in his home gym at 5am before driving his plush car into the office, where he's waited on hand and foot, sitting in meetings, having lunch bought for him, who then stops off at the Golf Club for a swift half and arrives home at 8pm with a full belly and into a comfortable/warm home and flicks his big telly on while flicking through the mail to look at holidays to book?

BucksLady

PasturesNew wrote: »

I believe lower paid people work harder than those who are higher paid. It's some psychological thing to make higher paid people feel good if they're told they're "hard working".

I don't think it's possible to generalise in this way. Some high earners work exceedingly hard, and some do not. This can also be said of those on low pay.

stugib

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

I've noticed the way the government uses the word 'hard working' could be substituted with 'high earning'....using the term 'hard working' appeals to everyone and dupes people who wouldn't benefit from such policies to vote for them.

I fear you're missing the true purpose of the term.

It's not to distinguish hard workers and 'harder' workers, it's to distinguish them from "scroungers" so they can cut benefits and people will respond with "well, I'm a hard worker, they don't deserve anything if they're not working hard".

Kinda came unstuck for them with the Tax Credits cut though.

System

I agree stugib, saw that angry woman ranting at amber Rudd, she voted Tory and is losing tax credits, I've always regarded what the Tories try to do as helping the rich with the view that crumbs will fall off the table, however I think many people think they're rich and would benefit from Tory policy more than they actually would, or they're emotionally vulnerable to right wing rhetoric. People see the benefit scroungers easily but they don't see the billionaire scroungers so much, they're more afraid of penalising the rich. The right has successfully divided the working poor from the benefit poor while they fight over scraps

I picked up use of the terminology with tax thresholds though, and I think even unskilled work deserves to be called 'hard' work, supply and demand would have their wages lower but min wage has to be better than the benefits system otherwise people won't bother

I also think riding the property meerkat is a much better way to make Monet