The comparison with any vaguely managerial position makes no sense eitherbecause it assumes that they are doing a valuable job. You could make up a spurious senior managerial type of position anywhere - in a donkey sanctuary, say, or a baked potato stall - and assert that the nature of the job means that the person deserves to be paid an amount comparable to the CEO of Poundland. There is no evidence to support 'deserves' part of the assertion, only the 'comparable' part.
(,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 16:47,
archived)
You could argue that if you care enough to be a politician then you shouldn'tbe too bothered about how much you get paid for it. Like monks. ;)
(
Smallbrainfield,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 17:10,
archived)
Doesn't matterwhether it's 'deserves' or 'comparable', ultimately. People need money to pay for things. This is how society works. If you pay more money, more people are likely to be interested in a job, therefore you hopefully get better people into it.
We COULD, of course, pay all MPs the minimum wage and no expenses. If you think that's going to help change the fact that Parliament is dominated by the wealthy, though, you've got things back to front.
(,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 17:25,
archived)
We COULD, of course, pay all MPs the minimum wage and no expenses. If you think that's going to help change the fact that Parliament is dominated by the wealthy, though, you've got things back to front.
How good should an MP be?They could be paid millions, and would then be great, whatever that means in the context of being an MP.
(,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 17:56,
archived)
*sigh*Okay, we'll just do everything in our power to try and make sure they're shit then. You're right. That will solve things. I can't believe I didn't see it until now.
(,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 18:06,
archived)
Don't be absurd.That's a terrible suggestion.
Really what should happen is that interested parties should vote on pay plans, like shareholders do. The problem with this is that the entire population are roped into being shareholders whether they like it or not, and as a result are mostly not all that interested.
(,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 18:12,
archived)
Really what should happen is that interested parties should vote on pay plans, like shareholders do. The problem with this is that the entire population are roped into being shareholders whether they like it or not, and as a result are mostly not all that interested.
Errr ...Shareholders don't vote on pay plans except in the absolute broadest sense.
Shareholders vote directly for the board of directors who then set pay policy, including their own pay. In this regard the analogy with MPs and voters is quite apt.
And £65,000 plus expenses is really not that much.
(Shareholders vote directly for the board of directors who then set pay policy, including their own pay. In this regard the analogy with MPs and voters is quite apt.
And £65,000 plus expenses is really not that much.
Ghoti Fingers,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 18:20,
archived)
Well, I'm not sure about that, FWIWI googled it and found Say on Pay, something about Vince Cable proposing binding shareholder votes back in June, and also there was something from ABC news which had the quote "The board of directors, who determine CEO pay, don't have to listen to the shareholder vote but most of them are listening" which is taking too long to load.
The "£65,000 is really not that much" thing means you're comparing MPs to something - to senior managers, presumably - but why? It's many multiples what a shelf stacker makes, but those people still have to be capable of making decisions; how do we know they'd be significant failures as MPs? Then again, perhaps film stars are a better comparison, and what we really need are extremely rare and charismatic people who can only be attracted by paying millions. On the other hand a three-inch square plank of wood costs £10 and you only have to pay for it once, and it may also do a perfectly fine job as an MP. These possibilities are all untested, and instead we just assume that managers are the correct comparison, based on nothing at all.
Having said that, I think they weren't always paid a salary. Not until 1911, it seems. Those must have been dark days of abysmal leadership.
(,
Mon 18 Feb 2013, 18:40,
archived)
The "£65,000 is really not that much" thing means you're comparing MPs to something - to senior managers, presumably - but why? It's many multiples what a shelf stacker makes, but those people still have to be capable of making decisions; how do we know they'd be significant failures as MPs? Then again, perhaps film stars are a better comparison, and what we really need are extremely rare and charismatic people who can only be attracted by paying millions. On the other hand a three-inch square plank of wood costs £10 and you only have to pay for it once, and it may also do a perfectly fine job as an MP. These possibilities are all untested, and instead we just assume that managers are the correct comparison, based on nothing at all.
Having said that, I think they weren't always paid a salary. Not until 1911, it seems. Those must have been dark days of abysmal leadership.