All of your argument, Col. Max amounts to saying “it is, therefore it ought to be.”
The question is not whether it makes sense that a job cannot be filled at this income level (by the way: has it been demonstrated that it can’t?). The question is whether it makes sense that executive pay has skyrocketed at a time when ordinary jobs are barely paying enough to live on.
But I know where this comes from: the market is infallible. And if, in its wisdom, it decides that people in China will be offered jobs at $1 a day, then who are we to question its mysterious ways? Your rant about my putative sense of entitlement betrays all of this: you’re only “worth it” if the market says so. In other words, the use value of what you do does not exist. Only the exchange value.
Shall I post an ad for a skilled job in Shenzhen? Why not?
What’s anomalous here is that Research Scientists in Cambridge can be had for so little, not that unskilled workers in Ireland might make €25,000. That has everything to do with the current climate in which the employers of researchers exploit: 1) the fact that there has been an overproduction of PhDs (and other qualifications) for decades; 2) the fact that high-level researchers are generally so dedicated to the job that it’s not about the money, really. Witness the rise in large numbers of what are called “faculty gypsies” in the US. Doesn’t mean they are not being exploited.
In short, what you are arguing is: “look at this example of exploitation! Since the market has offered it, it is by definition fair and all other jobs that are lower paid or equally paid with lower qualifications are therefore more than fair.”
You were given an example of a payrate for a highly skilled job in a very expensive part of the UK. How do these “exploited researchers” pay their rent? Maybe the landlords don’t expect to get paid because maybe they do it for the love of it too?
I look at the property market and see the exact opposite: a market run wild to the point of failure. Little to do with politicians, although I understand that this article of faith among your crowd is the only way you have of avoiding fatal levels of cognitive dissonance (“how can the market, which we know to be all-powerful and all good, fail us?”).
Eating shit for breakfast is certainly an improvement over eating shit for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
RigidRigits dude, I respect your right to your opinion, but your presence in a thread is a harbinger of doom – it will shortly deteriorate into personal insults on both sides. I really think you should open your mind to the arguments being presented to you over and over again, and not take personally the possibility that civil servants may be a drag on the country given their current wage level. It’s not their fault if your colleagues are overpaid, nor does it make them bad people. The unions and our elected representatives went into a smoke-filled room and decreed that civil servants would be paid X and have conditions that are Y. It’s now biting us in the ass. My wife is a public servant and a beneficiary of FF’s largess – I’d be the first to say that her and (many of) her colleagues work hard and do a good job. Doesn’t mean we don’t need large-scale public service paycuts to balance the budget. So lighten up a bit and stop harshing our buzz, it’s not personal
No, you’re wrong there. I’m not talking about right/wrong, just practicalities and what is/isn’t sustainable.
If that was really the question you would have brought it up earlier instead of all the odd (imho trolling) questions that are your usual MO.
OK, this is intriguing, but I do not understand your terminology.
Please explain what this means, and especially how you define “use value”? In particular, since the thread concerns pay for labour (an exchange transaction), how does your concept apply and where does it bring the discussion?