Posts by Marcus Turner
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Those people, in this country, who accumulate vast wealth seem to think it is analogous to being Royalty.
From what I've seen, I'd agree with this. I've seen something similar in young guys who can play certain guitar licks. But I'm not inclined to think that either group has much to recommend them over you or me on the basis of those things alone.
-
Doctors would also argue they should be well paid because they have to undergo very long stretches of training (and incur considerable costs in doing so), meet very high qualification standards, and constantly upskill to maintain professional standards. Don't think they're wrong either.
I think what they do makes some of these people - and other medical professionals - the closest thing to angels on earth, and I'd want them to live a comfortable life. But does this mean they should be able to live a more "lavish" life than a politician?
I don't have an answer to this. In the past, I've looked at what I earn, and what I think other people earn, and felt angry at a percieved difference in recognition of personal worth.
These days, I don't see people who have more money as being better people at all. Nor do I think they're any worse. If they bring more money to the people who pay them, it seems logical that they'd get paid more for what they do. (That's a test that can be used in the "Bill English" discussion, and subsequent conversations, I guess.)
I don't think most highly paid people I know are even particularly happy; just somehow driven. I wonder if most politicians, for example, will ever be really happy/content?
-
Does someone with more money have more of your respect? if so, why?
In our fair land it is a substitute for class.
This doesn't seem to answer the question. It seems to indicate only what you think other people think.
-
We pay doctors well because there is nothing more important to most people than the health of themselves and their loved-ones. Similarly corporate lawyers are well-paid as a recognition of how much money can be saved or wasted based on their competence and skill.
My point is that more money may not be the most appropriate way to recognise this. And it may not make them any better-off.
What's the value proposition...
I think that's a good question, and one worth everybody thinking about and discussing. I guess it comes down to those values that are shared by the majority, because every individual has a unique set of values.
-
There's something basic to all posts in this discussion: that money is central to sense of worth.
I noticed it particularly in the discussions comparing those with medical qualifications to those who occupy positions in parliament. I'd probably be inclinded to regard those who act directly to save lives, or improve their quality, more highly than politicians in general. It may or may not be appropriate to recognise this with money.
It seems to me that beyond a certain point of relative comfort, the point of having more money is to show that you can urinate to a higher altitude than others.
I'm unable to find them at the moment, but I'm aware of studies that show people would rather have salary A when everybody else is earning less than higher salary B when everybody else is earning more.
The apparent axiom here is that if a person is "better" they should have more money. Each of us has our own idea about what "better" is.
So long as everyone's comfortably off (and I accept that this isn't the case) then the fact that someone has more money is only as relevant as you make it. Does someone with more money have more of your respect? if so, why?
I do understand that MPs are our employees, paid with our money. It's appropriate that they should be accountable to us, and paid what we (or our suitably appointed representatives) think their job is worth.
We all want to be comfortably off, and few of us would turn down the offer of lucre, but I no longer believe that those who have more of it are better people, or necessarily any happier. It increases neither my respect nor admiration for them; the things that they do, or the skills and abilities that they have will affect my impression of them much more.
-
You have a cat named "Colin".....?
-
OK. So NZ doesn't rate as highly in terms of wealth (not clear how it's measured) as once it did, in relation to certain other countries (economies?).
I'm not convinced that the measure of a good life is how much wealth this country has in relation to other countries; rather, we might consider whether we have enough to offer the people that live here a reasonable life.
"Climbing out of 22nd place" may not be a particularly useful goal. Perhaps its achievement will simply mean that someone in another country is worse off.
And I can't help wondering about the extent to which a country's wealth benefits its people. I understand that during the Clinton years, the US was particularly wealthy, but I'm not aware that there were significantly fewer poor and disadvantaged people in the country, as a result. Or that crime levels lowered.
(P.S. I'm having a devil of a job logging on. I don't know why I succeed when I do - about one attempt in 10.)
-
I don't understand this part about "climbing back from 22". Is there some sort of competition going on?
-
Not strictly relevant, but I must share this with someone.
Great photos of French rugby players.
Check out http://www.rouvre.com/main.php?lang=en and go to the exhibition called "broken faces".
It's really worth a minute or two.
Marcus
-
I'd still quite like to know more about the concertina....