Headlines
Money, Money, Money
Should there be a maximum wage?
5th November 2010
Footballers, Bankers and Lord Ashcroft have all got something in common: they certainly aren’t cutting down after the recession! In times of economic hardship like this, a debate on big earnings was destined to ignite a heated dispute, which students fulfilled. In this week’s debate it was asked: “should there be a maximum wage?” Arguing that they should have their wages capped, were second years Sam Watson and Jordan Creed and opposing them, arguing for the motion were Rysha Flint and Natasha Millman. Sam Watson began the speeches stating that since the minimum wage did not hinder the economy; neither would a maximum wage, in an attempt to quell economic sceptics. He concluded his speech with the shocking statistic that the head of the Royal Bank of Rysha Flint arguing against the motion of a maximum wage was quick to establish that it would act as a disincentive to some of the more ‘able’ and ‘brightest’ amongst us, therefore harming economic prospects. In addition, she went on to comment that if firms are willing to pay their employees high wages, so be it; the nature of capitalism suggests that businesses would not give away more profit than is deserved. Having prepared an elaborate, arguably abstract staging, Jordan Creed approached the debate with originality by demonstrating the ‘realities’ of earnings through stacked Oreos behind wealthy household names to try and show how unrepresentative their earnings are. The visual accompaniments were supported through the example of Rupert Murdoch who allegedly earns £60,000,000; a figure Natasha Millman counter-argued by outlining that a maximum wage penalises those who work and, furthermore, does not take into account being born into “unearned wealth”. She also acknowledged that a maximum wage would decrease current wages unnecessarily and that the government should be focusing on getting people into employment instead. When question time rolled around, Stefan Zylinski passionately brought in basic economic theory to this debate, arguing that larger earners sustain the economy. Sam and Jordan were asked the majority of questions including: what would the maximum wage be? In response to this, they suggested 100 times the minimum wage. Rysha and Natasha were also confronted with the concept that people are not solely motivated by money, bringing in “Maslow’s theory”. Tutor, David Christie, rounded up the questioning by pointing out whether the debate should be motivated by practical or ethical reasons, leaving all those who attended with some “food for thought”. The vote was then taken from the spectators, giving a narrow victory against the prospect of a maximum wage, ending another successful debate.
earned 862 times the minimum wage, commenting that it is “immoral and unsustainable”.
commented “doesn’t even fit on this piece of paper,” proudly showing his own attempt. However, in a more ‘conventional’ manner, he suggested that larger earners do little to benefit society, notably Lord Ashcroft, and the extra tax created could be diverted to pay doctors and fund scientific progress.