So. The stars of the BBC who earn over £150,000 a year are to have their salaries revealed – today is it? And I noted Stephen Nolan was facing up manfully to the topic before I switched him off this morning. Is he – are they – worth it?
There are so many angles to this question it’s hard to know where to start. For example, we know the total money paid out to BBC managers has been cut over the past few years. Do some of them get a lot more and some a lot less? Do managers matter? They do in football, so maybe the same applies in broadcasting. Then there’s the question of relative worth. Is a star like Graham Norton worth more than a star like Gary Lineker – or Stephen Nolan? How do you know?
But there’s one matter that I haven’t heard discussed, which is crucially important: the length of contracts. Being an MLA or a TD or an MP has always been considered a fairly nice number to land, financially; but crucial to any such assessment is how long it’s guaranteed for. At most, it might be five years. Not infrequently it’s less. If you have a job, how would you feel about it being secure in five-year bursts? We lament the vast sums paid to soccer players – but their life-span as players is very short – not many make it beyond fifteen years.
And then how do you make comparisons? You may say Graham Norton is crap or brilliant, but is he any crappier/more brilliant than Gary Lineker? And how do you compare an entertainer with a sports pundit/personality anyway?
And would they be any good if some producer or football coach hadn’t nurtured them in the first place? Beyond the world of broadcasting, how do we measure the worth of anyone’s work? Brain surgeons are handy when you have a bleed in your brain, but if the people who collected the hospital garbage weren’t around, how long would the hospital function?
Questions, questions, questions.
Some people argue on the rarity-value of individuals or professions. If there are fewer brain surgeons than people who clean the operating room, then the brain surgeon should be paid more. On the other hand, the brain surgeon is likely to find his or her work more absorbing and rewarding than the person who cleans the floor – and shouldn’t that an argument for playing the floor-swabber more, not less?
The truth, by and large, is that it’s impossible to sustain an argument where one person’s work is deemed more valuable than another, and therefore that person should receive more pay. Which suggests that in the interests of fairness, all workers receive equal pay. It’d be like climbing a cliff-face to try to introduce such equality. Many people, usually from the better-paid employment areas, would bridle at the very idea of being referred to as workers.
We’ve been successfully taught to see the free market as the only possible arbiter in terms of jobs, we’re incapable of even considering about an alternative: the state. But if the state is supposed to protect us from crime and violence, and we’re all equal before the law, .why shouldn’t the state protect us from unemployment and see we receive equal remuneration?
I can hear the yelps of indignation even as I type. Which shows how thoroughly brain-washed we are.
A very Communist idea there Dr Collins. Equal pay for everyone no matter what the job.
Very difficult to implement in the private sector because it would kill of all dynamism in the economy. If there was no monetary incentive why would anyone bother working harder, increasing efficiency or investing to increase productivity and innovation. The top down command economy has never worked throughout history.
In regards to the public sector if pay was set at a single rate then why would the brain surgeon bother studying hard at school, getting through university and taking the risks of a life or death job and the stress it entails? Without a pay difference that potential brain surgeon might as well become a cleaner or office worker. You’d soon run out of highly skilled people as acquiring those skills, with its cost and effort, wouldn’t provide a financial benefit.
Adam Smiths Wealth of Nations explains all this very well.
How does Cuba get so many Doctors, Teachers and Nurses? (genuine question- not refuting your claim!)
If someone likes brain surgery then I guess they would prefer to do that than clean (if they hate cleaning). If I like operating I would definitely like to be a brain surgeon.
If we could theoretically remove money and said to 100 people we have 2 spaces to train a brain surgeons- I am guessing at least 5 people will want to do it. I would also guess that most people would prefer brain surgery to cleaning (although I am biased as I hate cleaning).
To even think about this working we have to suspend our obsession with money. I would do my current job for at least half of what I get (don’t tell anyone though).
I honestly think if this did happen we would see better (and happier) people doing jobs (I would rather be operated on by a suitably trained brain surgeon who is in the job because he loves surgery than a suitably trained brain surgeon who was attracted by the salary.
We would find that some jobs wouldn’t have enough people ‘volunteering’ to do them but I feel these would be lower skilled jobs where their would be less of a sense of reward (for me that would be jobs like HR, telesales etc.)
” If there was no monetary incentive why would anyone bother working harder, ” I have worked very hard at a number of jobs during my life (still do) and in nearly all cases I wasn’t working so I ‘d get more money. I expected to be paid, and was, but that wasn’t/isn’t the motivating force. Think even about people in business – a lot of them go on working not really for money in itself, but for the sense of achievement it gives them. There are of course strong selfish features in all our make-up; but equally there are strong unselfish features. We see them every day. Most obvious recent one – that young student guy who leaped into the water and freed the woman trapped in the car…
I don’t think you can base a effective functioning economy around a presumption that everyone will act together in the collective good Jude. There needs to be incentives and financial is the one that seems to motivate people. Understandable since there’s direct correlation between monetary wealth and standards of living.
Certainly people do jobs because they enjoy, get self esteem, social standing etc but that only goes so far.
Here’s an experiment drop doctors salaries to £20,000 a year and see how many of them either emigrate or go to the private sector.
…… from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs. Come on all ye Christians.
For taxation that’s the principle that should be adhered to fiosrach.
However if we had equal pay for everyone as Jude suggests then it would be defunct as everyone would earn the same they would all pay the same, assuming hours were the same etc.
I think the BBC is better value for money than Netflix, or Sky tv. People pay to watch Sky and get bombarded with adds – how dumb is that ? If you want to be frugal then dump Sky and Netflix. Also, the BBC is a part of the hierarchy. And as plebs it’s our role to support their lavish lifestyle. They have us by the Tom Doolies – pay or don’t watch.
I don’t and won’t pay but I will watch if want to…..albeit it’s not that often.
Well done wolfie
Another blow for Mother Ireland!
What’s “mother ireland” got to do with it? Why are you being abusive and ignorant? Do you grunt as well( I bet you do a good grunt)? Oops don’t tell Jude I said that, there’s a good sport.
wolfie
How was I abusive?
I have better things to do with my time than indulge you Gio. Truly you bore me.
It hurts when you say things like that.
Equality all the way! That’s why so many people risk their lives in shark infested waters leaving Florida trying to get into Cuba and so many people from west Germany risked their lives trying to defect to the socialist utopia of the DDR.
Don’t let the MSM brainwash you otherwise!
How many, roughly, risked their lives in those “shark-invested waters” between Cuba and the bastion of Capitalism?
Perhaps the economic blockade and a “wet-foot” immigration policy could be considered as skewering the pitch somewhat, no?
Is this “Exodus” comparable perhaps to those that are currently risking their lives in the Mediterranean fleeing the outworkings of Imperial plunder, war and Famine?
Of course, in their case. there is no welcome awaiting them in Fortress Europe, and all they can expect is further humiliation, violations, and brutalisations.
But I’m happy to compare the numbers……
it is estimated that about 15% of the Cuban population have preferred to take their chances on makeshifts rafts across 300 miles of shark infested waters rather than enjoy the socialist utopia. The people risking their lives in the med are coming INTO free market capitalist countries. you are a huge something alright…
Now Brendan, I’m not sure that your argument is much enhanced by your tone, but if you’re reliant on it, pray continue……
Now, back to facts.
The population of Cuba is healthily in excess of 10 million.
In the 8 years of Clintons administration, 170 Cubans benefitted from a wet-foot immigration policy that motivated them to traverse those precarious “shark-infested” waters that cause you such angst. It’s hardly the Exodus from the “socialist utopia” that you were hoping for.
(Ps. You do realise that the Irish Sea is similarly “shark -infested” so Id recommend caution on your next Stenna trip to Cairnryan).
For your information, Emigration from Cuba has long since been normalised at 20,000 visas per annum, few of which, I presume, end up with so much as a soggy hankie.
How do those numbers compare with Emigration from Ireland for example, an island with half the population of Cuba?
Of course, your hyperbole might be referring to the 125,000 Cubans that were boat-lifted in the 1980 crisis – two generations ago, but hey, still a propaganda weapon apparently – and although that falls way way short of the 15% figure that you so casually threw out – I make it approximately 1% – it’s a figure that is worthy of some analysis.
I’ll be happy to school you further on that subject if you wish…..you need only say the word.
So Nolan earns ten times the MLAs he ” holds to account”. and 20 times what Sinn Fein MLAs earn.(due to that party’s industrial wage policy).
Pound for pound he’s a bargain.
fiosrach I just spat my coffee out laughing….that is post of the year!
This could create the argument of all arguments but it is a fact that all human beings are not equal. They are not even born equal .Some are born into homes in poor slums and some grow up in beautiful neighbourhoods .Some have their lives nourished from birth by parents who help and encourage them at every step; who provide them with food , nourishment and sustenance of every physical and mental kind. Others are dragged up , possibly in a family that has had a list of missed opportunities or bad luck or has broken down , or one parent has abandoned his or her responsibilities and left . Some people are very bright and physically well-endowed and some are born foolish or conventially deemed ugly and their chances are limited by those traits.They might never realise success in their lives. Some are easy to educate and some are plainly not. Some are fleet of foot and mind and some are base and lazy.How can we say they are equal ? Some can sing like songbirds and some cannot carry a note . Some grow up to become George Best or Buzz Aldrin and some spend their lives cleaning toilets in a shopping centre.
People know there is an inequality, which is why they make heroes of or hate the ones who ascend to the heights of “greatness” and idolise those who can do the things that they would dearly love to do themselves. You might rightly ask why Steven Nolan might be deemed worthy of £400, 000 per annum and i would be among those who might choke on my morning Punjana at the thought, but obviously there are a lot of folks out there who might not have the same critical disbelief as myself.The same might be said in reference to Hugo (“you will, you will, you will”) Duncan fans of his radio show.My radio switch is flipped the moment he first emotes , but there must be a great audience for this stuff.I wouldn’t say either is the most skilled presenter on planet earth but they are obviously very popular with a great number of listeners.
Could any of us chair a show like either of them …..or better still ….would any of us want to? They obviously want to do it very ….much (I almost said”badly” there) .Is it harder than digging out coal in a coal mine or working in the monotony of a factory? I doubt that very much too. Surely a miner or a nurse is a more productive individual than the ephemeral toil of the radio presenter? Why do we expect them to be paid more? Why do we expect “entertainers” of every ilk to be paid more than a top life -saving surgeon? That is a question for humanity and i reckon a lot of it is to do with aspiring to rising the top of the mucky heap of life and having a moment to crow about it. Nothing else , really.
And I noted Stephen Nolan was facing up manfully to the topic before I switched him off this morning. Is he – are they – worth it?
Jude, telling us you switched off (presumably before 10.30) answers your own question!
Four hundred grand-plus for the biggest mouth in the country is the only way I judge him – and I would prefer a softer voice.
The question of fairness here is only really arising because he is being paid by a publically funded broadcaster. (I wonder how much the Nolan Show pay their Pavlovian talking heads? Or do the more left wing turn their appearance fees down to protect the public purse? Slabber shouldn’t come at a price to the licence fee payer after all! I think we deserve answers). When it comes to a private broadcaster, then it is a purely commercial enterprise: to cap their pay would be to walk away from millions created in tax revenue to pay for essential services. There is of course, the argument that the BBC need to be competitive, hence the extortionate fees. Here is a better idea: cap the BBC fees the same as any public servant – there would be more money for educational programmes (I think PBS in America has some of the best output). The rest is open season….tax eaters will always be envious of tax creators….the clever ones know when and how their bread is buttered.
Many of these BBC “stars” also benefit financially through “production companies” which are in addition to their official BBC salary.Does Nolan?
Hi Jude
Expanding your equal pay theory, how do you reward responsibility.
Obviously some jobs carry more responsibility than others.
Without reward you will find that no one will wish to accept responsibility.
And without responsibility nothing will get done.
Also in above you can insert the word “responsibility” with “risk”
“Obviously some jobs carry more responsibility than others.” – not sure I agree, Martin. Whether responsibility or risk. Whatever job I do, it’s my responsibility to do it right. If by risk you mean ‘I put a lot of money into it’, then people already rich must get higher pay. Don’t buy that. Besides, the floor-sweeper is probably at greater risk of getting the boot than the CEO… I think too many comments here show an underestimation of how much satisfaction in work – and/or helping others – most people get.
Personally speaking, seeing the dirge that be’s on the BBC, it is certainly worth it for me, not to pay the TV tax. More fool anyone that does pay it.
This equality idea is brilliant. I would like to add that we should have world peace and freedom from sickness.
What’s that? How do we do it?
For goodness sake you can’t expect Jude and me to do all the work.
We just plant the seeds for others to bring to fruit.
Our work is done.
“You see things; and you say ‘Why?’ But I dream things that never were; and I say ‘Why not?’ ” – GB Shaw…
Jude
And I say “How?”
Always suspected that GBS was a fool. What a pity you weren’t around 100 years ago to unmask him,gio…
Jude
What on earth are you on about? I never said Shaw was a fool, although he did say a few foolish things.
I am all for living in utopia I just wondered how we might get there?
We argue all we like about the merits of free market and socialism. But it’s as clear as the balls on a male giraffe that the likes of Norton Nolan and Duffy are grossly, indeed obscenely overpaid. In the case of the latter two they are not above criticising hard working public servants (teachers, nurses, emergency services)as being cosseted and priviliged. How dare they?
…as opposed to the balls on a female giraffe?
I dont watch BBC and do not pay the license either. I subscribe to Netflix and Amazon Prime and they are my limited source of TV. The more folk that do the same then the BBC will need to rethink their strategy.
Besides that a job at the BBC is practically a civil servant job, high pay for not doing much – so not really anything new there.
As for Stephen Nolan’s salary. I think if we look at some of our own elected officials, their salaries for their many roles, along with money making expenses, we might find that some aren’t too far behind Mr Nolan.
At least Mr Nolan entertains and possibly educates some of us a little.