![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sep. 14th, 2014
In the meantime, fanvids that cut together memories of it in three minutes are keeping me going...
Idle thought I had - and I haven't investigated it, so I have no idea if others have previously proposed this.
But by tying it specifically to the median, that means that (a) it would encourage policies that kept people's wages up and (b) they couldn't be accused of taking raises while the average person wasn't.
Edit: To be clear, as over on FB people seem to be misunderstanding this a lot, I'm not saying "Let's reduce their pay to less than the median wage." - MP pay is currently 250% of median wage,and that doesn't seem wholly unreasonable to me. I'm saying "Define it as 250% of median wage", what effect would that have?
But by tying it specifically to the median, that means that (a) it would encourage policies that kept people's wages up and (b) they couldn't be accused of taking raises while the average person wasn't.
Edit: To be clear, as over on FB people seem to be misunderstanding this a lot, I'm not saying "Let's reduce their pay to less than the median wage." - MP pay is currently 250% of median wage,and that doesn't seem wholly unreasonable to me. I'm saying "Define it as 250% of median wage", what effect would that have?