To: letters@guardian.co.uk
Re:
The need of a "maximum wage" to achieve sustainability
Date: Fri,
07 February 2003

 

 

Return to index

 

Dear Wo* Toynbee,

 

(* "Wo" is short for woman, which I prefer to the confusion created by Miss, Ms, and Mrs - unless, of course, you have another preference).

 

I'm all for the Minimum Wage, but it needs to be set, not as an amount of cash, but as a percentage of the average wage - say 50 or 60%.

 

What we also need, to start discussing, at least, is the idea of a MAXIMUM WAGE.

 

I'm joking, of course, just as Aristarchus  and Copernicus were when they suggested that Earth is a "wandering star" which orbits the Sun and turns on its axis, despite the evidence of one's senses and authoritative opinion, which both insisted that it stood still at the centre of the universe.

 

I'm not so naive as to think that a “maximum wage” could be imposed by law (or so rash as to believe in revolution), but in a free society like our own there is nothing to stop it being adopted "voluntarily". Except, of course, the perception that it would be in no one’s “self-interest” to take less than they can get - which is also a basic tenet of our economy.

 

While this may be true for our “narrow” self-interest, it is not true for our “enlightened” self-interest, since, as I explain below, a “maximum wage”, i.e. the ethos which underlies it, is the only way we will achieve “sustainability” on our finite and vulnerable planet. No self-interest can be greater than preserving the Earth and its diversity for our children and coming generations.

 

Those mature and wise enough to realise that a “maximum wage” is in their enlightened self-interest (certainly that of their children and coming generations) will, I hope, lead the way in actually creating a sustainable, just and truly humane society.

 

Why we need a MAXIMUM WAGE:

 

It has always been assumed that the poor are the world's biggest problem, when in fact the RICH are a far bigger one. Not simply because they place a much greater per capita burden on our planet’s resources and carrying capacity than the poor, but much more importantly, because they act as “role models”, whose non-sustainable lifestyles literally billions of others are seeking to emulate. When only a few rich people owned a car and jetted about the world our planet could shrug it off, but not any longer.

 

If the world's role models and trendsetters are constantly held up, admired and envied for their material "success" and extravagant, non-sustainable lifestyles, as they are in the media, what hope is there of persuading others to live sustainably?