Key Workers

After reading Chris' post, I was wondering how a "key worker" is defined, but the closest I could get to is:

staff who play a crucial role in the social services sector
keyworkers.org

This is unsatisfactory on two counts. Firstly the term "social services sector" doesn't make any sense, because all service jobs are social. The only type of service that isn't social is self-service, which can't be a job. And secondly what constitutes a  "crucial role"? For many people a mechanic is "crucial", but not for non-motorists. It's a subjective term. Economic calculation does provide a rational basis for deciding who a key worker is, and it's provided by the cost of replacement. If you're hard to replace, you're key.

When Cristiano Ronaldo signed a £31m contract, his market wage demonstrated the "crucial role" he plays in society. In a competitive market there's a tendency to pay him right up to the cost of having to replace him, and given that many see him as the best player in the world, that's alot.

For the types of jobs usually referred to as "key workers" (teachers, police and firemen), the going pay implies that the replacement cost is relatively low. Whereas surgeons really are key, nurses are less so.

In actual fact, the market economy rewards "key" workers very highly, by definition. It seems a perfectly reasonable goal to provide public funds for those people who struggle to earn a living, but the reason they struggle is because they don't have scarce talent. They're replaceable. That's why they're vulnerable.

The implications of my argument aren't controversial (redistribute from rich to poor) but even though the rhetoric seems perfectly logical (redistribute from workers with scarce talents to those without), it conflicts with the current debate. The term "key worker" is being molested, and it appears that it's done so to patronise the intended recipients of public funds. It's a shame that being patronised is a condition of benefits.

 

Comments

[Jim]

List of key worker groups is here: http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1151222. I don't think 'keyworkers.org' is an official source.

[aje]

Obviously, but it's the closest I could come to a definition. As you say, the 'official source' just lists examples.

[Matthew Whitfield]

I like your argument - it's very mischievous! I'm going to start a campaign right now to get Ronaldo a subsidised property in central London!

I think, though, that the 'key' title is applied collectively, not individually. Nurses, for example, should benefit from publicly funded accomodation because London would suffer if - as a group - no nurses could afford to live plausibly close to London hospitals. If you collectively removed nurses, teachers or firemen from any given geographical area, then you would threaten the effectivness of 'key' services (as opposed to, say, hairdressers or bakers - if they could no longer afford to set up shop in a given area it would create inconvenience but no more than that).

[Quinn]

Some interesting points. I abhor the term “key worker” myself; it seems to suggest that somehow nurses are more worthy and therefore should receive housing assistance while someone who merely works in Gregg’s can go fuck themselves. I know we need nurses, but when you’re hungry a baker seems pretty key to me. It’s insulting, and I say this as someone who could probably be considered a “key worker”.

Onto your other points though; when considering a persons wages people often home in solely on the workers skill and substitutability, and assume the current wage to be a market clearing one; but price is obviously decided by supply and demand, and the employer also largely influences the price. So, Ronaldo earns far more money than George Best ever did, not because he is a better player, or because he is more valuable to United, but because there is so much more money in football nowadays. Meanwhile, my office remains understaffed to a chronic and dangerous degree, and the wheel stays on largely due to overtime and staff goodwill (although I personally don’t partake in either of these concepts).

I think this influence of the employer is at the crux of the debate about whether “key workers” should receive financial assistance. Is it really about government benefits and income redistribution? If so, why limit it to “key workers”? A fireman may be relatively low paid, but he earns more than many. Isn’t it the fact that what links all the “key workers” is that they are government employees; ultimately for all this bollocks about “key workers” aren’t we just talking about a situation where the employer (in this case the government) has observed problems in recruiting staff in some areas due to the low-ish wages and rising house prices, and is looking at giving assistance – in effect a wage increase – to certain staff in response to these market pressures?

PS. I’d be interested in your reply, but probably won’t get a chance to respond myself as I am off on holiday imminently. Ta-ra.

PPS. I’d also argue against Ronaldo having a “crucial role” in society. Valued yes, but the world wouldn’t noticably be adversely affected were he not to exist. But I note your inverted commas, and anyway, I also take issue with the “best player in the world” tag. Not even the best player at United to my mind, but I appear to be in a minority once more on this one.

[APL]

Defn: ¨Key worker¨

1.Individual(s) or group. Generally denied the benefit of the market rate for labour and or skill. Victim(s) of (usually) state or government monoply. In United Kingdom see NHS.

The term is applied in a cunning attempt to deny the individual, or group of individuals the ability to accumulate the benefit of the full market value of his/her/their knowledge and or industry. At the same time giving the impression of high status. Hence: ´key´ worker.

2. ¨key¨ worker. Also blatant attempt to buy votes.

[tc]

"In a competitive market there's a tendency to pay him right up to the cost of having to replace him, and given that many see him as the best player in the world, that's alot."

Who's 'alot'? "A lot", please. And you say english teachers aren't worth much?