Minimum Wage,£7 an hour

[mph1977]

Negative Creep said:

mph1977 said:

the current minimum wage relies on topups from the state to provide the 'living wage'

a couple with one minimum wage earner working more than 30 hours and one not working ( kids or not) would get at least partial housing benefit if renting as well as a fair chunk of working tax credit ( assuming they haven't been in a job that paid above the cut off in the previous tax year)...

Whereas a single person working full time will likely get no state assistance at all

other than HB and some working tax credits you mean

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/people-advise-ot...

[98elise]

crankedup said:

eccles said:

pork911 said:

rover 623gsi said:

problem is - we live in an (increasingly) hourglass economy. There are jobs at the top and at the bottom bit fewer and fewer in the middle as semi-skilled positions disappear and more and more companies develop flatter structures.

Furthermore, more jobs are now part-time. In retail it's very rare now for jobs below management level to offer full time positions and when you think that the the big four supermarkets alone - Tesco, Sainsbury's Morrisons and Asda - employ 1 million people it brings it home just how many people are working in low pay, short hour positions. So, there are plenty of people on minimum wage who don't even get the chance to work full time, let alone do overtime.

(My wife works at Asda and even over the xmas period they were asking staff to go home, or not come in in order to save money on wages so don't kid yourself that you can just rack up loads of overtime.)

As a second family income, minimum wage is okay - depending on the income of the other wage earner.

If you're a young person living at home, and are lucky enough to be working full time on minimum wage then you can have a pretty good, fun life. If you want to leave home then you can probably forget it.

how many of those supermarket workers (and other part time workers) are receiving working tax credit?

I think many of these part time, low wage jobs are dependent on the staff topping up their salary with benefits. So in a way, we are subsidising large businesses.
If the benefits were cut, then people wouldn't be able to afford to work in these sort of jobs, so either the business would fail, or they'd have to up their hourly rate.

Spot on Eccles, its one of the Government policies which really irritate me, benefits paid to people on low wages. How many of these Companies make fat profits I wonder, supported by tax payers of course.

How many main bread winners do you think set there sights on a career as a shelf stacker or checkout operator? The majority of these people will be either second wage earners, or its their first job. young people starting their first job. Thats why its normaly mums (juggling childcare with work), or young people. These people will not be getting benefits.

Outside of retail most jobs in big businesses have very few minimum wage jobs, and they have a career structure, pensions, training, health cover etc. I've worked for quite a few large organisations, and I don't remember any having minimum wage type jobs available.

[rover 623gsi]

interesting link

says that if you are single, over 25 and not disabled you can claim WTC if you work 30hrs a week or more - and that if you have an income of just £9,500 a year you could get an annual top up of £1,455

but if work 30hrs a week at minimum wage you earn £9,943.60 pa. and if you work 40hrs a week on minimum wage you earn £13,124.80 pa, which according to the same link nets you a total of zero WTC.

brilliant

[eccles]

S798 said:

The minimum wage should be seen as a temporary solution for a few years and not a permanent way of life, unless you make the concious decision to chose it long-term which removes the ability to complain!

It's all very well saying thing like that, but not everyone is a risk taking, thrusting graduate.
For many people it's a job down the local factory/call centre, a life of living on low wages. In the days before housing prices went mad, they could even save up enough for a house. Without these sort of people nothing would get made in this country. Just because they choose that way of life shouldn't mean they shouldn't be able to complain about their level of wages.

[otolith]

matchmaker said:

otolith said:

Live a frugal life with parents / in a shared house / in a bedsit / as a lodger? What lifestyle should the least useful of employees be able to afford? What should the entry level standard of living be?

"Least useful"? An insult to the many hardworking people who get minimum wage!

It's not meant to be. "Least capable"? "Least valuable"? There isn't really a flattering form of words, but some people can't do anything that anyone is willing to pay more for.

[turbobloke]

eccles said:

S798 said:

The minimum wage should be seen as a temporary solution for a few years and not a permanent way of life, unless you make the concious decision to chose it long-term which removes the ability to complain!

It's all very well saying thing like that, but not everyone is a risk taking, thrusting graduate.
For many people it's a job down the local factory/call centre, a life of living on low wages. In the days before housing prices went mad, they could even save up enough for a house. Without these sort of people nothing would get made in this country. Just because they choose that way of life shouldn't mean they shouldn't be able to complain about their level of wages.

Everyone can complain about anything.

That said, people can earn above average incomes from the strength of their mind, the strength of their back or their capacity to tolerate boredom, and most people can get work through at least one of those. Opportunities for progression are then availabe almost always. If somebody is paid to shovel manure from one pile to another and they do so better than any other stshoveller there might just be a supervisory or training role with more money attached. A hypothetical example but the principle is still there.

If opportunities for earning more exist and are passed over by choice, as often happens with the free education and training at school, then the validity of complaints is significantly diminished even if the opportunity to complain remains.

[crankedup]

98elise said:

crankedup said:

eccles said:

pork911 said:

rover 623gsi said:

problem is - we live in an (increasingly) hourglass economy. There are jobs at the top and at the bottom bit fewer and fewer in the middle as semi-skilled positions disappear and more and more companies develop flatter structures.

Furthermore, more jobs are now part-time. In retail it's very rare now for jobs below management level to offer full time positions and when you think that the the big four supermarkets alone - Tesco, Sainsbury's Morrisons and Asda - employ 1 million people it brings it home just how many people are working in low pay, short hour positions. So, there are plenty of people on minimum wage who don't even get the chance to work full time, let alone do overtime.

(My wife works at Asda and even over the xmas period they were asking staff to go home, or not come in in order to save money on wages so don't kid yourself that you can just rack up loads of overtime.)

As a second family income, minimum wage is okay - depending on the income of the other wage earner.

If you're a young person living at home, and are lucky enough to be working full time on minimum wage then you can have a pretty good, fun life. If you want to leave home then you can probably forget it.

how many of those supermarket workers (and other part time workers) are receiving working tax credit?

I think many of these part time, low wage jobs are dependent on the staff topping up their salary with benefits. So in a way, we are subsidising large businesses.
If the benefits were cut, then people wouldn't be able to afford to work in these sort of jobs, so either the business would fail, or they'd have to up their hourly rate.

Spot on Eccles, its one of the Government policies which really irritate me, benefits paid to people on low wages. How many of these Companies make fat profits I wonder, supported by tax payers of course.

How many main bread winners do you think set there sights on a career as a shelf stacker or checkout operator? The majority of these people will be either second wage earners, or its their first job. young people starting their first job. Thats why its normaly mums (juggling childcare with work), or young people. These people will not be getting benefits.

Outside of retail most jobs in big businesses have very few minimum wage jobs, and they have a career structure, pensions, training, health cover etc. I've worked for quite a few large organisations, and I don't remember any having minimum wage type jobs available.

You seem to overlook regional variations, here in East Anglia you will find plenty of workers on minimum (or just above). It is an agricultural / live stock area after all. Just because, in your view, many MW jobs are part time/femail / or new starts is not, imo, an excuse to pay such a paltry wage. You will find plenty of skilled staff who have lost career jobs now in supermarkets trying to survive on painfully low wages. Tell me the likes of tesco cannot afford decent wages!

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

eccles said:

S798 said:

The minimum wage should be seen as a temporary solution for a few years and not a permanent way of life, unless you make the concious decision to chose it long-term which removes the ability to complain!

It's all very well saying thing like that, but not everyone is a risk taking, thrusting graduate.
For many people it's a job down the local factory/call centre, a life of living on low wages. In the days before housing prices went mad, they could even save up enough for a house. Without these sort of people nothing would get made in this country. Just because they choose that way of life shouldn't mean they shouldn't be able to complain about their level of wages.

Everyone can complain about anything.

That said, people can earn above average incomes from the strength of their mind, the strength of their back or their capacity to tolerate boredom, and most people can get work through at least one of those. Opportunities for progression are then availabe almost always. If somebody is paid to shovel manure from one pile to another and they do so better than any other stshoveller there might just be a supervisory or training role with more money attached. A hypothetical example but the principle is still there.

If opportunities for earning more exist and are passed over by choice, as often happens with the free education and training at school, then the validity of complaints is significantly diminished even if the opportunity to complain remains.

To a point I agree, however its not as clear cut as you seem to express. As a Nation we are headed to a much higher skill base of employees, unfortunately the number required is not as many as we would wish for. The lower paid jobs are apparently plentiful but many cannot live on the low wage offered. This is one of the reasons the Government makes supplementary payments topping up those wages. That cannot be right, why should tax payers subsidise business in this way? If the business cannot survive if they raised wage levels perhaps they deserve to go bust.

[Negative Creep]

mph1977 said:

Negative Creep said:

mph1977 said:

the current minimum wage relies on topups from the state to provide the 'living wage'

a couple with one minimum wage earner working more than 30 hours and one not working ( kids or not) would get at least partial housing benefit if renting as well as a fair chunk of working tax credit ( assuming they haven't been in a job that paid above the cut off in the previous tax year)...

Whereas a single person working full time will likely get no state assistance at all

other than HB and some working tax credits you mean

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/people-advise-ot...

As per my previous post, I am in that position, am not entitled to HB and would get less than £1 a month in Tax Credits

[otolith]

What's the basis of your opinion about Tesco? Are you just looking at the big numbers and ignoring how many employees that requires ?

[London424]

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

eccles said:

S798 said:

The minimum wage should be seen as a temporary solution for a few years and not a permanent way of life, unless you make the concious decision to chose it long-term which removes the ability to complain!

It's all very well saying thing like that, but not everyone is a risk taking, thrusting graduate.
For many people it's a job down the local factory/call centre, a life of living on low wages. In the days before housing prices went mad, they could even save up enough for a house. Without these sort of people nothing would get made in this country. Just because they choose that way of life shouldn't mean they shouldn't be able to complain about their level of wages.

Everyone can complain about anything.

That said, people can earn above average incomes from the strength of their mind, the strength of their back or their capacity to tolerate boredom, and most people can get work through at least one of those. Opportunities for progression are then availabe almost always. If somebody is paid to shovel manure from one pile to another and they do so better than any other stshoveller there might just be a supervisory or training role with more money attached. A hypothetical example but the principle is still there.

If opportunities for earning more exist and are passed over by choice, as often happens with the free education and training at school, then the validity of complaints is significantly diminished even if the opportunity to complain remains.

To a point I agree, however its not as clear cut as you seem to express. As a Nation we are headed to a much higher skill base of employees, unfortunately the number required is not as many as we would wish for. The lower paid jobs are apparently plentiful but many cannot live on the low wage offered. This is one of the reasons the Government makes supplementary payments topping up those wages. That cannot be right, why should tax payers subsidise business in this way? If the business cannot survive if they raised wage levels perhaps they deserve to go bust.

It's an interesting one isn't it. Should the government subsidise business as it does or should wages increase (which will be passed on to consumer prices) making everything more expensive?

Either way aren't we paying for it?

[crankedup]

otolith said:

What's the basis of your opinion about Tesco? Are you just looking at the big numbers and ignoring how many employees that requires ?

Of course they have had a profits slump recent years, but only because they took their eye off the ball. Naturally no employer, however large or small, is going to pay anything over the odds regarding wages. Or put another way as little as they can get away with. Retail is the worst sector to work in regards worker rates of pay, just one reason why we need a MW. The current level of MW is incredibly low, I say again why should tax payers be responsible in picking up the shortfall for businesses?

[crankedup]

London424 said:

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

eccles said:

S798 said:

The minimum wage should be seen as a temporary solution for a few years and not a permanent way of life, unless you make the concious decision to chose it long-term which removes the ability to complain!

It's all very well saying thing like that, but not everyone is a risk taking, thrusting graduate.
For many people it's a job down the local factory/call centre, a life of living on low wages. In the days before housing prices went mad, they could even save up enough for a house. Without these sort of people nothing would get made in this country. Just because they choose that way of life shouldn't mean they shouldn't be able to complain about their level of wages.

Everyone can complain about anything.

That said, people can earn above average incomes from the strength of their mind, the strength of their back or their capacity to tolerate boredom, and most people can get work through at least one of those. Opportunities for progression are then availabe almost always. If somebody is paid to shovel manure from one pile to another and they do so better than any other stshoveller there might just be a supervisory or training role with more money attached. A hypothetical example but the principle is still there.

If opportunities for earning more exist and are passed over by choice, as often happens with the free education and training at school, then the validity of complaints is significantly diminished even if the opportunity to complain remains.

To a point I agree, however its not as clear cut as you seem to express. As a Nation we are headed to a much higher skill base of employees, unfortunately the number required is not as many as we would wish for. The lower paid jobs are apparently plentiful but many cannot live on the low wage offered. This is one of the reasons the Government makes supplementary payments topping up those wages. That cannot be right, why should tax payers subsidise business in this way? If the business cannot survive if they raised wage levels perhaps they deserve to go bust.

It's an interesting one isn't it. Should the government subsidise business as it does or should wages increase (which will be passed on to consumer prices) making everything more expensive?

Either way aren't we paying for it?

The consumer has a choice though, the tax payer has no choice but to pay. As individuals we can choose to shop at Harrods or Aldi for example.

[Thankyou4calling]

So in a large supermarket that employs around 250 staff over various positions and hours, about how many would earn above the national average wage of around £25,000 not including overtime?

[otolith]

crankedup said:

The consumer has a choice though, the tax payer has no choice but to pay. As individuals we can choose to shop at Harrods or Aldi for example.

<Devil's Advocate>
But the tax system is progressive, so if it is funded by the tax payer, the burden will fall in greater proportion on the rich. If the consumer pays, it will hit the poor harder.
</egg flip>

[otolith]

crankedup said:

otolith said:

What's the basis of your opinion about Tesco? Are you just looking at the big numbers and ignoring how many employees that requires ?

Of course they have had a profits slump recent years, but only because they took their eye off the ball. Naturally no employer, however large or small, is going to pay anything over the odds regarding wages. Or put another way as little as they can get away with. Retail is the worst sector to work in regards worker rates of pay, just one reason why we need a MW. The current level of MW is incredibly low, I say again why should tax payers be responsible in picking up the shortfall for businesses?

What you want is redistribution. What you may get is wage inflation.

[London424]

crankedup said:

London424 said:

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

eccles said:

S798 said:

The minimum wage should be seen as a temporary solution for a few years and not a permanent way of life, unless you make the concious decision to chose it long-term which removes the ability to complain!

It's all very well saying thing like that, but not everyone is a risk taking, thrusting graduate.
For many people it's a job down the local factory/call centre, a life of living on low wages. In the days before housing prices went mad, they could even save up enough for a house. Without these sort of people nothing would get made in this country. Just because they choose that way of life shouldn't mean they shouldn't be able to complain about their level of wages.

Everyone can complain about anything.

That said, people can earn above average incomes from the strength of their mind, the strength of their back or their capacity to tolerate boredom, and most people can get work through at least one of those. Opportunities for progression are then availabe almost always. If somebody is paid to shovel manure from one pile to another and they do so better than any other stshoveller there might just be a supervisory or training role with more money attached. A hypothetical example but the principle is still there.

If opportunities for earning more exist and are passed over by choice, as often happens with the free education and training at school, then the validity of complaints is significantly diminished even if the opportunity to complain remains.

To a point I agree, however its not as clear cut as you seem to express. As a Nation we are headed to a much higher skill base of employees, unfortunately the number required is not as many as we would wish for. The lower paid jobs are apparently plentiful but many cannot live on the low wage offered. This is one of the reasons the Government makes supplementary payments topping up those wages. That cannot be right, why should tax payers subsidise business in this way? If the business cannot survive if they raised wage levels perhaps they deserve to go bust.

It's an interesting one isn't it. Should the government subsidise business as it does or should wages increase (which will be passed on to consumer prices) making everything more expensive?

Either way aren't we paying for it?

The consumer has a choice though, the tax payer has no choice but to pay. As individuals we can choose to shop at Harrods or Aldi for example.

We have that choice today...why would it be different?

[pcvdriver]

obob said:

You say it like you can just choose to do more hours and that's it.

+1 You say you can just choose to do more hours....but often, there isn't the opportunity to do that (that's due to a lot of the time there are simply not extra hours available). Many firms are now operating Zero hours contracts - to spread the available hours around their current staffing levels, rather than letting staff go.

[mjb1]

It's all a political stunt, Georgie Porgie trying to get one over on labour and win a few votes. How is it any different to when the NMW was first introduced? Did it fix things then? No. Will increasing it fix them now. Of course not. All it will do is drive up wages (looks good in the short term), which will just fuel inflation to the point that we're all back where we started from.

[RYH64E]

mjb1 said:

It's all a political stunt, Georgie Porgie trying to get one over on labour and win a few votes. How is it any different to when the NMW was first introduced? Did it fix things then? No. Will increasing it fix them now. Of course not. All it will do is drive up wages (looks good in the short term), which will just fuel inflation to the point that we're all back where we started from.

In many cases increasing the minimum wage won't necessarily increase take home pay as the entitlement to tax credits and other benefits will reduce. Let's face it, £7 per hour isn't a fortune.