Government thinking freezing or cutting the minimum wage.
Discussion
Worst piece of legislation ever. Why can socialists never think about the consequences of thier actions. The minimum wage has resulted in the explosion of agency work and short term contracts, and a corresponding increase of in work benefits which book end part time positions. It may have ultimately led to business lobbying for uncontrolled immigration, I mean which business wouldn't want strong keen young men.
Caulkhead said:
If you work full time and earn the minimum wage you earn around £12875 a year. In the last full year of the labour government a person earning that would pay tax on £6840 of it. Next year a minimum wage earner will pay tax on only £2875 of it. Seems to me minimum wage earners have had a sizeable increase in take home pay since labour left office just by the increasing of personal allowances.
I had to read that a couple of times to understand what the point was.In 2008-9 you'd have been left with with £10,571, 2013-14 it would be £11,573. I suppose a little £1k (inc NI) is a lot if you're poor though and probably cover VAT increases...though probably not inflation.
Overall the poor are still about as poor really, Darling or Osborne in the treasury. 6 years without progress in elevating incomes significantly on either side.
Oakey said:
When I left school in 1998, at 16, my first job paid £3 per hour. That was a crappy admin job at Dutton Forshaw.
So in 15 years, someone under 18 is only worth 68 pence more than what I was paid in 1998?
Yet a loaf of bread has tripled in price over the same period.
That's stagflation really.So in 15 years, someone under 18 is only worth 68 pence more than what I was paid in 1998?
Yet a loaf of bread has tripled in price over the same period.
markcoznottz said:
Worst piece of legislation ever. Why can socialists never think about the consequences of thier actions. The minimum wage has resulted in the explosion of agency work and short term contracts, and a corresponding increase of in work benefits which book end part time positions. It may have ultimately led to business lobbying for uncontrolled immigration, I mean which business wouldn't want strong keen young men.
Have you overlooked the fact that we live in a democratic Capitalistic Country. The better you are the more you benefit. MWR is simply a catch net for those that are unable or do not wish to pursue a career ladder. The abuse of MWR may be evident now following the financial crash 2008.Can't see the problem at all with protecting those at the bottom of the working heap, what's your alternative to the MWR?
crankedup said:
protecting those at the bottom of the working heap
The best and most sustainable way of doing that is protecting (or in reality, supporting optimum operating conditions for) the businesses that provide the kind of work that such employees would do. Artificially distorting the market isn't like that but it will look and feel good for command and control socialists and their supporters.Oakey said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
Age 21+ rate is £6.19 an hour
18 to 20 rate is £4.98
Under 18 rate is £3.68
Rate for an apprentiuce in first year or aged under 19 is £2.65
When I left school in 1998, at 16, my first job paid £3 per hour. That was a crappy admin job at Dutton Forshaw. 18 to 20 rate is £4.98
Under 18 rate is £3.68
Rate for an apprentiuce in first year or aged under 19 is £2.65
So in 15 years, someone under 18 is only worth 68 pence more than what I was paid in 1998?
Yet a loaf of bread has tripled in price over the same period.
speedy_thrills said:
Caulkhead said:
If you work full time and earn the minimum wage you earn around £12875 a year. In the last full year of the labour government a person earning that would pay tax on £6840 of it. Next year a minimum wage earner will pay tax on only £2875 of it. Seems to me minimum wage earners have had a sizeable increase in take home pay since labour left office just by the increasing of personal allowances.
I had to read that a couple of times to understand what the point was.In 2008-9 you'd have been left with with £10,571, 2013-14 it would be £11,573. I suppose a little £1k (inc NI) is a lot if you're poor though and probably cover VAT increases...though probably not inflation.
Overall the poor are still about as poor really, Darling or Osborne in the treasury. 6 years without progress in elevating incomes significantly on either side.
Oakey said:
When I left school in 1998, at 16, my first job paid £3 per hour. That was a crappy admin job at Dutton Forshaw.
So in 15 years, someone under 18 is only worth 68 pence more than what I was paid in 1998?
Yet a loaf of bread has tripled in price over the same period.
That's stagflation really.So in 15 years, someone under 18 is only worth 68 pence more than what I was paid in 1998?
Yet a loaf of bread has tripled in price over the same period.
h fight?Much appreciated.
turbobloke said:
crankedup said:
protecting those at the bottom of the working heap
The best and most sustainable way of doing that is protecting (or in reality, supporting optimum operating conditions for) the businesses that provide the kind of work that such employees would do. Artificially distorting the market isn't like that but it will look and feel good for command and control socialists and their supporters.I always say that sometimes we have to look back to go forward, that is what we seem to be doing now.
speedy_thrills said:
Caulkhead said:
If you work full time and earn the minimum wage you earn around £12875 a year. In the last full year of the labour government a person earning that would pay tax on £6840 of it. Next year a minimum wage earner will pay tax on only £2875 of it. Seems to me minimum wage earners have had a sizeable increase in take home pay since labour left office just by the increasing of personal allowances.
I had to read that a couple of times to understand what the point was.In 2008-9 you'd have been left with with £10,571, 2013-14 it would be £11,573. I suppose a little £1k (inc NI) is a lot if you're poor though and probably cover VAT increases...though probably not inflation.
Overall the poor are still about as poor really, Darling or Osborne in the treasury. 6 years without progress in elevating incomes significantly on either side.
Oakey said:
When I left school in 1998, at 16, my first job paid £3 per hour. That was a crappy admin job at Dutton Forshaw.
So in 15 years, someone under 18 is only worth 68 pence more than what I was paid in 1998?
Yet a loaf of bread has tripled in price over the same period.
That's stagflation really.So in 15 years, someone under 18 is only worth 68 pence more than what I was paid in 1998?
Yet a loaf of bread has tripled in price over the same period.
crankedup said:
The MWR is not a distortion its is a protection against unscrupulous employers.
Of course it's a distortion; the market is "I have this job that needs doing, I am willing and able to pay the following sum to get it done, would you like to do it?". Whether the distortion introduced by a legislated minimum wage is acceptable or desirable is arguable, but it is plainly a distortion of the market and I cannot see how you could argue otherwise.Einion Yrth said:
Of course it's a distortion; the market is "I have this job that needs doing, I am willing and able to pay the following sum to get it done, would you like to do it?". Whether the distortion introduced by a legislated minimum wage is acceptable or desirable is arguable, but it is plainly a distortion of the market and I cannot see how you could argue otherwise.
Unfortunately you are choosing to ignore the "problem" side of your market analysis. Namely that in a free market monopolies emerge and are abused. In the work environment this takes the form of the boss filling his own pockets while the workers are paid a pittance for very long hours. It is this very element which has led to countless socialist revolutions over the centuries. As Crankie has said, minimum wage is an appropriate safety net illmonkey said:
Were you on minimum wage back then? I'd guess not. Not really comparable, is it?
No because a 16yr old wouldn't be entitled to a minimum wage of £3 an hour until about 2002! The point being, I was already earning that much years before the government decided that's how much under 18s were worth. Like Rover620gsi said, it's used more like the maximum wage.
mattnunn said:
Nasty Tories, always have been and always will be, call me Dave and look at my Oak Tree isn't kidding anyone.
It's why they'll be voted out asap. Their diet isn't working, nonsense like this has nothing to do with revitalising the economy or repaying the national debt it's just plain old nasty tories wanting to concentrate the wealth into the hands of the few.
Setting aside your desperate desire to whine about the Tories at all costs, have you actually considered the impact of having a minimum wage?It's why they'll be voted out asap. Their diet isn't working, nonsense like this has nothing to do with revitalising the economy or repaying the national debt it's just plain old nasty tories wanting to concentrate the wealth into the hands of the few.
Let's say you increase the minimum wage to £8 per hour. I suspect somehow that you'd think that would be a good thing?
Problem is, lots of minimum wage workers are competing with people in China, Vietnam, the Philippines and so on earning 50p an hour.
As things stand, workers here might be viable at £6.19 an hour, because on top of that 50p an hour for the cheap labour, you need to add on higher transport costs, issues with remotely managing factories, possibly higher levels of quality control rejects, language barriers, etc, etc... However, most companies employing significant numbers of minimum wage earners aren't actually making huge profits for their managers and shareholders to use to wipe their arses or light their cigars. Most are running to very tight margins, and any increase in minimum wage just pushes them closer to the edge or closer to outsourcing manufacturing. Both result in loss of UK jobs for the least qualified in society.
Likewise, look at any High Street retailer. They're not exactly rolling in spare cash at the moment, are they? Every move to increase minimum wage just forces them to increase their prices, and drives more of their customers into the hands of Amazon and other web retailers with minimal staffing levels. Again, a loss of jobs for the poorly qualified.
It's all very well for the liberal left to sit in their ivory towers bestowing minimum wages on the deserving poor, but without considering the realities of global competition, all you're actually doing is depriving the very people you want to help of a job.
Even if they manage to keep their job, which section of society is most likely to be hit by the price hikes required for employers to cover the cost of increased wage bills? That's right, it's the low paid!
All a minimum wage does is cause inflation and job losses and drive more people into the benefits system.
Oakey said:
illmonkey said:
Were you on minimum wage back then? I'd guess not. Not really comparable, is it?
No because a 16yr old wouldn't be entitled to a minimum wage of £3 an hour until about 2002! The point being, I was already earning that much years before the government decided that's how much under 18s were worth. Like Rover620gsi said, it's used more like the maximum wage.
Unless you're comparing the base minimum wage across years, its not a true statement.
And shock horror at companies trying to pay the least amount for a role.
otolith said:
It's a prohibition on selling your labour for less than the specified rate which means that if you aren't capable of doing something worth paying the minimum wage for you are not allowed to work at all.
Hmmmmm. As a self employed person I can see the sense in what you're saying but it seems that leading people in a race to the bottom or asking people to live in self imposed slavery is also a bit of odd thing to do. The reality if you are a self employed service provider you don't need to worry about the minimum wage regulation and the majority of people who work as staff aren't of the mindset that they're selling their labour resource - they just have jobs with employers, which works well for them and the employer.mattnunn said:
otolith said:
It's a prohibition on selling your labour for less than the specified rate which means that if you aren't capable of doing something worth paying the minimum wage for you are not allowed to work at all.
Hmmmmm. As a self employed person I can see the sense in what you're saying but it seems that leading people in a race to the bottom or asking people to live in self imposed slavery is also a bit of odd thing to do. The reality if you are a self employed service provider you don't need to worry about the minimum wage regulation and the majority of people who work as staff aren't of the mindset that they're selling their labour resource - they just have jobs with employers, which works well for them and the employer.k chain owns it now) which, as a kid, I remember the trolleys being collected by this old war vet type (he always wore the same overcoat and beret) who was clearly, to use non-technical phrase, not the full ticket, but nonethless more than willing and able to herd trolleys. There used to be a lot of workers tlike this chap - not bright enough or able enough to hold down a regular job - but will and able to get out and earn a living doing more mundane (but nonetheless necessary) work. They all disappeared as minimum wage legislation came in.Ozzie Osmond said:
Einion Yrth said:
Of course it's a distortion; the market is "I have this job that needs doing, I am willing and able to pay the following sum to get it done, would you like to do it?". Whether the distortion introduced by a legislated minimum wage is acceptable or desirable is arguable, but it is plainly a distortion of the market and I cannot see how you could argue otherwise.
Unfortunately you are choosing to ignore the "problem" side of your market analysis. Namely that in a free market monopolies emerge and are abused. In the work environment this takes the form of the boss filling his own pockets while the workers are paid a pittance for very long hours. It is this very element which has led to countless socialist revolutions over the centuries. As Crankie has said, minimum wage is an appropriate safety net 
Megaflow said:
Could you two please stop bringing facts and data to a leftie Tory bh fight?
Much appreciated.
PHers views tend to fall into two groups, those that agree with Keynes (Traditional Lab and Con voters) or Hayek (ultra-capitalists). However most views expressed are far too over simplified and hence contain obvious failings.h fight?Much appreciated.
Easy for me to say as a socialist though. Karl Marx understood the problems of capitalism better than almost anyone else and yet all he could conclude was that capitalism was the "least worst" system even while advocating communism
. The USSR after all proved this time and again as much as the many African countries show that without some control over industry and organisation in society capitalism can't even take root.If you look at the big picture though all of those economists had relevant points. Bitcoin and the safety of precious metals shows that Hayek probably had a point about modern central banking being deeply flawed in a crisis. Keynesian economic policy is by far the predominant model of how to run an economy in the modern age, left and right of the political spectrum. Marx was right about capitalism being inherently unstable but he was also right about the adaptability of capitalism in eventually overcoming problems, the most successful models of capitalism today involve a fair amount of planning, intervention and balancing.
Luckily lots of countries take different approaches as to how they balance their economies against gaining the social improvements their society desires (after all that is the point of material wealth in a country, we don't do capitalism for it's own sake). All we can do is try to better emulate in many aspects those that outperform us.
When you can overlook ideology economics is a really interesting science filled with unexpected outcomes that tell us a lot about both rational and irrational human behavior.
crankedup said:
Numbers from the IFS used by the BeeB last night, the poor are slightly better off now then 3 years back, middle earners a bit worse off and top end worse off. In other words the top end are being taxed more which explains why they have to rush to the trough every year for a top up of cash.
3 years? I'm disappointing with the BBCs lack of historical perspective on the issue in that case. crankedup said:
speedy_thrills said:
Caulkhead said:
If you work full time and earn the minimum wage you earn around £12875 a year. In the last full year of the labour government a person earning that would pay tax on £6840 of it. Next year a minimum wage earner will pay tax on only £2875 of it. Seems to me minimum wage earners have had a sizeable increase in take home pay since labour left office just by the increasing of personal allowances.
I had to read that a couple of times to understand what the point was.In 2008-9 you'd have been left with with £10,571, 2013-14 it would be £11,573. I suppose a little £1k (inc NI) is a lot if you're poor though and probably cover VAT increases...though probably not inflation.
Overall the poor are still about as poor really, Darling or Osborne in the treasury. 6 years without progress in elevating incomes significantly on either side.
Oakey said:
When I left school in 1998, at 16, my first job paid £3 per hour. That was a crappy admin job at Dutton Forshaw.
So in 15 years, someone under 18 is only worth 68 pence more than what I was paid in 1998?
Yet a loaf of bread has tripled in price over the same period.
That's stagflation really.So in 15 years, someone under 18 is only worth 68 pence more than what I was paid in 1998?
Yet a loaf of bread has tripled in price over the same period.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff