Government thinking freezing or cutting the minimum wage.
Discussion
I agree on the cheap labor out competing out own but I'm inclined to say you'll find the developing economies are where that cheap labor is. Manufacturing has been moving or out competed for many years, it's not like they just employed a few Polish. However this increased competition is starting to eat away at middle class wages now as well, it's not just unskilled workers any more.
I'm not saying free markets should be constricted but that's just the way it is. The world is becoming a more equal place but countries are heading towards being less equal.
I'm not saying free markets should be constricted but that's just the way it is. The world is becoming a more equal place but countries are heading towards being less equal.
speedy_thrills said:
I agree on the cheap labor out competing out own but I'm inclined to say you'll find the developing economies are where that cheap labor is. Manufacturing has been moving or out competed for many years, it's not like they just employed a few Polish. However this increased competition is starting to eat away at middle class wages now as well, it's not just unskilled workers any more.
I'm not saying free markets should be constricted but that's just the way it is. The world is becoming a more equal place but countries are heading towards being less equal.
The GWPF picked up on the Mail's article on the £286 green energy tax, maybe the BBC were looking the other way i.e. at the abysmal Guardian.I'm not saying free markets should be constricted but that's just the way it is. The world is becoming a more equal place but countries are heading towards being less equal.
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.
Can't find any reference to that report on the BBC website - wonder if it would be reported more prominently if there was a "nasty Tories crapping on the poor" angle to the figures.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 I ran a business employing almost 70 in one particular department making fairly simple products with a very high labour content. The employees had good working conditions, very flexible hours and the work was quite therapeutic, if mundane. We used to employ many women who fitted their hours in around the kids schooling. Pay was low, of necessity because of the low tech nature of the products but everyone was happy.
After the MW was introduced, and there had been 3 or 4 annual increases way above any possible price increases that the market would yield, mechanisation and other productivity gains had reduced the head count to around 25.
It was still impossible to compete with Eastern Europe and the far east and eventually UK manufacture stopped altogether and the product was sourced from Budapest. Still is as far as I know.
That is a case of having an employer with willing employees not being allowed to work together as they would all wish.
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.
Whereas creating out-of-control debts to fund scroungers and public sector non-jobs, and expecting my children and grand-children to pick up the tab isn't nasty at all eh?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.
The delusion is strong in this one.
Kermit power said:
Problem is, lots of minimum wage workers are competing with people in China, Vietnam, the Philippines and so on earning 50p an hour.
Although wages in China for example have increased 7-fold since 1995 and has seen 7-18% increases year-on-year. It is slowly becoming less cost-effective to set up base in such countries and suffer the continuously-increasing transportation costs as an offset to the efficiencies made in labour costs(which will ultimately be one of China's undoings in the long-term) therefore creating a greater incentive to produce and transport from domestic markets. A lower minimum wage in the short-term could provide the investment needed to kick-start some of the industries which would otherwise have been set up abroad; leading to an increase in the jobs supply primarily in the manufacturing and lower-skilled sectors, largely filled by the lower qualified and the younger working community.
Kermit power said:
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.......Both result in loss of UK jobs for the least qualified in society.
That's interesting and really should be the case, judging by common sense... (sorry chaps, the graphs are coming out)
Although this is a study in the US, the data is up to date and the data is quite representative of the UK.
When minimum wage increased, historically the unemployment rate hasn't always increased- of course it's the case for 2007/2008 data in that graph, but that's due to the financial crash; there's far too many external factors which contribute to a loss of jobs and/or a decrease in employment.
This graph assumes that the younger community are 1) the least qualified/experienced and 2) are the lowest paid age bracket (although based on facts- just over half of those on minimum wage in the US fall between the ages of 16 and 24).
The ratio of unemployed within this bracket in relation to absolute unemployment shows next to no correlation- in fact, reverse correlation in 2008- that an increase in minimum wage most greatly affects those on or close to the minimum wage. Although, like everything, it's all subject to debate.
Digga said:
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.Einion Yrth said:
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.Caulkhead said:
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.
crankedup said:
I'm not sure exactly where all of these unskilled immigrant workers found jobs, Farms = yes / horticultural = yes / hotel services = yes. After those sectors I could only guess
Factory work. Driving jobs. Labouring. Putting swirl marks into car paintwork in supermarket car parks. mattnunn said:
Digga said:
mattnunn said:
And £1 deposit trolley "technology"
But that doesn't work, does it? All the trolleys end up spread all over the car parks and none by the entrance to the place, unless you have a decent trolley-herder.Digga said:
mattnunn said:
Digga said:
mattnunn said:
And £1 deposit trolley "technology"
But that doesn't work, does it? All the trolleys end up spread all over the car parks and none by the entrance to the place, unless you have a decent trolley-herder.mattnunn said:
Digga said:
mattnunn said:
Digga said:
mattnunn said:
And £1 deposit trolley "technology"
But that doesn't work, does it? All the trolleys end up spread all over the car parks and none by the entrance to the place, unless you have a decent trolley-herder.Why would you employ someone specifically to push trollies around when you can just send one of the shelf stackers out to do it for 5 minutes every couple of hours?
You might want to as part of an enhanced service if you can do it really cheaply, but as soon as you're forced to pay a minimum amount for it, it ceases to make sense to do it.
Bill Carr said:
I must be missing something obvious, but how will cutting the minimum wage encourage people in to work (implied by the phrase "make work pay"). Especially those where it is already marginal whether they would earn more by working or being on benefits.
Create more jobs. Back in the day when I employed people 6quid an hour plus NI adds up and you start thinking about the cost and the lack of profit you make by employing more people. A mate of mine could employ people (he needs to) but doesn't because of the minimum wage, he took on an apprenticeship but couldn't afford to make them permanent.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff