Trade union and socialist coalition party

[Digga]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

if they are good, then they deserve at least £10/hr, regardless of how unskilled their job is. Given than unskilled work is some of the most physically demanding.

I certainly wouldn't fancy being behind the counter in a fast food restaurant, a cleaner or a hotel chambermaid. Too much like hard work.

You have the choice, but a lot of people do not.

Can you not understand that firms have the discretion to hire, or not, and that the aggregate number of jobs is flexible - the demand being influenced by the price of labour - in this regard? Make it more expensive to hire workers and the less skilled and intelligent will simply never get a job. End of.

Their jobs are either absorbed into the remit of a (slightly) more skilled role, outsourced (this is where many of the zero hours and cash-in-hand labour exists), or automated.

[nikaiyo2]

oyster said:

This is comedy gold!
You want a 50% increase in the NMW and freely admit that it will raise costs by the same amount.

What good is earning 50% more when things cost 50% more ?!!!!

Fairness, it is more fair to pay people £10 per hour. it sounds better to have a massive hike in the NMW, the fact that it will be inflationary and negate ANY benefit is by the by. It is obvious that everyone who now earns <£20/5p/h will expect a similar proportionate rise to that of the NMW.

We are talking lefty economics here, style is so much more important the substance.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

nikaiyo2 said:

We are talking lefty economics here, style is so much more important the substance.

Lefties like Roman Abromovich and Boris Johnson you mean.

http://www.chelseafc.com/news/latest-news/2014/12/...

[anonymous-user]

V8covin said:

Some of you are confusing turnover with profit.Amazon being a prime example.Huge turnover yet making losses year on year

Great example. A company run by a man worth north of $35bn, that pays it's UK employees so little the tax payer has to subsidise their wages so they can afford to live.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

fblm said:

V8covin said:

Some of you are confusing turnover with profit.Amazon being a prime example.Huge turnover yet making losses year on year

Great example. A company run by a man worth north of $35bn, that pays it's UK employees so little the tax payer has to subsidise their wages so they can afford to live.

You can't say that, you communist!

[nikaiyo2]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Lefties like Roman Abromovich and Boris Johnson you mean.

http://www.chelseafc.com/news/latest-news/2014/12/...

So if the minimum wage rises by lets say £3.50P/H, would those people being paid £9.15 get paid £10p/h or £12.65? It has to be £12.65 or else you are giving them a 33% relative pay cut.
What happens then to the guy who supervises them, the one that at the moment is on £12p/h, is he going to work for less than the people he supervises? Obviously not, so his wage goes up to £16.68p/h.
The guy managing them on £35K is now thinking well why am I doing this for £2.5kP/A more than him, so his wages go up.
Standard of living for guy on minimum wage is unaltered as his earnings are the same relative to others.

anyway back on topic, the Bay City Rollers are doing some gigs as are Black Sabbath, they are not going to dominate the charts again are they...

[anonymous-user]

oyster said:

This is comedy gold!
You want a 50% increase in the NMW and freely admit that it will raise costs by the same amount.

What good is earning 50% more when things cost 50% more ?!!!!

Comedy gold, indeed. The money doesn't come from thin air, you're not increasing the money supply to pay for it, where the fvck are you getting 50% inflation from? All a high minimum wage does is move the wage burden from the tax payer back to where it belongs. You know what you could do? Increase the minimum wage and use the tax credit savings to pay for a cut in CT. Fvck me what a stupid communist idea. You did 375bn quid of QE and you have zero inflation, zero. 50%!

[iphonedyou]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Perhaps you can use that argument to politely decline the next pay increase you get!

My next payrise will follow two years of post degree study to get chartered, so 6.5 years of work, and a move to another country for same.

So, no.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

nikaiyo2 said:

So if the minimum wage rises by lets say £3.50P/H, would those people being paid £9.15 get paid £10p/h or £12.65? It has to be £12.65 or else you are giving them a 33% relative pay cut.

You seem to live in a world where everyone is obsessed about maintaining differentials. It's just not the case.

So, I work for Chelsea and I'm on £6.50/hour. Then Chelsea announce that they are adopting Living Wage which for London is £9.15. Happy days. Then the govt announce an increase in NMW to the Living wage. So my mates on the turnstiles or sweeping up at Spurs and Arsenal are now also on £9.15/hour.

That's great. Why would I demand an increase. I've not been made poorer by their good fortune.

Now I accept that the guy at Chelsea supervising the turnstiles who was on £9/hour when I was on £6.50 now has to be moved forward to maybe £10 or £11 now I'm on £9.15. And maybe a few others will need some tweaking, but I very much doubt John terry is going to be storming into Roman's office saying "my £185K a week is meaningless now the turnstile guy is on £9.15 an hour. When he was on £6.50 and hour I was quite happy with £185K/week, but now I want a rise."

[TwigtheWonderkid]

iphonedyou said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Perhaps you can use that argument to politely decline the next pay increase you get!

My next payrise will follow two years of post degree study to get chartered, so 6.5 years of work, and a move to another country for same.

So, no.

But you'll be no better off, because inflation will go up to counteract your pay rise! Apparently.

[iphonedyou]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You seem to live in a world where everyone is obsessed about maintaining differentials. It's just not the case.

So, I work for Chelsea and I'm on £6.50/hour. Then Chelsea announce that they are adopting Living Wage which for London is £9.15. Happy days. Then the govt announce an increase in NMW to the Living wage. So my mates on the turnstiles or sweeping up at Spurs and Arsenal are now also on £9.15/hour.

That's great. Why would I demand an increase. I've not been made poorer by their good fortune.

Now I accept that the guy at Chelsea supervising the turnstiles who was on £9/hour when I was on £6.50 now has to be moved forward to maybe £10 or £11 now I'm on £9.15. And maybe a few others will need some tweaking, but I very much doubt John terry is going to be storming into Roman's office saying "my £185K a week is meaningless now the turnstile guy is on £9.15 an hour. When he was on £6.50 and hour I was quite happy with £185K/week, but now I want a rise."

But you said yourself that prices increase to cover the NMW rise. So those that haven't received a rise are paying for the raised prices resultant of the increase in NMW, with no commensurate rise for themselves.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

iphonedyou said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You seem to live in a world where everyone is obsessed about maintaining differentials. It's just not the case.

So, I work for Chelsea and I'm on £6.50/hour. Then Chelsea announce that they are adopting Living Wage which for London is £9.15. Happy days. Then the govt announce an increase in NMW to the Living wage. So my mates on the turnstiles or sweeping up at Spurs and Arsenal are now also on £9.15/hour.

That's great. Why would I demand an increase. I've not been made poorer by their good fortune.

Now I accept that the guy at Chelsea supervising the turnstiles who was on £9/hour when I was on £6.50 now has to be moved forward to maybe £10 or £11 now I'm on £9.15. And maybe a few others will need some tweaking, but I very much doubt John terry is going to be storming into Roman's office saying "my £185K a week is meaningless now the turnstile guy is on £9.15 an hour. When he was on £6.50 and hour I was quite happy with £185K/week, but now I want a rise."

But you said yourself that prices increase to cover the NMW rise. So those that haven't received a rise are paying for the raised prices resultant of the increase in NMW, with no commensurate rise for themselves.

I think John Terry will cope with it!

[iphonedyou]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I think John Terry will cope with it!

So as long as one person earns enough not to be worried about the end, the means are justified.

OK.

[anonymous-user]

iphonedyou said:

But you said yourself that prices increase to cover the NMW rise.

Some prices, of some goods and services, would have to rise once some unprofitable companies had their taxpayer wage subsidy removed. Trying to equate a x% increase in NMW with an x% increase in prices is ridiculous.

Corporation tax - 39bn
Working tax credits - 23bn
Watching a bunch of 'capitalists' getting themselves all tied up defending corporate subsidies - priceless

[sidicks]

fblm said:

Some prices, of some goods and services, would have to rise once some unprofitable companies had their taxpayer wage subsidy removed. Trying to equate a x% increase in NMW with an x% increase in prices is ridiculous.

Corporation tax - 39bn
Working tax credits - 23bn
Watching a bunch of 'capitalists' getting themselves all tied up defending corporate subsidies - priceless

If the minimum wage isn't enough to live on, why do we tax the minimum wage...

[TwigtheWonderkid]

sidicks said:

If the minimum wage isn't enough to live on, why do we tax the minimum wage...

Now that is a very good question. Min wage £6.50/hour. 37.5hr standard working week pays £12675/year. And on £2K of that you'd pay tax and on £4K of it you'd pay NI. Seems ludicrous and a low salary like that.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

If anyone read the link to the Chelsea FC website, you would have seen this para:

‘We believe the move to the Living Wage underlines our commitment to ensuring that all our employees receive a fair rate of pay for their hard work and dedication. Quite simply it is the right thing to do.’

That sums it up for me. It's the same argument as I would use to argue against importing goods produced by child labour. Or in dangerous factories on the sub continent that fall down and kill hundreds. Yes, it may push up prices. Yes, it may prove to be slightly inflationary. But...it's the right thing to do.

[iphonedyou]

fblm said:

Some prices, of some goods and services, would have to rise once some unprofitable companies had their taxpayer wage subsidy removed. Trying to equate a x% increase in NMW with an x% increase in prices is ridiculous.

Corporation tax - 39bn
Working tax credits - 23bn
Watching a bunch of 'capitalists' getting themselves all tied up defending corporate subsidies - priceless

For clarity, that was Twig's argument (reference his hotel example.)

[hidetheelephants]

Perhaps instead of arguing how many angels can dance on the proceeds of a NMW, a look could be taken at binning tax allowance, NMW, JSA, ESA, tax credits etc, and replacing with a citizen wage and a flat (say 30%) income tax; we no longer have to pay drones to metaphorically poke Jeremy Kyle's audience with sticks every two weeks and the HMRC can be cut somewhat. Every adult gets the same amount and anything and everything you earn is taxed the same, minimising administration.

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

If the minimum wage isn't enough to live on, why do we tax the minimum wage...

Tax them a grand and give them back four grand in WTC? Keeps a few public sector chumps in jobs is suppose.