Minimum Wage,£7 an hour
Poll: Minimum Wage,£7 an hour
Total Members Polled: 313
Discussion
Dr Jekyll said:
Negative Creep said:
What about those under 21's who are never going to have the qualifications or skills to climb the ladder? Someone has to be at the bottom
If companies can afford to employ them, or to put it another way are allowed to pay them what they are currently worth, then they can acquire some skills. The minimum wage just pulls up the drawbridge. Negative Creep said:
I can see your point, but if there was no minimum wage would there be anything to stop unscrupulous employers paying £2-3 an hour? And whilst you could say people just would take such a job, if they're on JSA declining paid work can result in it being stopped
If the person can provide > £3 an hour of value someone will pay that, if they can only provide £2 worth it's not unscrupulous to pay £2. If that causes problems with JSA it isn't the employers fault. If we want to subsidise those who cannot currently provide more than £2 an hour value to an employer, we should do it through the benefits system. Putting the entire burden on those who employ unskilled staff means they won't get employed and will remain unskilled.There was an Italian motor industry tycoon who when old and infirm surrounded himself with beautiful nurses because 'ugly ones cost the same'. Whoever decided that ugly nurses must be paid the same as beautiful ones probably thought they were doing the ugly ones a favour, instead they were making them worse off. In fact it was probably the union of good looking nurse trying to restrict competition.
Digga said:
oyster said:
Negative Creep said:
I still don't think it would be high enough. I did a bit of an experiment recently on trying to rent a house with the current minimum wage (which we'll call £1000 a month after tax), single male with no children.
Rent £500 a month
Council tax £80
Bills £100
Petrol and insurance £100
Food £60
Mobile and internet £50
=£890
If the minimum wage went up so that same single make took home say £1100 instead of £1000, what do you think will happen to the rent costs? They'll rise to meet the new demand. And people will be back to square one.Rent £500 a month
Council tax £80
Bills £100
Petrol and insurance £100
Food £60
Mobile and internet £50
=£890
Just one single example of a whole raft of potential, unintended consequences that ensue when headline-grabbing politicians attempt to interfere in markets.
Another consideration would be the question "is someone who is worth employing at £x per hour still worth employing at £x+1 pounds per hour?" At some point, for some individuals, the sad but true answer is "no".
the one small business i know well, (familys fish & chip shop), employs at minimum wage and the bottom line would be fine if it was increased. But 99% of businesses, (including ours) won't be rushing to do it out of the goodness of their hearts. Some sorts of jobs don't attract pay rises naturally and yet life costs increase.
as for larger business, Tesco etc, that use a lot of minimum wagers, as we know this is where a lot of befit and housing payments go to make up wage gaps. In order to not interfere in markets i guess first of all those payments should stop and we should let the market either make up the wage gap or landlords reduce the price of rentals to the level the market would naturally dictate.
lots of people bang on about the government interfering in markets but would they really like the market to be left to find it's natural position, (i've been to china & india, it isn't pretty), it's all a balancing act and the question i guess is what kind of country do you want to live in.
if the idea was to raise it to £15 overnight that would be ridiculous. But i don't see the level we are at or a little more as a problem at all, especially if it was balanced out with cut's in welfare alongside.
There seems to be a lot of people on here, all of whom I am pretty sure are in well paid jobs, who simply have no idea of what life is like in the real world.
I used to work in the IT sector, mainly in the Finance sector. I earnt very good money, but trust me guys, things are not giaranteed to run smoothly in your life or career. I was made redundant at the age of 55, and believe me, getting back into IT proved impossible. I went back to what I started doing when I left school, working in the car trade.
Compared to what I do now, IT. Work was an absolute piece of pi$$. In at 9, have a coffee, have a chat, go to the subsidised canteen, sorry 'restaurant', at 1, finish at 5, easy life.
I now get up at 5, start work at 6 - and don't you dare be one minute late, ever. Work hard till a half hour break at 10.30, a pack up, no restaurant in these kind of places, and work through till a break at 2.30, and the finish at 6. It is real work, and it's hard, physically and mentally believe it or not - just try it! Anyway, I digress slightly, but there are people here who do the same hours, and are on minimum wage, they are all decent hard working lads, who would rather work than be on the dole, but they all struggle for money, they would all love to have their own flat, and be able to afford holidays, but it is tough for them. None of them will get promotion, that is their life unfortunately, some have families and can not afford to take any time off to pursue education. Another £2 an Hour will equate to an extra £80 a week, £3-400 a month, it makes a massive difference. Could the employers afford it? Of course they can, our dept alone puts through 200 cars a week, they can just charge a bit more for each car. I'm an ardent capitalist, however I've seen both sides of the coin, and people nowadays, in many jobs are exploited, and the answer from Many on here is "tough, all you deserve is a rented room, a cheap mobile, and don't go out and spend money unnecessarily".
I used to work in the IT sector, mainly in the Finance sector. I earnt very good money, but trust me guys, things are not giaranteed to run smoothly in your life or career. I was made redundant at the age of 55, and believe me, getting back into IT proved impossible. I went back to what I started doing when I left school, working in the car trade.
Compared to what I do now, IT. Work was an absolute piece of pi$$. In at 9, have a coffee, have a chat, go to the subsidised canteen, sorry 'restaurant', at 1, finish at 5, easy life.
I now get up at 5, start work at 6 - and don't you dare be one minute late, ever. Work hard till a half hour break at 10.30, a pack up, no restaurant in these kind of places, and work through till a break at 2.30, and the finish at 6. It is real work, and it's hard, physically and mentally believe it or not - just try it! Anyway, I digress slightly, but there are people here who do the same hours, and are on minimum wage, they are all decent hard working lads, who would rather work than be on the dole, but they all struggle for money, they would all love to have their own flat, and be able to afford holidays, but it is tough for them. None of them will get promotion, that is their life unfortunately, some have families and can not afford to take any time off to pursue education. Another £2 an Hour will equate to an extra £80 a week, £3-400 a month, it makes a massive difference. Could the employers afford it? Of course they can, our dept alone puts through 200 cars a week, they can just charge a bit more for each car. I'm an ardent capitalist, however I've seen both sides of the coin, and people nowadays, in many jobs are exploited, and the answer from Many on here is "tough, all you deserve is a rented room, a cheap mobile, and don't go out and spend money unnecessarily".
It's easy to point fingers, but most problems are caused by the civil service in hoc with ministers and the media. But mainly the government of the day. The buck stops with them. The encouragement of the use of housing stock as a means of parking capital mainly by the previous labour government is both nihilistic and almost suicidal to a stable economy. Yes, granted we have had property booms in the past , but btl as a profession was almost unheard of before 1997, it really did happen on new labours watch. Rising house prices were meanwhile used as a carrot to placate the people labour hates most but can't do without. The fact that the state now has to semi subsidise the working class is because of its own largesse, pretty ironic really, government spending is too high, and consequently the cost of living is too high etc etc. Wether you view labours high spending as investment, or building a client state depends which side of the fence you sit.
Digga said:
I was staggered to hear the crass simplicity of Labour ministers saying the increase in MW would 'cost nothing' because it would reduce reliance on benefit and increase tax contributions; absolutely no thought to the consequences of the firms that will have to employ these people. It is a zero sum game - if you increase one set of business overheads, then either firms go bust or otherwise reduce other spending, which may be capital or other forms of investment.
It is not the role of business and industry to find jobs for those the system have failed to educate.
Jacking the MW wage up may simply result in more indigenous unemployment as firms seek to gain more productivity - to compensate for higher wage costs - by actively recruiting immigrant workers. It's happening to an extent already.
The left are masters of the politics of unintended consequences. Economically and commercially dyslexic.
I was listening to a speech by Gordon Brown on the weekend, he was talking about the problems of globalisation and the loss of manufacturing jobs in Scotland. It was a good speech and I thought that maybe the Labour party have finally understood that companies have options and if the cost of employing people in the UK is too high then we lose jobs to overseas competition. But no, it's business as usual and they think that business has no choice other than the one they offer. On the other hand I have no problem with a minimum wage of £8/hr, it's not a fortune and I pay more than that already.It is not the role of business and industry to find jobs for those the system have failed to educate.
Jacking the MW wage up may simply result in more indigenous unemployment as firms seek to gain more productivity - to compensate for higher wage costs - by actively recruiting immigrant workers. It's happening to an extent already.
The left are masters of the politics of unintended consequences. Economically and commercially dyslexic.
Dr Jekyll said:
Negative Creep said:
I can see your point, but if there was no minimum wage would there be anything to stop unscrupulous employers paying £2-3 an hour? And whilst you could say people just would take such a job, if they're on JSA declining paid work can result in it being stopped
If the person can provide > £3 an hour of value someone will pay that, if they can only provide £2 worth it's not unscrupulous to pay £2. If that causes problems with JSA it isn't the employers fault. If we want to subsidise those who cannot currently provide more than £2 an hour value to an employer, we should do it through the benefits system. Putting the entire burden on those who employ unskilled staff means they won't get employed and will remain unskilled.There was an Italian motor industry tycoon who when old and infirm surrounded himself with beautiful nurses because 'ugly ones cost the same'. Whoever decided that ugly nurses must be paid the same as beautiful ones probably thought they were doing the ugly ones a favour, instead they were making them worse off. In fact it was probably the union of good looking nurse trying to restrict competition.
Negative Creep said:
So you'd be in favour of businesses increasing profits whilst everyone else picks up the shortfall in taxes.
The point is that raising the minimum wage does not cause businesses to 'pick up the shortfall' it causes them not to employ anyone. The real minimum wage is always zero.If it bothers you so much, why don't you go and employ some unskilled people on £8 an hour? What do you mean you can't afford it? How dare you worry about your profits?
Grandfondo said:
soad said:
Grandfondo said:
P.S. Why is a mobile phone an essential and if it is a £10 Tesco would suffice with a payg sim.
How else will any potential employers be able to contact you? Letter?
Obviously, things like emails on the go and mobile internet is usefull too.
JensenA said:
...
Compared to what I do now, IT. Work was an absolute piece of pi$$. In at 9, have a coffee, have a chat, go to the subsidised canteen, sorry 'restaurant', at 1, finish at 5, easy life. ...
Easy life....until you were made redundant.Compared to what I do now, IT. Work was an absolute piece of pi$$. In at 9, have a coffee, have a chat, go to the subsidised canteen, sorry 'restaurant', at 1, finish at 5, easy life. ...
There is no such thing as an "easy life" and to earn good money and minimise your chances of being cast adrift. Doesn't matter what the industry IMO.
The people who don't live in the real world are those expecting an uptick in benefit with no downside. One way or another there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Dr Jekyll said:
The point is that raising the minimum wage does not cause businesses to 'pick up the shortfall' it causes them not to employ anyone. The real minimum wage is always zero.
If it bothers you so much, why don't you go and employ some unskilled people on £8 an hour? What do you mean you can't afford it? How dare you worry about your profits?
Just because labour is 'unskilled' it doesn't make it worth nothing, without that labour there are no profits. They are as much part of the end product as any other part of the business.If it bothers you so much, why don't you go and employ some unskilled people on £8 an hour? What do you mean you can't afford it? How dare you worry about your profits?
Yes they are more easily replaced, but they are humans with families living in our country and we would rather not have the slums of india with dollar a day workers on our doorstep thanks.
super cheap labour also contributes to over supply and over consumption, and i'm sure everyone keeps banging on about how we all buy to much stuff.
the real minimum wage is the amount somewhere between what business can take and the shortfall the tax payer is willing to make up so that both business functions within the country and we don't have slums on our doorstep.
zero is slave labour, which many many business owners said would drive them under when it was abolished.
Prawnboy said:
Dr Jekyll said:
The point is that raising the minimum wage does not cause businesses to 'pick up the shortfall' it causes them not to employ anyone. The real minimum wage is always zero.
If it bothers you so much, why don't you go and employ some unskilled people on £8 an hour? What do you mean you can't afford it? How dare you worry about your profits?
Just because labour is 'unskilled' it doesn't make it worth nothing, without that labour there are no profits. They are as much part of the end product as any other part of the business.If it bothers you so much, why don't you go and employ some unskilled people on £8 an hour? What do you mean you can't afford it? How dare you worry about your profits?
Yes they are more easily replaced, but they are humans with families living in our country and we would rather not have the slums of india with dollar a day workers on our doorstep thanks.
super cheap labour also contributes to over supply and over consumption, and i'm sure everyone keeps banging on about how we all buy to much stuff.
the real minimum wage is the amount somewhere between what business can take and the shortfall the tax payer is willing to make up so that both business functions within the country and we don't have slums on our doorstep.
zero is slave labour, which many many business owners said would drive them under when it was abolished.
If a business makes widgets that people will pay £3 for and someone can make two in an hour. You can't pay them £8 an hour. You can't just charge £5 for each widget, because at that cost your customers will buy wodgets from China for £3.10 instead.
Prawnboy said:
lots of people bang on about the government interfering in markets but would they really like the market to be left to find it's natural position, (i've been to china & india, it isn't pretty), it's all a balancing act and the question i guess is what kind of country do you want to live in.
It seems I have news for you; we are all now part of the same global economy. No one has drawn a line in the sand to say any western developed economy is entitled to their current (or recent) share of global wealth. We are all competing and without the right mindset; politics, business, education, employers, employees, we will be living in squalor here too.paulrockliffe said:
I think you've completely missed the point. Zero minimum wage isn't slave labour, it's not having a job at all.
If a business makes widgets that people will pay £3 for and someone can make two in an hour. You can't pay them £8 an hour. You can't just charge £5 for each widget, because at that cost your customers will buy wodgets from China for £3.10 instead.
not having a job is unemployed, a zero minimum wage, (as was the post i was answering too) is slave labour. If a business makes widgets that people will pay £3 for and someone can make two in an hour. You can't pay them £8 an hour. You can't just charge £5 for each widget, because at that cost your customers will buy wodgets from China for £3.10 instead.
the widgets long since went to china & india where they will be made cheaply until the living standards in that country rise to a point where people need more money to live in that country.
as with everything in capitalism, the widget has an inherent value, if that widget no longer has a monetary value it is of no use and will fall by the wayside, if the widget is actually useful people will pay more for it.
again the point is it's all a balancing act. When there is a certain cost/standard of living we would generally except a working person in this country to have, ie. a proper roof over their head with amenities & food, this has to be met by the employer and on a low wage in our country supplemented by benefits.
would you like people to.
a) have no minimum wage and have the tax payer pick up a larger shortfall.
i would imagine middle england would love a larger benefit bill
b) have no minimum wage and no benefits top up.
won't be popular with private landlords who rent to people on housing benefit with the resultant rent drop, or anyone else with a house when a load of those buy to lets get dumped on the market.
Prawnboy said:
would you like people to.
a) have no minimum wage and have the tax payer pick up a larger shortfall.
i would imagine middle england would love a larger benefit bill
b) have no minimum wage and no benefits top up.
won't be popular with private landlords who rent to people on housing benefit with the resultant rent drop, or anyone else with a house when a load of those buy to lets get dumped on the market.
Here's another option for you:a) have no minimum wage and have the tax payer pick up a larger shortfall.
i would imagine middle england would love a larger benefit bill
b) have no minimum wage and no benefits top up.
won't be popular with private landlords who rent to people on housing benefit with the resultant rent drop, or anyone else with a house when a load of those buy to lets get dumped on the market.
People actually go to school, learn stuff, acquire skills & work hard. They then get a less menial job with higher wage & greater benefit to society. This improves their lot, reduces the benefit bill & makes a wealthier (healthier?) society.
I don't think it'll catch on, but it's a lovely pipe dream.
Prawnboy said:
the point is it's all a balancing act.
It really isn't, raising the minimum wage feeds inflation. Stuff costs more until it becomes unnafordable, and there's a clamour to raise the minimum wage again. Which feeds more inflation. It's a downward spiral that doesn't do anything tangible in the long term other than reduce the country's competitivness and productivity. It's another way of borrowing living standards today that are then paid for over the long-term.
The only solution is education as a way of increasing productivity relative to other countries. Anything else is twiddling around the margins.
paulrockliffe said:
Prawnboy said:
the point is it's all a balancing act.
It really isn't, raising the minimum wage feeds inflation. Stuff costs more until it becomes unnafordable, and there's a clamour to raise the minimum wage again. Which feeds more inflation. It's a downward spiral that doesn't do anything tangible in the long term other than reduce the country's competitivness and productivity. It's another way of borrowing living standards today that are then paid for over the long-term.
The only solution is education as a way of increasing productivity relative to other countries. Anything else is twiddling around the margins.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff