Persimmon Homes -- CEO £100m Bonus...

[crankedup]

Rovinghawk said:

crankedup said:

The ‘real living wage’ is adjudged by many charitable and influential groups to be around £1.50
over and above the minimum legal minimum. The real living wage is the sum of money which is deemed to offer a weekly wage packet which a person can just manage to make ends meet to live, apparently.

Hopefully their low but legal wages will encourage both these employees & others to work hard at school/nightschool/college/trade school/OU & get themselves better jobs.

Alternatively, if you wish to employ them on better terms & conditions then I salute you, sir, on your commitment to practising what you preach.

I’m not sure how much building site labour is of the immigrant EU variety. An old argument but then so is your own suggesting that ‘if you want to get on. work hard and study. It can work but is increasingly a very very competive, the best will rise to the top whereas the rest wont. Pay peanuts etc etc .
I no longer employ anybody having sold my business and retired years ago.

[crankedup]

TooMany2cvs said:

crankedup said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Less than minimum wage? Or less than "real living wage", whatever that is...

The ‘real living wage’ is adjudged by many charitable and influential groups to be around £1.50
over and above the minimum legal minimum. The real living wage is the sum of money which is deemed to offer a weekly wage packet which a person can just manage to make ends meet to live, apparently.

The figure usually waved around as the living wage is an average.
If you have a rummage for the source documentation from the academics who came up with the concept, there's different figures for different size households, as well as different parts of the country.

Indeed, and the average comes out at what I have stated. It’s an average number.

[Rovinghawk]

crankedup said:

. An old argument but then so is your own suggesting that ‘if you want to get on. work hard and study.

My argument is old but correct.

Such a pity that businesses do what they see fit rather what you would wish them to do.

[crankedup]

Rovinghawk said:

crankedup said:

. An old argument but then so is your own suggesting that ‘if you want to get on. work hard and study.

My argument is old but correct.

Such a pity that businesses do what they see fit rather what you would wish them to do.

Yes that’s true, but if you only need monkeys then peanuts is fine, it’s an argument that is correct dependant on the requirements of the business. Skilled staff are likely to find the best rate of pay.

[TooMany2cvs]

crankedup said:

TooMany2cvs said:

crankedup said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Less than minimum wage? Or less than "real living wage", whatever that is...

The ‘real living wage’ is adjudged by many charitable and influential groups to be around £1.50
over and above the minimum legal minimum. The real living wage is the sum of money which is deemed to offer a weekly wage packet which a person can just manage to make ends meet to live, apparently.

The figure usually waved around as the living wage is an average.
If you have a rummage for the source documentation from the academics who came up with the concept, there's different figures for different size households, as well as different parts of the country.

Indeed, and the average comes out at what I have stated. It’s an average number.

Great. So we're agreed that, as a one-size-fits-all number to wave about, it's meaningless, because it applies to nobody.

For many, the "living wage" is below the minimum wage. For some, it's more than twice the blended average.

[Burwood]

Always interesting reading Nick's perspective on all things 'property'.

[John145]

Rovinghawk said:

crankedup said:

. An old argument but then so is your own suggesting that ‘if you want to get on. work hard and study.

My argument is old but correct.

Such a pity that businesses do what they see fit rather what you would wish them to do.

This old argument fails at the test of “what if everyone worked harder?”. This argument does not benefit the populace but a select few of people who find themselves in the right place at the right time.

[blueg33]

John145 said:

This old argument fails at the test of “what if everyone worked harder?”. This argument does not benefit the populace but a select few of people who find themselves in the right place at the right time.

Luck is what you make of it. It’s having the ability to spot the opportunity and the balls to go for it.

Everyone I know who is successful in a national house builder has taken risks to get to their position. Pretty much all have started at or near the bottom.

Edited by blueg33 on Thursday 28th December 11:00

[crankedup]

TooMany2cvs said:

crankedup said:

TooMany2cvs said:

crankedup said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Less than minimum wage? Or less than "real living wage", whatever that is...

The ‘real living wage’ is adjudged by many charitable and influential groups to be around £1.50
over and above the minimum legal minimum. The real living wage is the sum of money which is deemed to offer a weekly wage packet which a person can just manage to make ends meet to live, apparently.

The figure usually waved around as the living wage is an average.
If you have a rummage for the source documentation from the academics who came up with the concept, there's different figures for different size households, as well as different parts of the country.

Indeed, and the average comes out at what I have stated. It’s an average number.

Great. So we're agreed that, as a one-size-fits-all number to wave about, it's meaningless, because it applies to nobody.

For many, the "living wage" is below the minimum wage. For some, it's more than twice the blended average.

We have to have a median average on most things in life, we all know that. To consider that the minimum wage applies to nobody is a little odd tbh. Thousands of businesses use the legal minimum as the wage offered
Are you serious in statingthe minimum wage and living wage applies to nobody??

[TooMany2cvs]

crankedup said:

We have to have a median average on most things in life, we all know that. To consider that the minimum wage applies to nobody is a little odd tbh. Thousands of businesses use the legal minimum as the wage offered
Are you serious in statingthe minimum wage and living wage applies to nobody??

Now where did I say the minimum wage applied to nobody? It doesn't. It applies to everybody.

The "living wage" figure generally used is a simple average from a basket of individual situations - and, as such, it applies directly to nobody, but those individual situations do apply (generally) to those who fit the categories.

But it was then further qualified in the previous post with "real living wage", as opposed presumably to some other kind of "living wage"... It's a concept that carries no legal weight whatsoever, unlike the minimum wage. I'm not saying that it's not a useful aspiration - but there's a whole raft of other knock-ons that get ignored. If the minimum wage rises drastically, then how does that affect inflation? How does it affect pay rates above minimum, and even above where minimum is going? If you're doing a more senior/responsible/involved/skilled role for 10/20/50% above minimum, aren't you going to want that gap to continue?

So if minimum wage goes to "living wage", and the costs of living rise, then doesn't the "living wage" also rise? So the new minimum needs to rise, which in turn...

[Rovinghawk]

John145 said:

This old argument fails at the test of “what if everyone worked harder?”.

This old argument succeeds on the basis that not everyone works harder. It has never been the case & never will. Some will always put in more effort than others.

John145 said:

This argument does not benefit the populace but a select few of people who find themselves in the right place at the right time.

I believe it was Einstein who said that many don't recognise opportunities because they come disguised as hard work.

[crankedup]

TooMany2cvs said:

crankedup said:

We have to have a median average on most things in life, we all know that. To consider that the minimum wage applies to nobody is a little odd tbh. Thousands of businesses use the legal minimum as the wage offered
Are you serious in statingthe minimum wage and living wage applies to nobody??

Now where did I say the minimum wage applied to nobody? It doesn't. It applies to everybody.

The "living wage" figure generally used is a simple average from a basket of individual situations - and, as such, it applies directly to nobody, but those individual situations do apply (generally) to those who fit the categories.

But it was then further qualified in the previous post with "real living wage", as opposed presumably to some other kind of "living wage"... It's a concept that carries no legal weight whatsoever, unlike the minimum wage. I'm not saying that it's not a useful aspiration - but there's a whole raft of other knock-ons that get ignored. If the minimum wage rises drastically, then how does that affect inflation? How does it affect pay rates above minimum, and even above where minimum is going? If you're doing a more senior/responsible/involved/skilled role for 10/20/50% above minimum, aren't you going to want that gap to continue?

So if minimum wage goes to "living wage", and the costs of living rise, then doesn't the "living wage" also rise? So the new minimum needs to rise, which in turn...

It’s called inflation, which is a good thing if so long as it is controlled inflation. As for the rest, lots of if and maybe. Wage gaps, productivity rewards, bonus payments, gifts in kind and all the rest that’s been part of the reward for work.
But like I said earlier the minimum wage is what 450 persimmon staff are paid, no pig at the trough bonus for them.

[crankedup]

John145 said:

Rovinghawk said:

crankedup said:

. An old argument but then so is your own suggesting that ‘if you want to get on. work hard and study.

My argument is old but correct.

Such a pity that businesses do what they see fit rather what you would wish them to do.

This old argument fails at the test of “what if everyone worked harder?”. This argument does not benefit the populace but a select few of people who find themselves in the right place at the right time.

The U.K. economy has been floated by cheap labour from parts of the EU. Indigenous UK workers could not live on the minimum wages offered without us tax payers subsidising with tax credits and the like. Tax payers have been subsiding business for decades whilst those at the top of the company have seen thier remnumeration packages increase.

[John145]

crankedup said:

John145 said:

Rovinghawk said:

crankedup said:

. An old argument but then so is your own suggesting that ‘if you want to get on. work hard and study.

My argument is old but correct.

Such a pity that businesses do what they see fit rather what you would wish them to do.

This old argument fails at the test of “what if everyone worked harder?”. This argument does not benefit the populace but a select few of people who find themselves in the right place at the right time.

The U.K. economy has been floated by cheap labour from parts of the EU. Indigenous UK workers could not live on the minimum wages offered without us tax payers subsidising with tax credits and the like. Tax payers have been subsiding business for decades whilst those at the top of the company have seen thier remnumeration packages increase.

Yup it’s obvious. Why the need for any benefit if you’re in full time employment? If you can’t afford to live on your salary a 50 hour a week job something isn’t right.

[Rovinghawk]

John145 said:

If you can’t afford to live on your salary a 50 hour a week job something isn’t right.

Please define 'afford to live'. I presume you include food & basic accomodation- do you include, drinking, smoking, internet connection, smartphones, Sky/Netflix, car, holidays, etc cetera?

Please clarify what you mean as it's very ambiguous.

[John145]

Rovinghawk said:

John145 said:

If you can’t afford to live on your salary a 50 hour a week job something isn’t right.

Please define 'afford to live'. I presume you include food & basic accomodation- do you include, drinking, smoking, internet connection, smartphones, Sky/Netflix, car, holidays, etc cetera?

Please clarify what you mean as it's very ambiguous.

Pay rent on a whole house and support 2 children. You may not like it but nowadays homework is done on a tablet not paper. So yes you need theee gadgets

[blueg33]

John145 said:

Rovinghawk said:

John145 said:

If you can’t afford to live on your salary a 50 hour a week job something isn’t right.

Please define 'afford to live'. I presume you include food & basic accomodation- do you include, drinking, smoking, internet connection, smartphones, Sky/Netflix, car, holidays, etc cetera?

Please clarify what you mean as it's very ambiguous.

Pay rent on a whole house and support 2 children. You may not like it but nowadays homework is done on a tablet not paper. So yes you need theee gadgets

Indeed. My daughter’s school bus is £1200 pa when both kids were at school it was double. That was to get them to the nearest 6th form.

[Rovinghawk]

John145 said:

Pay rent on a whole house and support 2 children. You may not like it but nowadays homework is done on a tablet not paper. So yes you need theee gadgets

Should people have children they can't afford? Put another way, if they want children should they not make sure they can earn enough to keep them properly?

[Burwood]

blueg33 said:

John145 said:

This old argument fails at the test of “what if everyone worked harder?”. This argument does not benefit the populace but a select few of people who find themselves in the right place at the right time.

Luck is what you make of it. It’s having the ability to spot the opportunity and the balls to go for it.

Everyone I know who is successful in a national house builder has taken risks to get to their position. Pretty much all have started at or near the bottom.

Edited by blueg33 on Thursday 28th December 11:00

Like so many success stories. I often hear others say 'I could have done that'. 'I should go into business, I've got a great idea'. When I suggest they'll need at least £100k and expect to make no money for years, potentially, they think i'm talking nonsense.

Not only do you need balls , you also need a very supportive spouse. It can be the route of many arguments, building a business from nothing and clawing your way up the ladder.

[blueg33]

John145 said:

Rovinghawk said:

John145 said:

If you can’t afford to live on your salary a 50 hour a week job something isn’t right.

Please define 'afford to live'. I presume you include food & basic accomodation- do you include, drinking, smoking, internet connection, smartphones, Sky/Netflix, car, holidays, etc cetera?

Please clarify what you mean as it's very ambiguous.

Pay rent on a whole house and support 2 children. You may not like it but nowadays homework is done on a tablet not paper. So yes you need theee gadgets

Indeed. My daughter’s school bus is £1200 pa when both kids were at school it was double. That was to get them to the nearest 6th form.