Minimum Wage

[Section_31]

32 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

i remember reading a few years ago,chris grayling getting paid about 30 k a year for doing about 10 hrs a month "consultancy" work

 

meanwhile people work about 50 hrs a week,doing 2 jobs jobs,just to keep heir heads above water

 

George Osborne makes a mint out of it despite being widely regarded as financially illiterate. His only jobs outside politics were data entry clerk for the NHS and folding towels in selfridges.

[Kepler-186]

It’s a couple of years old now but Mike Carter’s All Together Now is a great book.
 

He retraces the People’s March For Jobs that left Liverpool in ‘81 and which his somewhat estranged Dad helped organise. Walks from Liverpool and meets people who took part and strangers along the way. 
 

We used to build shit…….
 

 

[HazelyCosmicJove]

20 hours ago, Jairzinho said:

 

Life has improved over the last 10,000 years.

That is helpful.

[HazelyCosmicJove]

2 hours ago, Section_31 said:

Some of the poorest people I've ever met are the hardest working. Woman my Mrs knew had three jobs and was broke. She was a dinner lady, school cleaner then went to work in B&M. 

 

The richest people are often bottom feeders. Property flippers, speculators and the likes. The idea that the wealthy contribute more is horseshit, as was evidenced by covid, shop workers and care workers were essential, yet were and are paid pennies.

 

I read a thing a while ago about how the states and Western Europe were built by the protestant work ethic. Not the work ethic itself alone, but frugal lifestyles that meant people saved their money and had their own wealth.

 

That's exactly what our system doesn't want. It doesn't want you to have financial freedom, no matter how hard you work. It wants you treading hot coals so the fear of destitution keeps you motivated to eat shit.

 

Note too how poor our adult education system is. If you want to retrain for a better paid job good luck with that, unless you want to paint nails while speaking conversational Spanish.

 

I'm not into conspiracies but is it any surprise that after lockdown, when people saved money as they had nothing to spend it on (you couldn't get a builder in Liverpool as everyone had loads of money to spend on extensions and the likes), people were quitting jobs to pursue their dreams of, you know, happiness. The great resignation.

 

Then emerged a 'cost of living' crisis and now all same said people are broke again and fearing for the future.

 

* strokes chin.

 

So in the context of minimum wages it doesn't matter. Any rises barely touch the sides anyway and it's largely performance art. 

 

The issue is the fundamental stricture of our society and how wealth flows (doesn't flow) through it. The destructive evidence is around us for all to see. And that's not going to change until we hit rock bottom, which I fear we're not far off.

[lifetime fan]

5 hours ago, Spy Bee said:

Minimum wage is an hourly rate, so they are paying more.

They're paying the absolute minimum and demanding more. 
 

I’ve spent 26 years working in health and social care, believe me I know how carers get fucked over. 

[lifetime fan]

3 hours ago, TheSire said:

They should eat only bread and are allowed 30 minutes allocated leasure time per day. 50 lashings if they ask for a pay rise.

Just not moist bread or have a dinner break. 
 

That’s for wimps. 

[redinblack]

The people bitching over a minimum wage are probably descended from the industrialists who said British industry would be dragged to its knees by the abolition of slavery.

 

All we hear is that people should not be greedy on pay settlements but for some reason this never covers directors remuneration. 

 

Cameron made that " all in it together" crack I don't think they even bother with that pretence now billionaires set the agenda and it's just going to get worse. Labour haven't a fucking chance.

[TheHowieLama]

There shouldn't be a minimum wage because there really shouldn't be the need for one.

 

However, if you are making the argument that a gubmint needs to get involved for the good of it's people by setting a minimum wage then it becomes difficult to frame an argument where capping the same wouldn't achieve similar goals. 

By difficult read impossible.

 

In a sense that is what Bernie is saying with a 99% tax above a certain wealth.

 

My analogy before about limiting the size of an individuals "personal bucket" in terms of assets/wealth is really enforced Reagan trickle down economics.

[TheSire]

1 hour ago, lifetime fan said:

Just not moist bread or have a dinner break. 
 

That’s for wimps. 

Mind over matter

[TheSire]

3 hours ago, Arniepie said:

i remember reading a few years ago,chris grayling getting paid about 30 k a year for doing about 10 hrs a month "consultancy" work

 

meanwhile people work about 50 hrs a week,doing 2 jobs jobs,just to keep heir heads above water

They just need to work harder though. 

[Spy Bee]

3 hours ago, lifetime fan said:

They're paying the absolute minimum and demanding more. 
 

I’ve spent 26 years working in health and social care, believe me I know how carers get fucked over. 

I'm not talking about carers. I'm just talking about minimum wage.

 

I think carers do deserve a lot more pay, but the markets unfortunately dictate that's not the case. They are worth it though!

[Spy Bee]

6 hours ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

Don't you think there should be a minimum wage, or that it should be higher?

That's the whole point of this thread. I don't think it provides the desired outcome.

[TheHowieLama]

3 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

That's the whole point of this thread. I don't think it provides the desired outcome.

Because it shouldn't exist or because it needs to be higher to be effective?

[Spy Bee]

5 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Because it shouldn't exist or because it needs to be higher to be effective?

I don't think it works as a policy in isolation. As I said in the OP, I totally agree with a minimum standard of living, but I don't think that minimum wage is an effective policy to achieve it.

[lifetime fan]

1 hour ago, Spy Bee said:

I'm not talking about carers. I'm just talking about minimum wage.

 

I think carers do deserve a lot more pay, but the markets unfortunately dictate that's not the case. They are worth it though!

The fact there’s a ‘market’ for health and social care is the problem. 

[A Red]

1 hour ago, lifetime fan said:

The fact there’s a ‘market’ for health and social care is the problem. 

In the main carers don't need qualifications to get a job, therefore their pay will reflect that as long as there are enough people prepared to do the job.

 

I have the utmost respect for them, I certainly couldn't do it and they should be paid more but as far as the job market is concerned they are down the scale.

[Lee909]

7 hours ago, Spy Bee said:

I'm not talking about carers. I'm just talking about minimum wage.

 

I think carers do deserve a lot more pay, but the markets unfortunately dictate that's not the case. They are worth it though!

 

The market doesn't dictate shit when it comes to Careers,cleaners,security, facilities type workers at big offices. What dictates everything is certain major companies like CBRE,OCS,G4S getting every contract under the sun and making sure that wages and conditions have stagnated. There is little to market to set conditions and offer better pay anymore as the major corporation get all the contracts and fuck everyone over. 3 months ago one took over everything(security,cleaning, engineers,post room etc) on our site. 3 months and every month most of the people I work with wages haven't gone in on payday, they've been paid 12/24hrs late, cleaners crying on site as there direct debits are due a d they are shirt £600 wages. I've seen all of them the past few years undercut prices,stagnated wages, try and change contracts. Cleaning supplies have been scrapped to use water to clean desk,toilet paper changed to the type you got in school in the 80/90s. 

 

The first thing our new company tried to do was cut 2 days holiday off us by saying we dint technically work a 5 day week we work 4.6 days, ignoring we work 56hr weeks on average compared to managers 37.5 who get 28. But they fucked up in the tupe process so had to give us 28. This is what your dealing with in these industries. It's turning into the US with a few major corporations running everything and the only thing that matters is profit

[Spy Bee]

This is probably all true, but it doesn't apply to care.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

16 hours ago, Spy Bee said:

I don't think it works as a policy in isolation. As I said in the OP, I totally agree with a minimum standard of living, but I don't think that minimum wage is an effective policy to achieve it.

 

Crypto? 

[Spy Bee]

1 minute ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

 

Crypto? 

?

[Skidfingers McGonical]

Just now, Spy Bee said:

?

I’m taking the piss mate. Miss your crypto tweets where a few of us could post a confused GIF in response for shits and giggles. 

[Spy Bee]

2 minutes ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

I’m taking the piss mate. Miss your crypto tweets where a few of us could post a confused GIF in response for shits and giggles. 

Back in the halcyon days of Twitter!

 

I still dabble with crypto, but getting out in April. I've calculated my hourly rate to be circa 2p and hour. Well below minimum wage!

[Jack the Sipper]

16 hours ago, Spy Bee said:

That's the whole point of this thread. I don't think it provides the desired outcome.

 

The point of the thread is to debate that, surely.

 

You've said that you don't think MW works because you don't think people at the lower end of the wage scale are better off now than before it was introduced. But where's your evidence for that? And why don't you think raising it would work for them? You've also mentioned that MW has lowered the gap between different wage levels as another reason why you're against the principle of it. But why would that be a problem for people on MW exactly? 

 

Do you believe in state intervention into wage levels, whether it's MW or another mechanism, or do you trust the 'free market' to arrive at the right solution?

 

In an ideal world there wouldn't be a need for the state to intervene to provide a basic standard of living to people who work. But then in an ideal world there wouldn't be a need for prisons etc. It's my view that anyone who works FT should be able to provide for themselves and enjoy a certain level of prosperity regardless of the job they do. While there's companies that are fixated on profit and ready to exploit a pool of people desperate for some income I believe there needs to be some level of protection from that from the state.

[Spy Bee]

A lot of questions... My belief anecdotally, is that nobody is better off. I don't think increasing minimum wage is the answer because they've increased it 50% in five years and it's not (in my opinion) had a beneficial impact. Also, I think it just has a direct impact on prices going up. 

 

I think in principle state intervention should help the situation, although so far I don't think it has done. I do think they need to ensure a minimum standard of living, but I don't know how they do that.

 

I think this concept of companies being greedy, when 60% of privately employed people are employed by SME's is a bit obtuse. Many SME's are struggling to survive and the only thing they can do is increase their prices and hope customers will still pay. 

 

Let's think of an example. You have a cafe, employing 10 people on minimum wage. As a company you make £50k per year, but not the new minimum wage and NIC's means your costs have just gone up by £26k per year, so you need to put your prices up to ensure a sustainable profit. The thing is, all your suppliers are in the same situation, so all their prices are going up too. The people on minimum wage, now can't afford to eat in your cafe, so your revenue drops off. It's a really difficult spiral. 

 

I think ultimately, we have to look at reducing the top end, rather than increasing the bottom end. 

[Jack the Sipper]

26 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

A lot of questions... My belief anecdotally, is that nobody is better off. I don't think increasing minimum wage is the answer because they've increased it 50% in five years and it's not (in my opinion) had a beneficial impact. Also, I think it just has a direct impact on prices going up. 

 

I think in principle state intervention should help the situation, although so far I don't think it has done. I do think they need to ensure a minimum standard of living, but I don't know how they do that.

 

I think this concept of companies being greedy, when 60% of privately employed people are employed by SME's is a bit obtuse. Many SME's are struggling to survive and the only thing they can do is increase their prices and hope customers will still pay. 

 

Let's think of an example. You have a cafe, employing 10 people on minimum wage. As a company you make £50k per year, but not the new minimum wage and NIC's means your costs have just gone up by £26k per year, so you need to put your prices up to ensure a sustainable profit. The thing is, all your suppliers are in the same situation, so all their prices are going up too. The people on minimum wage, now can't afford to eat in your cafe, so your revenue drops off. It's a really difficult spiral. 

 

I think ultimately, we have to look at reducing the top end, rather than increasing the bottom end. 

 

So, your belief that MW doesn't work, that it hasn't made people better off than they were/would've been before it is based on anecdotes? And every anecdote you've heard has said the same thing? Really? You should expect a lot of questions when you come to the table presenting contentious arguments using anecdotes as your back-up. And where's your (non-anecdote-based) evidence that it's helped push prices up? You do know that the MW was introduced in 1998, and for much of the period between then and now inflation was very low? 

 

I've not said that companies are inherently greedy (although some are), but that they are fixated on profit, which they are, obviously. Their bottom line is to return a profit, or else they're effectively charities. As someone else mentioned above, if a company can't stay afloat and prosper without paying all of its staff a decent level of income then its not a viable business in the first instance.

 

But, if you don't think MW has made a different to wage levels, then why would that even be an issue for you? Surely, according to you, these companies that you think are struggling to pay MW would be paying broadly the same wages anyway, or even more, if it didn't exist, otherwise your argument about MW not increasing wage levels in real terms and not making people better off wouldn't make sense.