Would anyone like a sensible discussion about low pay?

[Ian J]

"Person A is single, no children, small 1 bed flat 2 minutes from work, doesn't need a car, is paid £14 an hour and is very comfortably of."

This is me. I am person A. Single, one bed flat, I walk to work down the street from me and don't need a car, I'm on £12 an hour for night shift. I am nowhere near very comfortable lol.

Much depends on where one lives as rents are much cheaper in some towns than others

 

[Newchodge]

I have a bee in my bonnet about the low paid workers quoted by the media as they all appear to be single mothers. In the old days fathers were obliged to continue to support their children even after they had pushed off but this is something that has since gone by the wayside and it is now the role of the state to finance the upbringing of their children.

Perhaps if the hardline Child Support Agency was bought back and more fathers were made to pay for their children the reliance on the state would be much reduced

Something similar still exists, although it is now called the Child Maintenance Srvice. I don't know if it works. I know the CSA had massive issues.

 

[UKSBD]

I said you can't give someone a higher base pay because their life outside work is different than someone else's. That's not related to the business. Not an employers role to fund their lifestyle and life choices.

I didn't say the employer should pay someone a higher base rate, but should the state pay person B so they can afford to live (housing benefit, childcare costs, etc.)?

 

[UKSBD]

Absolutely. Provided the employer is paying a reasonable rate, bearing in mind their profit levels.

So going back to my original question

"Do you think it is wrong that Universal Credit is used to subsidise low wages or do you think it is a good idea/system"

You would be in the camp that says it is a good idea? (in circumstances when the employer is paying a fair wage)

I agree with that, but wouldn't dare saying it on the likes of Twitter though, you would get lynched

 

[japancool]

In the old days fathers were obliged to continue to support their children even after they had pushed off

Has that changed? What did they do?

 

[japancool]

You would be in the camp that says it is a good idea? (in circumstances when the employer is paying a fair wage)

I am of the opinion that it's not right but in the current economy, it's necessary.

There's no blanket way to say whether a wage is fair or not. All I would say is that if you can't find people to do the work without a government subsidy, then it's probably not fair.

 

[NickGrogan]

In the old days fathers were obliged to continue to support their children even after they had pushed off

My dad "pushed off" in 1970, and never paid a penny.

When were these Old Days that you speak of?

 

[Newchodge]

I am of the opinion that it's not right but in the current economy, it's necessary.

There's no blanket way to say whether a wage is fair or not. All I would say is that if you can't find people to do the work without a government subsidy, then it's probably not fair.

The state should be there to ensure that no one lacks the necessities of life - shelter, warmth, food. clothing. education, health care, etc. An employer should ensure their employees are paid fair and reasonable wages, taking into account the resources of he employer. The 2 things should be separate. Someone may have needs that cost more than an employer will reasonably pay them, It is then the role of the state to ensure the needs are met.

 

[japancool]

Someone may have needs that cost more than an employer will reasonably pay them, It is then the role of the state to ensure the needs are met.

Sure, where those are needs rather than choices. Someone who has a chronic health condition should be provided with what they need (then again, I say that because this is me).

Likewise, someone who has children to provide for and has fallen into circumstances beyond their control should be looked after by the state. But I have little sympathy for someone who chooses to have multiple children with multiple fathers when they're on benefits, such as the family of Shannon Matthews. Of course, I realise such people are in a minority.

But if a job can't provide enough for a single person living in a one-bedroom flat, there's something wrong.

 

[NickGrogan]

The state should be there to ensure that no one lacks the necessities of life - shelter, warmth, food. clothing. education, health care, etc. An employer should ensure their employees are paid fair and reasonable wages, taking into account the resources of he employer. The 2 things should be separate. Someone may have needs that cost more than an employer will reasonably pay them, It is then the role of the state to ensure the needs are met.

What is the person's responsibility?

 

[Ian J]

My dad "pushed off" in 1970, and never paid a penny.

When were these Old Days that you speak of?

The nineties and early noughties

 

[Ian J]

Something similar still exists, although it is now called the Child Maintenance Srvice. I don't know if it works. I know the CSA had massive issues.

It's not the same though as it's very soft centres. Absent fathers just have to say that they are skint and they get away with it. My next door neighbour's daughter took the father of her child to the CMS and he was ordered to make payments which he never does pleading poverty despite just having bought himslef a new BMW

The old CSA did have problems as it upset too many people by chasing them aggressively and even taking the payments via deductions from their wages

 

[UKSBD]

What is the person's responsibility?

To do a full weeks work when practical.

It's often not practical though if childcare costs are more than what the person can possibly earn.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

Thanks.

My 1st question is,

I read a lot of people saying that it is crazy that Universal Credit is used to subsidise low wages.

Do you think it is wrong that Universal Credit is used to subsidise low wages or do you think it is a good idea/system? Edit to add: Or something in-between.

Tony Blair introduced this named as something else. This held back wage growth and was supported by job centres at the time . How can Tesco be called a profit making company when a lot of its wage bill is paid by the government?

The challenge in the real world is recruiting and importantly retaining good people . This will often involve you raising wages to assist the cost of living in order to maintain the quality of your organisation

 

[Avilon]

The state should be there to ensure that no one lacks the necessities of life - shelter, warmth, food. clothing. education, health care, etc. An employer should ensure their employees are paid fair and reasonable wages, taking into account the resources of he employer. The 2 things should be separate. Someone may have needs that cost more than an employer will reasonably pay them, It is then the role of the state to ensure the needs are met.

Was this thing called socialism or communism ? I am not good with the ideological terms. Is not the countries already corporations ? is not UK already a company, for example, belonging to the royal family and maybe some other groups ?

 

[fisicx]

is not UK already a company, for example, belonging to the royal family and maybe some other groups ?

No it’s not.

 

[UKSBD]

Well, ultimately in that case, it's a choice made by person B to work and live there. He has a choice to move closer, take public transport or find a job closer to home.

He may find that it cost more in rent to live 2 minutes away from his work than it cost in travel expenses living 20 miles away.

And he may find the jobs closer to where he is living are paying £12 an hour rather than £14

 

[Fagin2021]

The state should be there to ensure that no one lacks the necessities of life - shelter, warmth, food. clothing. education, health care, etc. An employer should ensure their employees are paid fair and reasonable wages, taking into account the resources of he employer. The 2 things should be separate. Someone may have needs that cost more than an employer will reasonably pay them, It is then the role of the state to ensure the needs are met.

I do wish that instead of saying: "The state should.....", people used the phrase "Other people and their families should pay for..."

Adds a little perspective.

 

[Newchodge]

Likewise, someone who has children to provide for and has fallen into circumstances beyond their control should be looked after by the state. But I have little sympathy for someone who chooses to have multiple children with multiple fathers when they're on benefits, such as the family of Shannon Matthews. Of course, I realise such people are in a minority.

But, once the children exist, however inappropriate the parental decision to have them, should the state allow them to starve?

 

[Newchodge]

The old CSA did have problems as it upset too many people by chasing them aggressively and even taking the payments via deductions from their wages

I think the bigger issue was its failure to pass the money collected to the child's carer,

 

[Newchodge]

Was this thing called socialism or communism ? I am not good with the ideological terms. Is not the countries already corporations ? is not UK already a company, for example, belonging to the royal family and maybe some other groups ?

I am sorry, I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about.

 

[Newchodge]

I do wish that instead of saying: "The state should.....", people used the phrase "Other people and their families should pay for..."

Adds a little perspective.

It may add perspective, but it is wrong. It is an obligation of the state not of other people and their families.

 

[hg5guy]

I think that a government could be more creative with minimum wage + subsidising those in full time work.

There are industries with very low margins which are highly sensitive to increases in the minimum wage, its OK the lady above saying that these must be non-viable businesses and should be allowed to fail, only often they are things like food producers and processors and I mean, do we really need fewer food producers and less competition when food price inflation is absolutely insane?

I think that secure full-time permanent roles should retain the existing minimum wage but the minimum wage should be significantly increased for unsecure temp / casual / zero hour contract work, in order to incentivise an increase in the number of permanent 35/40 hour a week jobs on offer at places like Sports Direct and Amazon. Make it more expensive for them to use temps or casuals.

That way if the taxpayer is subsidising wages it is at least more often for people in reliable secure work. It can only be good for the economy to have more people on a fixed regular wage, it would certainly help bring down household debt and to smooth out volatility in consumer demand.

 

[japancool]

But, once the children exist, however inappropriate the parental decision to have them, should the state allow them to starve?

Certainly not. But there should be a system that makes the parents accountable for what they spend the money on, to ensure it goes towards the needs of the children. Perhaps the government should not provide cash, but provide the children's needs directly.

 

[japancool]

Make it more expensive for them to use temps or casuals.

Do Amazon use a lot of temp and casual workers?

 

[hg5guy]

Certainly not. But there should be a system that makes the parents accountable for what they spend the money on, to ensure it goes towards the needs of the children. Perhaps the government should not provide cash, but provide the children's needs directly.

There is, its called Social Services.

If you don't look after your children properly you get them taken into care.

The number of children in the care system is at an all time high.

 

[japancool]

There is, its called Social Services.

If you don't look after your children properly you get them taken into care.

The number of children in the care system is at an all time high.

I'm not talking about social services.

 

[UKSBD]

I think that secure full-time permanent roles should retain the existing minimum wage but the minimum wage should be significantly increased for unsecure temp / casual / zero hour contract work, in order to incentivise an increase in the number of permanent 35/40 hour a week jobs on offer at places like Sports Direct and Amazon. Make it more expensive for them to use temps or casuals.

Increase Employer and Employee NI thresholds to the PAYE rate and there would be a lot more benefit for those currently working 16 hours a week to work 24 hours

 

[hg5guy]

Do Amazon use a lot of temp and casual workers?

Yes. extensively in their UK fulfilment centres, they use Adecco and PMP Recruitment.

 

[Newchodge]

Certainly not. But there should be a system that makes the parents accountable for what they spend the money on, to ensure it goes towards the needs of the children. Perhaps the government should not provide cash, but provide the children's needs directly.

I really cannot see that working. Apart from anything else the administrative cost would far outweigh the amount to be paid out.

 

[hg5guy]

I really cannot see that working. Apart from anything else the administrative cost would far outweigh the amount to be paid out.

I'm assuming that they mean things like getting nappy vouchers and baby formula vouchers in place of some of the cash element.

In practice though they could still flog those vouchers, that's what happens in the USA... flog $20 worth of food stamps for $15 in cash etc.

 

[Deleted member 335660]

As you can see @UKSBD its not so simple.

In an ideal world the lowest paid worker should be able to feed and provide shelter for themselves, but then it’s a question of whether they choose to live alone or have a family.

The Child Benefit Idea was to encourage and support people who wanted children but now we have a lot of single parents.

Companies can only pay wage levels according to profitability but even highly profitable ones can have bosses that pay the lowest wages.

Any organisation will need to pay the market rate for the job. I earned good money back in the 80’s because there were few sales people who could sell these new computer systems.

Computers are replacing many of the “skilled” jobs and hence organisations like the Libdems etc. have been looking into alternative scenarios like UBI whereby companies are taxed on a different basis.

Any Government support needs to ensure that whilst helping people in need, it does not discourage them from becoming self supporting.

Finally of course, people make choices and have to live their lives accordingly.

 

[UKSBD]

As you can see @UKSBD its not so simple.

It's the press that try to make it not simple.

As I said in previous post, hot topic in a lot of places like Twitter is people saying it is ridiculous that state benefits are used to top up low pay.

The people used in examples are usually single people living alone with children, people only working part time, people incapable of working full time, etc.

Why should it be the employers duty to pay these people enough to not need support when what they pay is more than adequate for a single person or a person part of a couple with children?

If a single parent with 2 children needs to earn £18 an hour just to live, but one half of a couple with 2 children can live comfortably on £14 an hour why is the employer being chastised rather than the state?

Employers are basically taking the blame for the states (all governments) failure to provide adequate cheap housing and affordable childcare.

 

[UKSBD]

How can Tesco be called a profit making company when a lot of its wage bill is paid by the government?

Because the wages they pay to a single person, or one half of a couple with children are more than adequate.

Why should the wage rate be determined by a single parent with children?

If an employer is paying a rate which is adequate for a couple with 2 children to be financially OK, why should that employer get chastised if the rate of pay isn't high enough that a single parent with 3 children has to claim extra benefits?

 

[Newchodge]

Because the wages they pay to a single person, or one half of a couple with children are more than adequate.

IF that were correct you have a perfectly valid argument. Tesco pays, I believe £10.30 per hour outside London. They also have (or had) a policy of giving staff contracts for a maximum of 18 hours, which is an improvement on their previous policy of only giving zero hours contracts.

That means a worker has a guaranteed wage of £185.40 per week. That is tight with rent at least £100 oer week and council tax perhaps £30. That leaves £55.40 for gas, electricity, water, food, transport, phone, clothing, entertainment etc. The staff then have a choice - they can try and get an additional job, which may be difficult as that has to fit round their contracted Tesco hours or they can hope that they get offered additional hours. Additional hours happen quite often but cannot be relied on. So, in addition staff claim state benefits.

 

[japancool]

Why should the wage rate be determined by a single parent with children?

Well, it used to be that in most families, there was only 1 breadwinner, so 1 wage had to support a whole family. Is that not unreasonable?

 

[UKSBD]

IF that were correct you have a perfectly valid argument. Tesco pays, I believe £10.30 per hour outside London. They also have (or had) a policy of giving staff contracts for a maximum of 18 hours, which is an improvement on their previous policy of only giving zero hours contracts.

Using an extreme example again.

Why base the figures on the lowest hours, why not base it on 40 hours?

 

[Newchodge]

Using an extreme example again.

Why base the figures on the lowest hours, why not base it on 40 hours?

Because, as I said They also have (or had) a policy of giving staff contracts for a maximum of 18 hours,

 

[UKSBD]

Well, it used to be that in most families, there was only 1 breadwinner, so 1 wage had to support a whole family. Is that not unreasonable?

I don't think you are allowed to suggest things like that nowadays.

 

[UKSBD]

Because, as I said They also have (or had) a policy of giving staff contracts for a maximum of 18 hours,

Yes, but how many are not getting more hours if they want them?
Why use a worst case scenario in your example?