Thoughts on new minimum wage rate?

[Duke Fame]

We aren't talking about wages. You said

I said

Why are you suddenly talking about wages?

Because the clue is in the title of the thread.

Taking benefits away should not be much of an issue where people are earning a minimum of £416 a week, of course there are more hours available and most professional work closer to 60 hours a week so £625 a week / £2,700 a month.

So to talk of Starvation levels is a nonsense.

 

[Newchodge]

The problem is that there is a section of society that is being forgotten

It's all well and good Labour and the Unions pushing for higher wages, that's basically their job.

Increasing minimum wage and low wages may help people get closer to the people who are paid more, but it will kill the ones below them.

Rather than paying the poor more to catch up with the higher, wouldn't it make more sense to pay the higher less, so those at the very bottom aren't made absolutely destitute.

At the moment we have Tories looking after Rich, Labour looking after poor workers but nobody looking after the ones who can't work.

Unless their is a system that supports those who aren't eligible for minimum wage, minimum wage is a disaster.

I remember dealing with someone before NMW was introduced in the 1990s. He was employed as a security guard, spending long hours in a portacabin ensuring the safety of the site. He was paid £1 per hour and worked a 90 hour week to survive. I don't think he, and many others like him, thought minimum wage was a disaster.

 

[Newchodge]

Because the clue is in the title of the thread.

Taking benefits away should not be much of an issue where people are earning a minimum of £416 a week, of course there are more hours available and most professional work closer to 60 hours a week so £625 a week / £2,700 a month.

So to talk of Starvation levels is a nonsense.

Never mind.

 

[japancool]

It's fine. People on minimum wage shouldn't have any children anyway, they're clearly unfit to do so.

 

[Duke Fame]

The problem is that there is a section of society that is being forgotten

It's all well and good Labour and the Unions pushing for higher wages, that's basically their job.

Increasing minimum wage and low wages may help people get closer to the people who are paid more, but it will kill the ones below them.

Rather than paying the poor more to catch up with the higher, wouldn't it make more sense to pay the higher less, so those at the very bottom aren't made absolutely destitute.

At the moment we have Tories looking after Rich, Labour looking after poor workers but nobody looking after the ones who can't work.

Unless their is a system that supports those who aren't eligible for minimum wage, minimum wage is a disaster.

I do see your point, there are far too many people who are economically idle.

I was going to make a point that we were looking at a way of employing a lad with a disability, the problem was that he was never going to be up to speed to be worth employing but it would have been great for him to be in the workplace but because we have to pay NMW, the figures didn’t add up.

Like you say, NMW is failing these guys and there is not a mechanism that compensates either the employer or employee.

 

[Duke Fame]

It's fine. People on minimum wage shouldn't have any children anyway, they're clearly unfit to do so.

Having children is a lifestyle choice, you certainly can't expect the employer to pay more to a procreator simply because of choices.

 

[japancool]

Having children is a lifestyle choice, you certainly can't expect the employer to pay more to a procreator simply because of choices.

The UK's fertility rate is already below replacement level.

 

[UKSBD]

I remember dealing with someone before NMW was introduced in the 1990s. He was employed as a security guard, spending long hours in a portacabin ensuring the safety of the site. He was paid £1 per hour and worked a 90 hour week to survive. I don't think he, and many others like him, thought minimum wage was a disaster.

And what about the people of today who can't earn minimum wage and see Labour wanting it to be £15 an hour whilst their benefits increase by far less than that?

Make your low paid worker happy but let the ones below them suffer?

I'm not against minimum wage, I think it is needed, but for the people below minimum wage, increasing it too much without increasing their benefits it is truly a disaster for them.

 

[Newchodge]

I'm not against minimum wage, I think it is needed, but for the people below minimum wage, increasing it too much without increasing their benefits it is truly a disaster for them.

I agree, but the answer is not to decrease the minimum wage, it is to pay benefits at an appropriate level.

 

[Duke Fame]

The UK's fertility rate is already below replacement level.

That may be a good thing, it stops the current policy where some pension schemes are simply ponsi schemes.

 

[MBE2017]

There is a very good reason to increase the NMW, it will keep thousands of people in work, including the owners of the companies. The income disparity between rich and poor has reached crazy levels, time to bring them closer together before the revolution starts.

 

[Duke Fame]

H

The UK's fertility rate is already below replacement level.

Do you expect the employer to pay more to a procreator simply because of choices?

 

[UKSBD]

I agree, but the answer is not to decrease the minimum wage, it is to pay benefits at an appropriate level.

Yes, but in the right order

Labour and unions appear to be obsessed with increasing the pay of low workers (which is understandable, it's basically there job)

But if they increase wages before benefits increase, people will be dying on the streets.

 

[Newchodge]

Yes, but in the right order

Labour and unions appear to be obsessed with increasing the pay of low workers (which is understandable, it's basically there job)

But if they increase wages before benefits increase, people will be dying on the streets.

I don't see the link. How does paying the low paid more make it more likely that people will fail to cope on benefits?

 

[Duke Fame]

There is a very good reason to increase the NMW, it will keep thousands of people in work, including the owners of the companies. The income disparity between rich and poor has reached crazy levels, time to bring them closer together before the revolution starts.

As the OP noted, the problem is that those further up the scale expect to maintain that premium for their experience / status / education and UKSBD pointed out that those who don't have the skills to justify the NMW fall further behind.

Longer term, the mass de-industrialisation which we saw in the late 90's to the 20teens will extend to other areas. We are already seeing IT companies cutting staff as skills are available elsewhere for less.

 

[UKSBD]

There is a very good reason to increase the NMW, it will keep thousands of people in work, including the owners of the companies. The income disparity between rich and poor has reached crazy levels, time to bring them closer together before the revolution starts.

Yes, but if you move the low paid closer to the high paid, the people below low paid suffer.

If you move high paid closer to low paid, the people below the low paid don't suffer

 

[Duke Fame]

I don't see the link. How does paying the low paid more make it more likely that people will fail to cope on benefits?

Because the wage inflation makes the benefits less valuable and those unable to work are less likely to be able to offer value to an employer.

 

[UKSBD]

I don't see the link. How does paying the low paid more make it more likely that people will fail to cope on benefits?

You don't think widening the gap between those at the very bottom and those on minimum wage is a bad thing?

 

[Duke Fame]

Yes, but if you move the low paid closer to the high paid, the people below low paid suffer.

If you move high paid closer to low paid, the people below the low paid don't suffer

"If you move high paid closer to low paid, the people below the low paid don't suffer" You do that via taxation? I don't think that's a good idea

 

[Newchodge]

You don't think widening the gap between those at the very bottom and those on minimum wage is a bad thing?

Yes I do, but I cannot see that increasing minimum wage harms theose who are on benefits.

 

[Duke Fame]

Yes I do, but I cannot see that increasing minimum wage harms theose who are on benefits.

With respect Cindy, I don't think you are fully thinking this through.

 

[UKSBD]

Yes I do, but I cannot see that increasing minimum wage harms theose who are on benefits.

We shall agree to disagree then.

But I believe if someone right at the bottom receives similar to someone on £10 an hour, and that person then receives £15 an hour but the person at the very bottom still only receives £10 that they will suffer.

I'm not talking about the low paid on benefits I'm talking about the very bottom who seem to have been forgotten about

Edit to add: I think these should be priority rather than improving the lifestyle of those who are above them.

 

[MBE2017]

As the OP noted, the problem is that those further up the scale expect to maintain that premium for their experience / status / education and UKSBD pointed out that those who don't have the skills to justify the NMW fall further behind.

Longer term, the mass de-industrialisation which we saw in the late 90's to the 20teens will extend to other areas. We are already seeing IT companies cutting staff as skills are available elsewhere for less.

Those further up the scale might have to come to terms with the fact things need to change, and I am talking all levels. It is not impossible, a fair number of the country had their salaries frozen for five years. If their salaries can be held back, it is not impossible for a private company to do it as well.

There will always be a small number who seem to beat the system, always come out on top, but the country will not prosper until people receive a decent fair wage.

 

[UKSBD]

There will always be a small number who seem to beat the system, always come out on top, but the country will not prosper until people receive a decent fair wage.

And the people who can't get a wage receive a decent amount to live on.

 

[simon field]

Yes I do, but I cannot see that increasing minimum wage harms theose who are on benefits.

Don’t you think that if wages go up, the price of things follows (inflation) and therefore benefits don’t go as far?

 

[japancool]

H

Do you expect the employer to pay more to a procreator simply because of choices?

I expect employers to pay an actual living wage, and i expect governments to make that happen.

An aging society benefits no-one, and employers paying subsistence wages are part of the problem.

 

[japancool]

Or tell you what, let's just euthanise everyone who only has a state pension as their income.

Housing problem solved, state bill problem solved, NHS solved.

 

[Newchodge]

Don’t you think that if wages go up, the price of things follows (inflation) and therefore benefits don’t go as far?

To some extent, but I can't think of anything for which the cost of labour is 100% of the cost. So a wage increase of 10% will not mean a price increase of 10% unless the supplier is making additional profit.

It is also noticeable that the blame is put on those wanting better wages, no mention is ever made of the increased dividends paid to shareholders or the massive pay rises and bonuses paid to those on already high wages.

 

[Duke Fame]

I expect employers to pay an actual living wage, and i expect governments to make that happen.

An aging society benefits no-one, and employers paying subsistence wages are part of the problem.

So, employers pay £420 minimum for a 40hr week of work. Given that still leaves 128 hours a week os spare time, I think the onus is on the employee to have a lifestyle they can afford or give up a bit more spare time.

 

[japancool]

It is also noticeable that the blame is put on those wanting better wages, no mention is ever made of the increased dividends paid to shareholders or the massive pay rises and bonuses paid to those on already high wages.

Of course not. They need those dividends to make political donations with.

 

[Duke Fame]

I expect employers to pay an actual living wage, and i expect governments to make that happen.

An aging society benefits no-one, and employers paying subsistence wages are part of the problem.

Wat are yo suggesting? We bring in a new strain of Covid to reduce the aging population?

 

[japancool]

So, employers pay £420 minimum for a 40hr week of work. Given that still leaves 128 hours a week os spare time, I think the onus is on the employee to have a lifestyle they can afford or give up a bit more spare time.

Sleep is so overrated.

 

[japancool]

Wat are yo suggesting? We bring in a new strain of Covid to reduce the aging population?

Whatever is cheapest.

 

[Duke Fame]

To some extent, but I can't think of anything for which the cost of labour is 100% of the cost. So a wage increase of 10% will not mean a price increase of 10% unless the supplier is making additional profit.

It is also noticeable that the blame is put on those wanting better wages, no mention is ever made of the increased dividends paid to shareholders or the massive pay rises and bonuses paid to those on already high wages.

People get bonuses for doing a good job.

Re Dividends, as we are a business forum, I'm amazed anyone would suggest the owners of the business don't deserve a little reward for risking their life savings, family home etc whilst employing and creating wealth in society. The only people who are exempt from getting a NMW are business owners and directors. If we steer a business to adding value or profit, is it not Ok for the business' owner to be rewarded.

 

[Duke Fame]

Whatever is cheapest.

I think extending age retirement may be a better starting point.

As I said to a teacher friend who went on strike a few years earlier over their cushy pensions, people may have to promise not to live for too long.

 

[estwig]

My mum was a civil servant for most of her life, she is now retired on a...........Full salary pension, she is likely to live well into her 90's.

Obviously I wish my mum no ill will.

How can we as a country afford to pay someone, a full salary for 30 years, to do nothing but feed the birds in the garden and moan about the cost of spuds in Sainsburys!!

 

[simon field]

Is it better to have a workforce on a low wage, or no workforce at all?

To some extent, but I can't think of anything for which the cost of labour is 100% of the cost. So a wage increase of 10% will not mean a price increase of 10% unless the supplier is making additional profit.

Isn’t the UK primarily a service based economy though?

It is also noticeable that the blame is put on those wanting better wages, no mention is ever made of the increased dividends paid to shareholders or the massive pay rises and bonuses paid to those on already high wages.

Blame for what? And without investment from shareholders, many companies wouldn’t even exist would they? Isn’t the whole idea of a business to make as much money as possible whilst doing the minimum possible?

Example - if someone gave you the opportunity to buy £100 worth of shares with a 30% per annum return, wouldn’t it make good business sense to do that?

 

[simon field]

Sleep is so overrated.

7 x 8 hours sleep still leaves 60 odd hours to get a little part time job.

 

[Newchodge]

7 x 8 hours sleep still leaves 60 odd hours to get a little part time job.

If your employers are prepared to overlook the maximum 48 hour working week in the WTR, and risk health and safey prosecution.

 

[UKSBD]

How can we as a country afford to pay someone, a full salary for 30 years, to do nothing but feed the birds in the garden and moan about the cost of spuds in Sainsburys!!

Probably done similar to insurance actuaries.

Although some may live to 90+ they do the calculations based on people also dying before claiming.