Thoughts on new minimum wage rate?

[estwig]

Probably done similar to insurance actuaries.

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

Yes you're right, but those calculations done by the insurance guys, were done 40 years ago when people didn't live so long.

Again I don't want anything nasty happening to my mum of course, it's not just 30 years of full salary for doing nothing, it's the cost to the NHS of keeping her alive as well.

Multiply that by a large number of retired people, it can't be sustainable.

 

[DontAsk]

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

I think you mean increasing the retirement age?

Yes, but look at the fuss that causes.

The original pension system was cynically setup knowing most pensioners would not live long enough to be a drain on society, but it was never adjusted, as life expectancy increased, until recently.

It's still too low and too many pensioners these days have "gold plated" final salary schemes or considerable savings. A lot of pensioner befits should be means tested and the savings used to help those less fortunate.

At the same time the basic state pension needs to be low enough that people can't just think f**k it I'll rely on the state. Auto-enrolment helps in that regard, forcing people to save at least something.

 

[Duke Fame]

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!!

My teacher mate retired last summer at the old age of 53. He started at ~27 and just had it worked out so he gets a full pension.

As you say, unless there is a promise not to live very long, it's unaffordable and the public sector pensions are simply ponsi schemes.

 

[simon field]

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

Or if the employee wishes to do so?

 

[Duke Fame]

I think you mean increasing the retirement age?

Yes, but look at the fuss that causes.

The original pension system was cynically setup knowing most pensioners would not live long enough to be a drain on society, but it was never adjusted, as life expectancy increased, until recently.

It's still too low and too many pensioners these days have "gold plated" final salary schemes or considerable savings. A lot of pensioner befits should be means tested and the savings used to help those less fortunate.

At the same time the basic state pension needs to be low enough that people can't just think f**k it I'll rely on the state. Auto-enrolment helps in that regard, forcing people to save at least something.

I do mean that we should increase retirement age, the public sector can't continue to offer such an easy ride.

 

[Duke Fame]

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

Or to live on

 

[Duke Fame]

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

48 hours a week gives a min wage of £500, are you really suggesting that's a low wage? Employees can opt out or get a part time job to supplement.

 

[UKSBD]

Auto-enrolment helps in that regard, forcing people to save at least something.

Although I didn't think so at the time, I think they are brilliant now, especially for youngsters who know no different.

My daughter works at local medical centre (don't know if classed as NHS employee or not)

She pays 5% contribution and employers pay an extra 15%

She hasn't a clue that 5% is taken off her wages as it's always been the case and she only ever thinks about het NET pay

 

[Jeff FV]

My teacher mate retired last summer at the old age of 53. He started at ~27 and just had it worked out so he gets a full pension.

As you say, unless there is a promise not to live very long, it's unaffordable and the public sector pensions are simply ponsi schemes.

I would take that with a pinch of salt (or, sadly, he is suffering from I’ll health)

TPS (Teachers Pension Scheme) cannot be accessed until you are 55 (unless you have to retire on medical grounds.) if you do start taking your TPS pension at 55 it is actuarially reduced.

Assuming he has continuous service from before 2013, because of the McCloud ruling, all of his service until this academic year would be available to him at age 60, all service from this year on will only be available from state retirement age (67 for your 53 yr old friend) and on the less favourable career average terms.

If he started at 27 and “retired“ at 53, that means he will have 26 years service, so his pension - from aged 60, take it earlier and it is reduced- will be an annual salary of 26/80 times his final salary, plus a lump sum of three times that amount.

Lets say he was a fairly senior teacher, with significant additional responsibilities, and earns £50k, he would get an annual pension of £16,250, when he reached 60.

Tales of teachers retiring on a full pension at 53 are simply not true (unless they have made significant other financial provison, or have a life limiting illness.). Believe me, if you could there wouldn’t be a teacher over 53 left in the classroom.

 

[simon field]

Yes you're right, but those calculations done by the insurance guys, were done 40 years ago when people didn't live so long.

Again I don't want anything nasty happening to my mum of course, it's not just 30 years of full salary for doing nothing, it's the cost to the NHS of keeping her alive as well.

Multiply that by a large number of retired people, it can't be sustainable.

Nail on the head there @estwig.

There’s an obsession with keeping people alive as long as possible. No matter how sick, no matter how much pain & discomfort, just synthetically and artificially pump old people full of pharmaceuticals so they can live unnaturally long lives, at all costs.

Sound’s actually pretty cruel to me tbh. Great for drug manufacturers I suppose.

And those who can pluck people’s houses, paid for many times over with taxed money, to pay other people peanuts in homes to look after them.

Mental really!

 

[Newchodge]

Or if the employee wishes to do so?

The employee cannot if the employer does not agree.

 

[Duke Fame]

The employee cannot if the employer does not agree.

The employer cannot invent work for the employee if that is what you mean, we can't make up work to do, we are not the public sector

 

[simon field]

The employee cannot if the employer does not agree.

Hang on. What?

So a person can’t work say 40 hours in one job and 15 in another?

 

[Newchodge]

Hang on. What?

So a person can’t work say 40 hours in one job and 15 in another?

Not without both employers accepting an opt out. And as the 48 hour limit is a health and safety matter, they would need to be very careful.

 

[simon field]

Blimey. It’s no wonder we get F-all done in this country!

 

[MBE2017]

48 hours a week gives a min wage of £500, are you really suggesting that's a low wage? Employees can opt out or get a part time job to supplement.

Yes, it is a low wage, that’s why it is called a minimum wage. Suggesting people can then get more work does not change the salary, only the numbers of hours worked.

A small flat in most parts of the UK will cost £1k per month upwards on average, food £250 month minimum, heating etc another £150 month, transportation a minimum of £150 month for most people, don’t forget clothing, communications, repairs etc and even on your 48hr week that person would be lucky to actually have£10-15 a week maximum for themselves, maybe zero over a month.

Too many people too desperate atm for it too change, I wouldn’t throw my life away for £10 hr.

 

[IanSuth]

Yes, it is a low wage, that’s why it is called a minimum wage. Suggesting people can then get more work does not change the salary, only the numbers of hours worked.

A small flat in most parts of the UK will cost £1k per month upwards on average, food £250 month minimum, heating etc another £150 month, transportation a minimum of £150 month for most people, don’t forget clothing, communications, repairs etc and even on your 48hr week that person would be lucky to actually have£10-15 a week maximum for themselves, maybe zero over a month.

Too many people too desperate atm for it too change, I wouldn’t throw my life away for £10 hr.

Totally

£9.50 x 48hrs x 52 weeks = £23,712pa

That is £1976pcm pre tax

NI £111.42
Tax £185.70 (standard tax code)

£1678.88 takehome

- £1k housing
- £250 food
- £150 heating
- £100 council tax (a fair guess)

Those are the essentials you cant escape (you may be able to live cheaper but not a lot in many places in this country)

That leaves £178 per month for travel, phone, dentist etc

And that is if you can work 48 hours every week and your company will pay you 48 hrs for your holidays - most doing 48 hours are doing at least 10 of that as overtime and their holiday pay will be based on their contracted hours

 

[Duke Fame]

Not without both employers accepting an opt out. And as the 48 hour limit is a health and safety matter, they would need to be very careful.

Jeez, are you sure?

That's crazy, if I employ someone for a Sunday retail job, I have to find out if that person is working for someone else and make sure our combined work is only 48 hours???

If that's the case, It's impossible to get things done in this country!!!

 

[Duke Fame]

I would take that with a pinch of salt (or, sadly, he is suffering from I’ll health)

TPS (Teachers Pension Scheme) cannot be accessed until you are 55 (unless you have to retire on medical grounds.) if you do start taking your TPS pension at 55 it is actuarially reduced.

Assuming he has continuous service from before 2013, because of the McCloud ruling, all of his service until this academic year would be available to him at age 60, all service from this year on will only be available from state retirement age (67 for your 53 yr old friend) and on the less favourable career average terms.

If he started at 27 and “retired“ at 53, that means he will have 26 years service, so his pension - from aged 60, take it earlier and it is reduced- will be an annual salary of 26/80 times his final salary, plus a lump sum of three times that amount.

Lets say he was a fairly senior teacher, with significant additional responsibilities, and earns £50k, he would get an annual pension of £16,250, when he reached 60.

Tales of teachers retiring on a full pension at 53 are simply not true (unless they have made significant other financial provison, or have a life limiting illness.). Believe me, if you could there wouldn’t be a teacher over 53 left in the classroom.

I'll ask him next time I see him

 

[Duke Fame]

Yes, it is a low wage, that’s why it is called a minimum wage. Suggesting people can then get more work does not change the salary, only the numbers of hours worked.

A small flat in most parts of the UK will cost £1k per month upwards on average, food £250 month minimum, heating etc another £150 month, transportation a minimum of £150 month for most people, don’t forget clothing, communications, repairs etc and even on your 48hr week that person would be lucky to actually have£10-15 a week maximum for themselves, maybe zero over a month.

Too many people too desperate atm for it too change, I wouldn’t throw my life away for £10 hr.

A fancy flay maybe £1k so maybe people should house share etc.

 

[Duke Fame]

Totally

£9.50 x 48hrs x 52 weeks = £23,712pa

That is £1976pcm pre tax

NI £111.42
Tax £185.70 (standard tax code)

£1678.88 takehome

- £1k housing
- £250 food
- £150 heating
- £100 council tax (a fair guess)

Those are the essentials you cant escape (you may be able to live cheaper but not a lot in many places in this country)

That leaves £178 per month for travel, phone, dentist etc

And that is if you can work 48 hours every week and your company will pay you 48 hrs for your holidays - most doing 48 hours are doing at least 10 of that as overtime and their holiday pay will be based on their contracted hours

A room in a shared house is around £250 p.c.m round my way.

The 2023-24 rate is going up to 10.42, that's £26k or £2,167 a month pre tax.

 

[MBE2017]

A room in a shared house is around £250 p.c.m round my way.

The 2023-24 rate is going up to 10.42, that's £26k or £2,167 a month pre tax.

I work in property myself, so I am well aware of the costs. Just for one moment though, should the UK be a country where youngsters on aspiration is to house share, or a country where they can afford to buy their own homes?

If buying your own home, or renting a private residence becomes too expensive for our children, this country will face many severe problems in the future, we are on the cusp of this problem right now. For the finance geeks, buying your own place has never been more expensive as a percentage multiplier against salaries for the last 147 years.

Some people claim there are plenty of houses, just cheap money, others, like myself advocate a huge home building plan for the UK, with increased supply lowering prices. The UK has a 300,000 new homes target annually, we will fall far below this figure, as we have for most the last 20+ years.

It’s all well and good any political party saying they have a plan, but trust me, none of them do. Too many sitting on builder company boards maybe?

 

[BubbaWY]

The problem is the wrong kind of houses are getting built.

Decades ago, cheap housing was rows of terraces. Im not suggesting we go back to building terraces, but all new housing these days are estates of 3 or 4 bed houses which start off at around £300k.

Theres nothing new being built for those with aspirations to get on the housing ladder.

 

[Duke Fame]

I work in property myself, so I am well aware of the costs. Just for one moment though, should the UK be a country where youngsters on aspiration is to house share, or a country where they can afford to buy their own homes?

If buying your own home, or renting a private residence becomes too expensive for our children, this country will face many severe problems in the future, we are on the cusp of this problem right now. For the finance geeks, buying your own place has never been more expensive as a percentage multiplier against salaries for the last 147 years.

Some people claim there are plenty of houses, just cheap money, others, like myself advocate a huge home building plan for the UK, with increased supply lowering prices. The UK has a 300,000 new homes target annually, we will fall far below this figure, as we have for most the last 20+ years.

It’s all well and good any political party saying they have a plan, but trust me, none of them do. Too many sitting on builder company boards maybe?

I agree that there is a supply issue, we need to deregulate planning and conversion.

I'd also say there is a manipulated demand where benefits subsidise and maintain high prices.

However, house shares are nothing new, and the cheapest way to live. We are talking a national minimum wage so we can't expect people to be living in Mayfair, Jesmond, Alderley Edge whilst on Min wage, you have to cut your cloth accordingly.

 

[IanSuth]

I work in property myself, so I am well aware of the costs. Just for one moment though, should the UK be a country where youngsters on aspiration is to house share, or a country where they can afford to buy their own homes?

If buying your own home, or renting a private residence becomes too expensive for our children, this country will face many severe problems in the future, we are on the cusp of this problem right now. For the finance geeks, buying your own place has never been more expensive as a percentage multiplier against salaries for the last 147 years.

Some people claim there are plenty of houses, just cheap money, others, like myself advocate a huge home building plan for the UK, with increased supply lowering prices. The UK has a 300,000 new homes target annually, we will fall far below this figure, as we have for most the last 20+ years.

It’s all well and good any political party saying they have a plan, but trust me, none of them do. Too many sitting on builder company boards maybe?

Just looked in Reading - when i graduated i lived in a student house share for a year (£150 pcm + bills) and then a bedsit in a large victorian house for a year (with my now wife for £65 pw inc heating) we had 2 adjoining rooms (a kitchen and a bedrooom/sitting room) and had to go onto the landing to use the bathroom (which was theoretically shared but no one else came to ours) then we bought a 2 up 2 down ex huntley&palmers biscuit workers terrace house of the smallest variety (10'6" wide walk straight into front room and the only bathroom was through back bedroom over kitchen). That was £50k in 1994 I think the 25 yr 90% repayment mortgage was £300 pcm

Now
Double bedroom in a shared house near Uni £500pcm + bills (equiv of what i lived in, in fact 2 streets over - head away from uni quickly rises past £600)
Bedsit £750 for equiv rising to £900 closer to tc
House in next rd to my old place, nr identical but extra toilet behind kitchen £300k https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/131874698#/ that is £1739 for a 25 year 90% mortgage at standard variable rate

As for housing

In 2001 there were 21,207,000 residential properties in the UK - in 2021 24,873,000 - that is a rise of 17.3%
(source - https://www.statista.com/statistics/232302/number-of-dwellings-in-england/)

In 2001 59.12m uk pop in 2021 67.33m a rise of 13.87%

There are more houses per person now than in 2001 straight provable fact - the issue is not lack of houses it is under utilisation of housing stock. Building more houses would alleviate that problem but better distribution would be a better way

 

[IanSuth]

I agree that there is a supply issue, we need to deregulate planning and conversion.

I'd also say there is a manipulated demand where benefits subsidise and maintain high prices.

However, house shares are nothing new, and the cheapest way to live. We are talking a national minimum wage so we can't expect people to be living in Mayfair, Jesmond, Alderley Edge whilst on Min wage, you have to cut your cloth accordingly.

In Reading unless you are in a student house (and they are as bad as they ever were maintenance and upkeep wise) you are talking £600+bills min unless you go to a nasty village (as opposed to a nice one) and then you need a car as little public transport.

 

[japancool]

That was £50k in 1994

House in next rd to my old place, nr identical but extra toilet behind kitchen £300k

That's the fundamental problem, and one exacerbated by successive governments since Thatcher.

 

[IanSuth]

That's the fundamental problem, and one exacerbated by successive governments since Thatcher.

Agree but caused not by lack of supply of housing being built but by over supply of capital to purchase a finite stock.

The uk housing market is much more controlled by supply/demand of £ than supply/demand of property

 

[BubbaWY]

In 2001 there were 21,207,000 residential properties in the UK - in 2021 24,873,000 - that is a rise of 17.3%
(source - https://www.statista.com/statistics/232302/number-of-dwellings-in-england/)

In 2001 59.12m uk pop in 2021 67.33m a rise of 13.87%

There are more houses per person now than in 2001 straight provable fact - the issue is not lack of houses it is under utilisation of housing stock. Building more houses would alleviate that problem but better distribution would be a better way

The stats dont necessarily prove anything though. Since 2001, certainly where I live in West Yorkshire, there has been a hell of a lot of old mills, etc, converted into 1 or 2 bed apartments.

An extra 3,666,000 properties for an increase in population of 8,210,000.

 

[Duke Fame]

Just looked in Reading - when i graduated i lived in a student house share for a year (£150 pcm + bills) and then a bedsit in a large victorian house for a year (with my now wife for £65 pw inc heating) we had 2 adjoining rooms (a kitchen and a bedrooom/sitting room) and had to go onto the landing to use the bathroom (which was theoretically shared but no one else came to ours) then we bought a 2 up 2 down ex huntley&palmers biscuit workers terrace house of the smallest variety (10'6" wide walk straight into front room and the only bathroom was through back bedroom over kitchen). That was £50k in 1994 I think the 90% mortgage was £300 pcm

Now
Double bedroom in a shared house near Uni £500pcm + bills (equiv of what i lived in, in fact 2 streets over - head away from uni quickly rises past £600)
Bedsit £750 for equiv rising to £900 closer to tc
House in next rd to my old place, nr identical but extra toilet behind kitchen £300k https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/131874698#/ that is £1739 for a 25 year 90% mortgage at standard variable rate

As for housing

In 2001 there were 21,207,000 residential properties in the UK - in 2021 24,873,000 - that is a rise of 17.3%
(source - https://www.statista.com/statistics/232302/number-of-dwellings-in-england/)

In 2001 59.12m uk pop in 2021 67.33m a rise of 13.87%

There are more houses per person now than in 2001 straight provable fact - the issue is not lack of houses it is under utilisation of housing stock. Building more houses would alleviate that problem but better distribution would be a better way

Reading is an interesting one, it’s gone up in value especially in the centre. Houses along the Oxford road were pretty much worthless in the early 90s but are million quid houses now.

Back in the early 90s the town wasn’t particularly attractive and the Uni wasn’t a big draw unless for agriculture. Since then, some big hitting businesses have moved in.

As it happens, I was letting out a 4 bed house just 9 miles from Reading in a nice safe area (albeit being the no 1 nuclear war target) for £900 a month until just last month. 4 large Bedrooms so £225 a month, no great amount when earning £2,000 a week.

 

[japancool]

Agree but caused not by lack of supply of housing being built but by over supply of capital to purchase a finite stock.

The uk housing market is much more controlled by supply/demand of £ than supply/demand of property

Completely agree. There is a fix for it, but no government would ever have the balls to carry it out.

 

[IanSuth]

Reading is an interesting one, it’s gone up in value especially in the centre. Houses along the Oxford road were pretty much worthless in the early 90s but are million quid houses now.

Back in the early 90s the town wasn’t particularly attractive and the Uni wasn’t a big draw unless for agriculture. Since then, some big hitting businesses have moved in.

As it happens, I was letting out a 4 bed house just 9 miles from Reading in a nice safe area (albeit being the no 1 nuclear war target) for £900 a month until just last month. 4 large Bedrooms so £225 a month, no great amount when earning £2,000 a week.

Rubbish

I was at Reading Uni 89-92 agri was quite small by then

Engineering, Cybernetics (Kevin Warwick had built the new Jim'll fix it chair by then), Meteorology, Accounting & Finance and BioChem were huge. The PBZ building (pathology, biology and zoology ) was already a decade old by then. My wife did an integrated Engineering degree and went over to Stuttgart for a placement working on researching non destructive testing of steel wire rope for the oil industry. Castrol research in Pangbourne was where loads of work on catalysts (with the uni) was taking place as some of the members of the uni bike club were doing it. Psychology was also big, the new hazrd perception test for drivers was designed by TRL (in Crowthorne) with the uni pschology dept as the uni bike club were guinea pigs in 1991

I started in IT recruitment in 1993 and the agency had been doing IT since the late 60's in Reading. MS's original UK HQ was where the 3 building is now opposite TGI's, ICL had been headquartered in Reading since the 60's, Racal Research (where Racal Vodac that became vodafone sprung from) was on the Basingstoke Rd, DEC were just past them at Worton Grange. They were starting to shrink when i was being trained as my interview training was on the unfortunate victims of DEC's Release93 redundancy program. Yes the town centre was horrible pre Oracle due to the bombsite that was the old courage site but that was due to the planning taking so long (i used to work at the end of Bridge st).
The Pru had been in Reading for decades and was a mass high salary employer outside of IT. Sir Alexander Gibb (built the falkland islands new airport and HK airport) were at Suttons, FW were opposite the station in the big brown tower, all before i arrived in 89. Oh and BR telecoms and the entire drawing/signalling design dept for GWR region were in the other tall tower opposite the station

Burghfield is the exact village i had in mind when i said "nasty village" it is a pit of post war cheap housing built to house the workers at AWE and has "issues". We used to have parties at the Rising Sun there (now a Tesco) and I am close friends with a guy who owned the small supermarket chain (Sewards) which was the village store beforehand. It has appalling transport links into Reading and Basingstoke

 

[Duke Fame]

Rubbish

I was at Reading Uni 89-92 agri was quite small by then

Engineering, Cybernetics (Kevin Warwick had built the new Jim'll fix it chair by then), Meteorology, Accounting & Finance and BioChem were huge. The PBZ building (pathology, biology and zoology ) was already a decade old by then. My wife did an integrated Engineering degree and went over to Stuttgart for a placement working on researching non destructive testing of steel wire rope for the oil industry. Castrol research in Pangbourne was where loads of work on catalysts (with the uni) was taking place as some of the members of the uni bike club were doing it. Psychology was also big, the new hazrd perception test for drivers was designed by TRL (in Crowthorne) with the uni pschology dept as the uni bike club were guinea pigs in 1991

I started in IT recruitment in 1993 and the agency had been doing IT since the late 60's in Reading. MS's original UK HQ was where the 3 building is now opposite TGI's, ICL had been headquartered in Reading since the 60's, Racal Research (where Racal Vodac that became vodafone sprung from) was on the Basingstoke Rd, DEC were just past them at Worton Grange. They were starting to shrink when i was being trained as my interview training was on the unfortunate victims of DEC's Release93 redundancy program. Yes the town centre was horrible pre Oracle due to the bombsite that was the old courage site but that was due to the planning taking so long (i used to work at the end of Bridge st).
The Pru had been in Reading for decades and was a mass high salary employer outside of IT. Sir Alexander Gibb (built the falkland islands new airport and HK airport) were at Suttons, FW were opposite the station in the big brown tower, all before i arrived in 89. Oh and BR telecoms and the entire drawing/signalling design dept for GWR region were in the other tall tower opposite the station

Burghfield is the exact village i had in mind when i said "nasty village" it is a pit of post war cheap housing built to house the workers at AWE and has "issues". We used to have parties at the Rising Sun there (now a Tesco) and I am close friends with a guy who owned the small supermarket chain (Sewards) which was the village store beforehand. It has appalling transport links into Reading and Basingstoke

Rubbish?????

I'm not suggesting Reading was just a biscuit factory in the 1990s but it wasn't particularly attractive as a destination. It was very handy for Heathrow and you could get into Paddington in 20-25 mins but the main attraction was it was easy to get out.

Along the Oxford Road toward Elm Park had very cheap housing back then, it wasn't an area anyone wanted to be and those houses were very cheap.

As it happens, the house I rented out wasn't in Burghfield but the houses build to home AWRE / ROAF homes were pretty well built and absolutely fine. I'd hardly say leafy Berkshire was in a "nasty village" category, it was all pretty safe if uneventful. The only 'issues' were that Gary Glitter lived a stone's throw away.

We are getting from the point, if you want your own flat in a nice part of town you will have to pay a premium and those on low wages would not readily find themselves a flat on the river and a stone's throw from the station in 1989 either.

 

[simon field]

Cripes

Gary Glitter *and* jimi savile’s chair?

Sounds ace ?

 

[Bob Morgan]

Cripes

Gary Glitter *and* jimi savile’s chair?

Sounds ace ?

Savile's 'Roller' was often parked outside Broadmoor in Crowthorne at weekends!

 

[Bob Morgan]

Rubbish?????

I'm not suggesting Reading was just a biscuit factory in the 1990s but it wasn't particularly attractive as a destination. It was very handy for Heathrow and you could get into Paddington in 20-25 mins but the main attraction was it was easy to get out.

Along the Oxford Road toward Elm Park had very cheap housing back then, it wasn't an area anyone wanted to be and those houses were very cheap.

As it happens, the house I rented out wasn't in Burghfield but the houses build to home AWRE / ROAF homes were pretty well built and absolutely fine. I'd hardly say leafy Berkshire was in a "nasty village" category, it was all pretty safe if uneventful. The only 'issues' were that Gary Glitter lived a stone's throw away.

We are getting from the point, if you want your own flat in a nice part of town you will have to pay a premium and those on low wages would not readily find themselves a flat on the river and a stone's throw from the station in 1989 either.

Rather like 'Sendharst' - The arse-end of Bracknell!

 

[Mr D]

Agreed, businesses have larger rents/mortgages/utility too - why do people look upon businesses as having unlimited funds? It's not really down to businesses to solve all the problems, some businesses can't afford it and are likely to collapse (thankfully not us)

Then the business needs to change its income or its costs to cope with the legal requirements.
Common method is put prices up. For everyone, not just those who got a big pay rise.

 

[Mr D]

It worked well until Thatcher did away with it. I expect it to be back by 2026.

Was it so good back then?
Pretty sure Thatcher stopped being PM some time ago - and no one has managed to implement it since? Perhaps for a reason.

 

[HFE Signs]

Then the business needs to change its income or its costs to cope with the legal requirements.
Common method is put prices up. For everyone, not just those who got a big pay rise.

Sounds quite a simple solution, doesn't always work though in a competitive industry. Sometimes increasing prices means less profit

 

[Newchodge]

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

‘Global greedflation’: big firms ‘driving shopping bills to record highs’

Analysis by UK union shows large corporations have improved profits with price rises in cost of living crisis

www.theguardian.com

Wage increases are not the main cause of proce inflation.