Are the minimum wage increases enough?

Graham_Devon

lemonjelly wrote: »

This is also a fallacy for a ususally intelligent poster. The masses of redundancies line has been spouted ever since the NMW was proposed, & never happened.

Were now in a recession, with jobs being cut as it is. It's a different set of circumstances to that in the growth years.

baileysbattlebus

lemonjelly wrote: »

This was a fine line decision. Big business really pushed for a freeze on this.

Personally I am glad there was at least a nominal raise to the NMW. It shows an intent. This was one of the better stories out of westminster this week.

I would assert that by putting the cash into the pockets of lower paid is one of the quicker ways to stimulate the local economy. By increasing their spending power, it will benefit local shops etc - the lower paid are less likely to go off on extravagant shopping trips far away etc. This will allow them to maintain their spending, & they'll do this near to where they live, boosting the income of shopkeekers & keeping fellow locals in jobs. And the circle goes on...

Whilst the raise isn't massive, at least it is something. Every penny counts. There will be some who will acknowledge the use of an extra couple of quid each week.

I agree with everything you've said - people on minimum wage need pay rises for more than the better off. Having known people on pitifully low wages before the introduction of the minimum wage, I whole heartedly agree with it.

I also remember the hue and cry from businesses large and small and the party now in opposition saying it would cripple business - it hasn't and nor will it.

I think I heard today that "tips" will no longer be able to be classed as pay - another good thing - if people provide good service that money shouldn't be deducted from their wages, or rather the customers shouldn't have to pay the wages of the staff directly. They get taxed on tips as it is.

I just hope the next shower to be in power don't abolish it - as I understand they want to - could be wrong there though.

Christopher Chope put forward a bill in February - wanting people to be able to opt out of the minimum wage. His wife is paid by the tax payer - she is on his payroll - I wonder if he pays her less than minimum wage.

baileysbattlebus

jojo1964 wrote: »

Unfortunately. many of those on minimum wage have it topped up by tax credits, which will reduce as the wages go up, so no real difference for many, personally i disagree with a minimum wage, as it is a way for employers to keep wages low knowing that the state will subsidise his workforce, although the only option would be to increase the minimum wage to a level that meant there were no tax credits (so contradicting myself)

And many don't get it topped up - without it, it would be a way for employers to pay even less - regardless of tax credit implications. The employer pays the wage and if it needs topping up the government top it up. If employers were to pay less than the minimum then tax credits would have to go up to cover the loss - even more for the tax payer to fund.

I agree with the minimum wage because with out it some people would be paid sweatshop wages - as they were before it's introduction.

In 1997 20% of workers worked for less than £4 per hour and over million for £2.50 or less.

The average full time wage in the UK when labour came in to power was £407.30 but for the million who earned £2.50 or less per hour it was £95 per week or less. Full time workers don't work for less than a quarter of the average wage now.

The minimum wage introduced a "floor" for wages to stop companies exploiting the people with the least bargaining power.

I mentioned in an earlier post about tips now not being allowed to part of an employees salary and about time. If, I as a customer in a pub or restaurant want to reward staff for good service, I expect that to be in addition to the staff members wages not instead of.

If you don't agree with the minimum wage - what would you say a fair hourly rate for person currently on minimum wage would be? Say a shop worker - because I knew quite a few who earned £90 per week when labour came into power.
Infact it was a standing joke that one of my friends who was an IT contractor earned more an hour than her sister who was a shop worker earned in a week.

bo_drinker

The Tories will wreck it .
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/05/13/tories-bid-to-wreck-min-wage-115875-21354183/

Thrugelmir

bo_drinker wrote: »

The Tories will wreck it .
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/05/13/tories-bid-to-wreck-min-wage-115875-21354183/

Just a piece of journalistic spin............. no real substance.

geoffky

If you are stupid enough to not be able to run a business that can pay a decent living wage to the people who gather your wealth then i am afraid you should not be running one....wage exploitation is criminal to me.
.some people would have the kids back up the chimneys if the law allowed it..

Jonesya

geoffky wrote: »

If you are stupid enough to not be able to run a business that can pay a decent living wage to the people who gather your wealth then i am afraid you should not be running one....wage exploitation is criminal to me.
.some people would have the kids back up the chimneys if the law allowed it..

Twaddle, what you've got are some businesses (primarily the manufacturers) facing competition from low wage economies with little scope to push through increased employment and regulatory costs onto their customers, consequently losing sales and declining - eg. all the manufacturers who have slowly been going out of business over the last 30 years. Then you've got others, mainly the service sector, who are immune (or more immune) from foreign competition and hence have the ability to push through their increased costs because all of their competitors have the same cost increases.

Old_Slaphead

geoffky wrote: »

If you are stupid enough to not be able to run a business that can pay a decent living wage to the people who gather your wealth then i am afraid you should not be running one....wage exploitation is criminal to me.
.some people would have the kids back up the chimneys if the law allowed it..

The lowest skilled jobs are always going to be the lowest paid.

If you increase their rates then you have to increase everybody elses or there's no incentive to move up the ladder.

That increases prices and inflation - you'll then be asking for even more increases for lower paid.

Keep doing this and the whole economy becomes uncompetitive resulting in mass unemployment. I suggest (if you haven't) that you try running a business with all the red tape - see how easy it is.

Minimum rates have been increased at above inflation for the last several years.

Before you spout on any further about paying decent wages remember that many industries are competing with cheap imports. If people are prepared to pay premium prices for UK manufactured goods then ok better wages can be paid - unfortunately most people are not.

RobertoMoir

bo_drinker wrote: »

The Tories will wreck it .
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/05/13/tories-bid-to-wreck-min-wage-115875-21354183/

Yes, a tabloid made a wild claim with few details about something coming from a political party the tabloid concerned is well knowing for putting down at every opportunity.

Must be true then.

dopester

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

The average full time wage in the UK when labour came in to power was £407.30 but for the million who earned £2.50 or less per hour it was £95 per week or less. Full time workers don't work for less than a quarter of the average wage now.

The minimum wage introduced a "floor" for wages to stop companies exploiting the people with the least bargaining power.

Opportunity still existed. There was no ceiling stopping people getting better educated, night-courses, learning a better paid skill.

Rents were lower. House prices were a lot lower. Cost of living lower.

People had lots of opportunity to earn more than a basic living wage.