Debate House Prices


We’re struggling at the moment with the huge volumes of messages we’re getting from Forumites about coronavirus and the impact it’s having on their finances. We’re a small team and we’re doing our best to manage this spike in demand. As a result, we’ve reluctantly decided to temporarily close the Debate House Prices & the Economy Board so that we can redirect our limited resources to those who need us most at this time.

Please do not post content intended for this board elsewhere in the forum – we appreciate your help and understanding during this exceptionally difficult time. It goes without saying, we hope to get back to full business as soon as possible!

Are the minimum wage increases enough?

123578

Replies

  • Dave101tDave101t Forumite
    4.2K Posts
    dsab wrote: »
    :rotfl:Congratulations! I believe that's the biggest piece of uninformed bulls**t I have ever read on this board. Can only shake my head about this statement... :rolleyes:

    i refer the right honourable gentleman to any of studentphil's posts for the most uninformed bulls**t on the planet
    Target Savings by end 2009: 20,000
    current savings: 20,500 (target hit yippee!)
    Debts: 8000 (student loan so doesnt count)

    new target savings by Feb 2010: 30,000
  • louiser123louiser123 Forumite
    1.2K Posts
    mardatha wrote: »
    I've done office cleaning full-time on the minimum wage. And the posters above saying that these bottom-of-the-pile workers can go to night school etc and better themselves are being unrealistic. If we were all brain surgeons then who would empty the bins & clean the toilets ?? And if they hadnt increased the MW think of the outrage in the country with the MPs allowance scandal !!


    wholeheartedly agree!:T
    also, i cant see why low paid mw workers are classed as "working class scum" or bottom of the pile. dreadful label!!

    how about the top paid MPs then, who openly fall asleep in the commons even when televised and all they say or shout is eye or nay!! i could do that job without a problem no worrys there and i would be paid fortunes plus defrauding the state!! :eek:

    gizza job gordon!!:D
    self confessed 80's throwback:D
    sealed pot challenge 2009 #488 (couldnt tell you how much so far as i cant open it to count it!!:mad: )
  • mardathamardatha Forumite
    15.6K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Huge danger of the loony fringe being the only people to vote come the election. I'm glad we have the SNP up here, because England is kind of stuck now for choice, & the BNP is bound to take a few seats which is not a good thing !
  • lemonjelly wrote: »
    Fully agree with this comment.

    There are a great deal of allegedly "trainee" jobs, telesales and the like which are full time paying NMW. However the staff continue to carry out the ful role.

    There are particular examples of some companies paying what they call a living wage (I believe HSBC are one) who have increased pay in certain geographic areas and for certain roles. In example, there are cleaners being paid in excess of £7 per hour. This results in greater staff loyalty, increased productivity, willingness to be a flexible employee, employees going beyond the call of duty, increased competition by applicants for vacant posts - all of which are a great benefit to the employer - think about how much they save through staff retention/not having to advertise/interview/recruit/retrain. Think of the consistency the business has.

    These staff then spend this higher amount in their local communities, in the local businesses. In current times, having such a disposable income could be keeping some of these small businesses going.

    It also raises the profile of the employer in the local community.

    So who loses out here? Hell, with higher wages there is less dependency on tax credits etc - saving all of us money!

    Agree with what you say but with contact centre jobs that is not the full picture. Employers can register an interest for New Deal candidates who earn an extra tenner a week. Contact centres, typically the outsourced varieties, can and will recruit up to a third of their employees on new deal. In my view the criticism of new deal that it puts people into jobs that were already there is wholly founded.

    This at least was the situation about 7 or 8 years ago.

    Some of the harshest criticism of new deal is that it has only created about 13,000 jobs in 10 years. Most of the money from new deal I suspect goes to management firms that move people into a new deal post and the company that gets cheap labour.
  • StevieJStevieJ Forumite
    20.2K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    mardatha wrote: »
    Huge danger of the loony fringe being the only people to vote come the election. I'm glad we have the SNP up here, because England is kind of stuck now for choice, & the BNP is bound to take a few seats which is not a good thing !

    There is still hope :j down my street the Christian aid man said the out of 60 houses only 5 had not contributed to helping people who are poorer than ourselves in foreign lands icon7.gif even though we are in recession. We sometimes forget that there are actually some decent and thoughtful people out there.
    'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher
  • mardathamardatha Forumite
    15.6K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    thats surprising, but very good . :D
  • dylansmumdylansmum Forumite
    234 Posts
    My Oh, while working p/t and doing the child care, worked for min wage at a pub. Indeed, most bars, pubs and eating places near us pay min wage.

    The min wage should go up!
  • ninky_2ninky_2 Forumite
    5.9K Posts
    one way to force wages up without having to raise them with legislation would be to say that those on benefits should accept any job, but only if it paid them equivalent or more than what they received in benefits each week (including housing benefit).

    this would mean employers would only have access to workers if they agreed to pay them a living wage.
    Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. - Lord Byron
  • dylansmumdylansmum Forumite
    234 Posts
    ninky wrote: »
    one way to force wages up without having to raise them with legislation would be to say that those on benefits should accept any job, but only if it paid them equivalent or more than what they received in benefits each week (including housing benefit).

    this would mean employers would only have access to workers if they agreed to pay them a living wage.

    Interesting. But how would you stop work intensification - more work given to existing employees whereever possible. And would this move also mean that those already in work would have to have wage rises?
  • dopesterdopester Forumite
    4.9K Posts
    ninky wrote: »
    one way to force wages up without having to raise them with legislation would be to say that those on benefits should accept any job, but only if it paid them equivalent or more than what they received in benefits each week (including housing benefit).

    this would mean employers would only have access to workers if they agreed to pay them a living wage.

    If an employer takes on an employee, do you really the hourly rate or salary is the limit of how much it costs? :rolleyes:

    There are some variations depending on the sector, but it is often calculated as being from 40% to 100% of an employee's salary, in addition to the salary itself.

    Employers should be grateful should they? Maybe you ought to set up in business yourself and get an idea of the real world.
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides