The Reality of Working for a Supermarket in 2009/Return to Victorian Britain

lostinrates

i8change wrote: »

If I want a TV I can buy it from Currys or I can go to John Lewis who price match, give a free five year guarantee and treat their staff well. It's an easy choice for me.

at what point does it become harder choice? when the tv is 5% more at John Lewis, if it were 50% more?

bendix

i8change wrote: »

That does n't work, hence the "minimum wage" and plenty of laws to protect workers and give them rights to decent terms and conditions, holidays etc.

Yes it does.

The minimum wage is a market distortion brought in to protect those at the bottom of the pile, with no skills who are competing against too many people at the bottom of the pile. Whether it is a good thing or not, depends upon your point of view, but the fact that a minimum wage is deemed necessary proves that market forces do - in fact - work by paying the very lowest wages to those with the lowest levels of skills.

Minimum wage legislation is a social policy issue, and nothing to do with economics.

i8change

Minimum wage legislation is a social policy issue, and nothing to do with economics.

Said scrooge.

The majority of people back a minimum wage for various reasons and don't care for unrestrained capitalism and it's dark side. Hence, the free market does NOT set wages below this level and free market economics are not relevant. The free market is considered undesireable at that level by the majority of people and with good reason, so it is given the boot!

abaxas

i8change wrote: »

Said scrooge.

The majority of people back a minimum wage for various reasons and don't care for unrestrained capitalism and it's dark side. Hence, the free market does NOT set wages below this level and free market economics are not relevant. The free market is considered undesireable at that level by the majority of people and with good reason, so it is given the boot!

Please god no.

Any discussion about the min wage always ends in the sad fact that it's a great idea that never works. The cost of living just becomes the min wage.

bendix

i8change wrote: »

Said scrooge.

The majority of people back a minimum wage for various reasons and don't care for unrestrained capitalism and it's dark side. Hence, the free market does NOT set wages below this level and free market economics are not relevant.

I didnt say if I support a minimum wage or not. I'm mixed on it and have no strong views.

But you are basically agreeing with me. The market forces DO work on salaries - it can't be denied. Unrestrained capitalism would push wages down when supply outstrips demand, and do the exact opposite in periods of low unemployment. It can't be debated.

As for your last point, I think you're living in cloud cuckoo land. There are hundreds of thousands of people working below minimum wage in the UK. They do it because they are on the cusp of society; perhaps illegal immigrant workers employed in sweatshops or on the economic fringes of society.

I'm not saying it's good or bad; it's just the market reality. There are numerous employees prepared to breach minimum wage regulations because - and here is the rub - there are thousands of workers prepared to work for below minimum wage.

i8change

As for your last point, I think you're living in cloud cuckoo land. There are hundreds of thousands of people working below minimum wage in the UK. They do it because they are on the cusp of society; perhaps illegal immigrant workers employed in sweatshops or on the economic fringes of society.

Not legally!

It protects the majority of those it seeks to protect. What else can be done? It works better than nothing, I would not like to see the Tax Credits bill without it.

The role of HMRC is to enforce the national minimum wage. We do that by responding to complaints made about employers suspected of not paying the minimum wage, and by visiting a sample of employers about whom no complaints have been made, to check that all employers meet their obligations under the National Minimum Wage Act.

P.S. I quite like the Free Market, as a mechanism, above this level.

bendix

Whether it's legal or not is irrelevant. The point is the freemarket determines these very low wages because there is a surplus of people wanting to do the work. The market has spoken.

Whether or not such companies and employees then decide to either comply with the legislation (the former) or be prepared to remove themselves from its protection (the latter) is not the point.

The fact it happens - that the market has made it happen - the only thing moot.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

What's your point? Salary levels are dictated by supply and demand. You presumably have specialist skills which justify your salary because there are very few other people who can do the job. I don't know anything about your OH (I seem to recall you saying he was an immigrant too) or what he does, but unless he is very very stupid he wouldn't be working so hard for so little if he could do something else. I assume he is in the best job he can find given the circumstances, his skill levels etc, otherwise he is acting against his best interests. And I assume he is in a role which many can and are willing to undertake.

What exactly is the issue?

it's all to do with how cultural capital is distributed and valued and used to perpetuate the uneven distribution of actual capital. my uprbringing with exposure to liberal cultural inputs along with native english and ability to !!!!!!!! about things that are of high value in mainstream cultural products (property, celeb culture etc etc) appeals to commissioning editors in television and puts me in a higher earning position than my OH. this in turn perpetuates the status quo and masks difference in wealth distribution as somehow 'earned' or part of the natural order of things. for a more in depth analysis of this type of masking function see french academic bourdieu.

bendix

ninky wrote: »

it's all to do with how cultural capital is distributed and valued and used to perpetuate the uneven distribution of actual capital. my uprbringing with exposure to liberal cultural inputs along with native english and ability to !!!!!!!! about things that are of high value in mainstream cultural products (property, celeb culture etc etc) appeals to commissioning editors in television and puts me in a higher earning position than my OH. this in turn perpetuates the status quo and masks difference in wealth distribution as somehow 'earned' or part of the natural order of things. for a more in depth analysis of this type of masking function see french academic bourdieu.

Hey ninky. Finally we agree on something. The ability to b*****t at length is directly proportionate to one's ability to earn money in modern society.

Can't argue with that.

StevieJ

tesuhoha wrote: »

There are no English people working at this place because they would not be able to keep up.

My friend recently said that he hates this country because if you are honest and hardworking you get nowhere, you are better off being lazy.

How do you know that exactly more likely wouldn't work under those t&c that your friend is helping to foster in this country and undermining the local workforce.