MSE News: Minimum wage to rise by 2.2%

Former_MSE_Guy

This is the discussion thread for the following MSE News Story:

"Unions today welcomed confirmation by the Government of increases in the national minimum salary ..."

Read the full story:

Minimum wage to rise by 2.2%

ariarnia

still gonna all get spent. *uses old roll eye's smily*

Judas

ariarnia wrote: »

still gonna all get spent. *uses old roll eye's smily*

Oh joy.

If the low earners want to earn more maybe they should do so by improving their experience;education and employability.

I am sure most of us would love to be getting a 2.2% rise this year; sadly we are not as most trades are struggling.

Seems a bit of a double barrelled insult. Get paid less due to the economy and other government fuelled factors, oh, and give the low earners a wage rise from our taxes too.

Lets also remember a fair few minimum earners are just that for a reason.

In my view the existing rates are more than enough for most minimum wage jobs; just a few years ago people where earning £3 an hour.

Companies need a break; not more expenditure.

kazwookie

But they give with one hand and take with the other, it is 'alleged' that vat is going up to 20%........................ the budget this week will be very interesting............

Judas

kazwookie wrote: »

But they give with one hand and take with the other, it is 'alleged' that vat is going up to 20%........................ the budget this week will be very interesting............

More than likely but that will hit everyone and not just low earners so they are still better off than the rest of society who have probably worked a damn sight harder for what they get.

starry_eyed_5

Judas wrote: »

If the low earners want to earn more maybe they should do so by improving their experience;education and employability.

That not always possible. A lot of people with children need a flexible job, these generally tend to be jobs in low earning industries. It's very difficult to find a highly paid job which will allow the same level of flexibility.

Plus, a lot of people who have gone to college to gain qualifications still end up in lower paid jobs - care assistants, nursery nurses, will have all completed a 2 year full time course but will still only be paid minimum wage or be left without a job. There are many more examples. Nursery n

Plus we need people to work in our supermarkets, retail and other lower paying jobs. It's not plausable for everyone to improve their education to find higher paying jobs or the economy would be in an even worse state.

Judas

Which is a lifestyle choice chosen by themselves.

Why should I have to suffer to support peoples own choices; circumstances or lack of skills/knowledge.

A lot of public sector, private sector, voluntary bodies etc are facing massive cuts due to government plans yet they are dishing out wage rises to those in my view who are often undeserving of them.

If someone chooses to have children they should consider how they will cope with low pay; if someone goes to college and still ends up in a dead end job that is there problem.

There are very few people in low paid jobs for reasons other than choice.

Snakeeyes21

Old news again mse guy, this has been known for months.
Here you go released on may 25th http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/DG_178175

A bigger news story would be that an apprentice wage will be set at £2.50 an hour instead of the £90 odd quid a week, this means a small pay rise for an apprentice who works full time, but a massive pay cut to those who work part time.

moromir

Judas wrote: »

If the low earners want to earn more maybe they should do so by improving their experience;education and employability.

Oh please, way to make a sweeping and inaccurate assumption.

I have worked since I was 16 whilst remaining in full time education. I worked my way through university to obtain a good degree in Chemistry. During university I kept a part time job, I also became treasurer for the Chemistry Society, helped most weekends at the Raise and Give Society and undertook formal first aid and fire marshall training.

I basically did everything in my power to get the education and experience to improve my employability.

Despite this the only job I have been able to get in three years (and believe me, I applied for everything I could get my hands on) is minimum wage in a field entirely unrelated to my degree.

When I have asked for feedback on interviews I have usually been advised that there was nothing wrong with my interview, but the general gist is that that more experienced people (ie older) are applying to these lower level jobs.

So all I can do is apologise for my lack of years Judas!

Don't tar us all with the same brush.

Judas

moromir wrote: »

Oh please, way to make a sweeping and inaccurate assumption.

I have worked since I was 16 whilst remaining in full time education. I worked my way through university to obtain a good degree in Chemistry. During university I kept a part time job, I also became treasurer for the Chemistry Society, helped most weekends at the Raise and Give Society and undertook formal first aid and fire marshall training.

I basically did everything in my power to get the education and experience to improve my employability.

Despite this the only job I have been able to get in three years (and believe me, I applied for everything I could get my hands on) is minimum wage in a field entirely unrelated to my degree.

When I have asked for feedback on interviews I have usually been advised that there was nothing wrong with my interview, but the general gist is that that more experienced people (ie older) are applying to these lower level jobs.

So all I can do is apologise for my lack of years Judas!

Don't tar us all with the same brush.

Why did you choose to do a degree in a field you couldn't gain employment?

Why should I and every other tax payer subsidise you because you chose to get skills of little use as opposed to studying in a field that would allow you to be far more self sufficient?

moromir

Judas wrote: »

Why did you choose to do a degree in a field you couldn't gain employment?

Why should I and every other tax payer subsidise you because you chose to get skills of little use as opposed to studying in a field that would allow you to be far more self sufficient?

Chemistry... a "skill of little use", once you've stepped off your high horse I can only hope you might realise how ridiculous this statement is.