The Minimum wage

coastline

Well I'm glad I'm not on it...you won't be buying your own home or new cars thats for sure...
Of course there should be a minimum wage...some folk would be on £2 an hour...if you think all employers are nice people then you're kidding youself..
Take security guards for example...they were working 80 hours a week before all this came in...I know as our workforce fought to get his wages improved..
Just a reminder to those who weren't around when it was introduced...the Tories rejected it...they said it would cost the country 2 million jobs...John Major...well did you see 2 million on the dole overnight..??

CLAPTON

there are people who would be very pleased to find a job below the minimum wage if that was allowed


there are of course people who won't work for the current minimum wage because their benefits are too high to make it worth it

we fobid the former people exercising their choice and support the latter to exercise their choice

StevieJ

jfh7gwa wrote: »

".

Thus the most inexperienced folk won't get their foot on the ladder or experience of the working environment at the most basic level.

I've probably done a crappy job of explaining it, but it made a lot of sense when they were talking anyway :rotfl:

That is why there is a lower minimum for younger people, I think I would support a lower minimum for old style aprenticeships as well (even if slightly older) where someone is genuinely learning a trade.

jamesmorgan

ukcarper wrote: »

I wonder how many people advocating the abolition of the minimum wage are on it or think they will ever be on it.

I would be surprised if many people in employment (at whatever salary) are in favour of abolition. The minimum wage is great for those in employment, but rubbish for those that are not.

In a true market economy, employers are forced to pay the maximum wage for their employees based on their productivity. If a worker brings £5/hour of productivity, an employer is likely to pay up to around £4.50/hr (to provide them with a 10% margin). If they don't pay that, someone else will and the worker moves. If the minimum wage has any effect it must be forcing employers to pay above the market rate. This isn't sustainable long-term so inevitably leads to unemployment.

Arguments that employers pay the minimum amount they can assume that there is an unlimited number of workers. In practice there is a unlimited amount of potential work but a limited supply of workers. As long as an employer can make a profit by employing someone, they will.

chewmylegoff

jamesmorgan wrote: »

Arguments that employers pay the minimum amount they can assume that there is an unlimited number of workers. In practice there is a unlimited amount of potential work but a limited supply of workers. As long as an employer can make a profit by employing someone, they will.

there is no more an unlimited amount of work than there is an unlimited labour pool. any theoretical mantra which assumes either is a complete load of tosh. whatever you say about it, there are clearly more adults in this country than jobs, and whilst removing the minimum wage might result in a more jobs being created, it is not going to result in the 8 million economically inactive adults in this country finding employment (as the historical situation pre-minimum wage shows).

i also think that looking at the minimum wage in isolation is pretty pointless, as the government tops it up with various benefits. it's all very well businesses claiming that the govt is screwing them by making them pay £5 an hour or whatever it is now, but if the govt wasn't paying them a load more money in benefits then the business would have to pay their staff a lot more than £5 an hour to get anyone to do the work.

Kennyboy66

jamesmorgan wrote: »

I would be surprised if many people in employment (at whatever salary) are in favour of abolition. The minimum wage is great for those in employment, but rubbish for those that are not.

In a true market economy, employers are forced to pay the maximum wage for their employees based on their productivity. If a worker brings £5/hour of productivity, an employer is likely to pay up to around £4.50/hr (to provide them with a 10% margin). If they don't pay that, someone else will and the worker moves. If the minimum wage has any effect it must be forcing employers to pay above the market rate. This isn't sustainable long-term so inevitably leads to unemployment.

Arguments that employers pay the minimum amount they can assume that there is an unlimited number of workers. In practice there is a unlimited amount of potential work but a limited supply of workers. As long as an employer can make a profit by employing someone, they will.

The difficulty with you textbook answer is that it is fairly difficult to find any empirical evidence that the minimum wage has increased employment amongst adults in the UK over the last 12 years.

There are good arguments about youth rates (say up to 21 years) and the fact that its a single rate regardless of region but in general you are just repeating GSCE theoretical supply and demand economics and ignoring a multitude of other factors.

jamesmorgan

chewmylegoff wrote: »

there is no more an unlimited amount of work than there is an unlimited labour pool. any theoretical mantra which assumes either is a complete load of tosh.

Of course there is an unlimited amount of potential work - there may not, however, be an unlimited amount of workers willing to do that work at a salary that makes a profit for the employer. People confuse unemployment with a lack of work - in practice it is a lack of workers willing to undertake work at a salary that generates profit. This is a particular issue in an economic downturn when worker productivity decreases but they are not willing to accept a lower salary to reflect this.

HappyMJ

Whether I am paid £1 an hour or £7 an hour I end up with the same amount in my pocket at the end of the week. Who should pay? The employer or the taxpayer through top up benefits of tax credits and housing benefit. If we remove minimum wages then employers will pay £1 an hour as they know as now that the employee can get more in benefits to have a living wage so pay the least possible. I think minimum wages should increase so that no top-up benefits such as tax credits are required (so they can all be withdrawn) and the personal allowance increased so no tax is due on minimum wages. Tax and NI should only be paid on the excess of earnings over minimum wages. (It'll never happen-it's just a pipe dream)

crash123

Carl31 wrote: »

thats what tipping has always been about in the US, waiting staff are paid a poor rate due to the tipping culture, its incentive to provide a good service.

Tipping over here isnt required, we dont operate a tipping culture as in the US, yet we feel obliged to copy and end up paying over the odds for some reason (well i dont)

I have been to America many times and I know a lot about there culture.
I would never go to New York again. Every restaurant that we ate in had "service not included" written on the bill because they knew we were english. The best meal we got was in a cafe in central station and they got the best tip as it was the best meal we got and no written info on the bill.
We also tip in this country for good service. That is what it is supposed to be for not to make up the wages of the staff. I also know that this type of practice does go on in this country, it was either in a newspaper or on the telly a few years ago. I can`t remember the details but I seem to think it was when you tipped using a debit or credit card so we always tip with cash.

StevieJ

HappyMJ wrote: »

Whether I am paid £1 an hour or £7 an hour I end up with the same amount in my pocket at the end of the week. Who should pay? The employer or the taxpayer through top up benefits of tax credits and housing benefit.

I think many a a job applicant has heard those immortal words, 'I know it is not much but the social will top it up for ya' and that is with the mnimum wage in place.