The Minimum wage

SingleSue

StevieJ wrote: »

Would that be Piotr, Gabriela or Roman by any chance

Nope, it can be a James as well....

When James hit 18 and the minimum wage rate increased, his boss almost got rid of him because of the extra he would have to pay (he was being paid slightly above the rate for a 16/17 year old). James, who was rather keen to hang onto his part time job, offered to work for the 16-17 age rate but this was refused.

Thankfully, his boss knew he had a hard worker, who was experienced, always willing to work at short notice and kept him on...but there was most def a wobble time for him of quite a few weeks and James had a lack of shifts being given to him while the boss was making his mind up.

Thrugelmir

suburbanwifey wrote: »

Washing and Cleaning my car costs me £25.00 and it takes him about 2 hours, to wash and clean and do inside. So that works out at around £12.50 an hour to valet a car. That's his standard, advertised price.

Again that's not just labour cost in the charge to you.

suburbanwifey

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Again that's not just labour cost in the charge to you.

I appreciate your point and am going away to consider it.

ILW

suburbanwifey wrote: »

I appreciate your point and am going away to consider it.

You should do the same with your views on care homes too.

suburbanwifey

ILW wrote: »

You should do the same with your views on care homes too.

I think my views on care home are perfectly fine thank you.

chewmylegoff

jamesmorgan wrote: »

Saying there is an unlimited amount of potential work to be done is not the same as saying there is an unlimited amount of work to be done at Tesco's. In the UK, 80% of the workforce used to be employed in agriculture. Today it is around 2%. The people no longer employed in agriculture have found jobs that didn't exist a few hundred years ago. The jobs came about because there are now people available to do them. It is true for certain products such as food, there will be a limited demand, but most of these new jobs are in the service sector where demand is less constrained.

As I said before, the number of jobs is constrained primarily by the number of people willing to undertake the work at a profitable rate. We are a long, long way from running out of potential jobs.

There is a limited market for everything, because demand is not infinite. You need to detach yourself from simplistic economic theories which do not translate into reality.

ILW

suburbanwifey wrote: »

I think my views on care home are perfectly fine thank you.

That they are making a fortune and you cannot understand how they find it hard to break even in many cases?

CLAPTON

jamesmorgan wrote: »

It depends on what you mean by benefit. In 1940 the average house price was £500. Today it is around £250,000. If I own my house, on paper I am £249,500 better off, but I still need a house to live in and I still have just one house. Having a higher figure on a balance sheet doesn't provide benefit - it is the assets that you can purchase with this that provide benefit. In both cases the benefit is the same.

The money you have paid has gone to some-one else who is better off.
So in economic terms the 'real' increase in wealth is a reality; the distribution of that wealth may not to your liking but that's another matter.

CLAPTON

suburbanwifey wrote: »

Have you seen how much they charge residents to live there per week? I'd like to know why they barely break even, I really would!

I do some (unpaid ) work for a care home.
It is a registered charity.
The board of trustees are all volunteers and take no income or even expenses (in fact it costs them money)
There are no highly paid staff; the management comprises a care manager and a parttime finance person and a secretary/admin person.

Everyone else is a carer, cleaner or kitchen staff


The home can't afford to take people funded by the local authority as they don't pay enough.

You totally under-estimate how much it costs to provide staff on a 24 hour 7 day a week basis.

If you have some simple ability at arthimetic you can work out to provide just ONE person on a 7 day 24 basis requires you to employ 4.2 full time staff (assuming they never go sick )

StevieJ

jamesmorgan wrote: »

Tax credits are all about wealth re-distribution. It is taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. At best it only has a marginal impact on wage levels. If an employer pays you a lower wage because you are getting tax credits, they still risk losing you to a rival who can still afford to pay you more.

How do you work that one out? if the rival pays more then the tax credits reduce,