Ed Milliband promotes living wage as labours next big thing

PaulF81

Or, we cut loose a large,sector of our unproductive work force and throw them to the wolves. Gets my vote.

Rochdale_Pioneers

See Hesletine's report. Productivity has increased, wages have stagnated. Ergo the economic benefits of our increased labour has been pocketed by the companies.

robmatic

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

See Hesletine's report. Productivity has increased, wages have stagnated. Ergo the economic benefits of our increased labour has been pocketed by the companies.

Who owns those companies? Mostly workers' pension funds.

IveSeenTheLight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Majority of milling grade wheat used in the UK is imported from Canada. So there's no control over a key cost of production.

Currently maybe, however........

I was asking a hypothetical question as to whether people would accept a "cheaper Britain" to the detriment of imported goods and foreign travel.

Why couldn't wheat be produced in the UK instead of importing it.

My query was asking the forum to consider an alternative situation to the now.
Not whether it could or couldn't be done.

It seems this forum is full of naysayer, determined to quosh thoughts, ideas or questions rather than consider an alternative concept and then how to achieve that.

It seems the glass is half full for most in here.


Pity , as maybe more glass half full people would help to find more solutions instead of creating problems.

IveSeenTheLight

antrobus wrote: »

It's called 'devaluation'.

It only really works if you have fixed exchange rates, and even then it simply tends to inspire me-to devaluations as every other country similarly tries to make themselves more competitive, so you end up back at square one.

Thanks,

My point in reltation to this thread is are we in essence making ourselves less competative in the world driving up the minimum wage and thus the likely price of goods with it.

Are we really any better off?

Would devaluation make us more competative in the world and also more self sufficient?

IveSeenTheLight

N1AK wrote: »

I was polite and I believe that the remark was fair and accurate. The things you are suggesting aren't unlikely etc they are false/impossible. QUOTE]

I certainly was clear I wasn't asking whether it could or how it could be acheived.

Arguably, we could argue that anything is achievable, however sacrifices may need to be achieved.

N1AK wrote: »

You CAN'T make food noticeably cheaper by decreasing UK wages; the majority of low cost products in the UK aren't UK produced so removing imports would increase cost of living regardless of UK wages. These are facts and they are directly opposed to what you are suggesting.

Firstly, my bread example was just an example of davaluing thep roduct price. I ws meaning the dvaluing of all goods.

So open your options. Why can't we produce more home grown / manufactured products?

Sure, we probably can't produce some things like banana's (although if we created the right conditions why not?)

I believe we canacheive whatever we desire if we put our minds to it. Your arguments suggest not putting your mind in trying to achieve the near impossible.

N1AK wrote: »

Inflation would only happen if you increase wage costs for equivalent work. If you train someone currently earning £6.20ph to box jeans in the UK so they can build precision built components for £12.00 (and the boxing job went to someone in China) then their is no inflationary pressure on the UK. In fact UK income would increase and the cost of the boxed goods would decrease at the same time.

Now this is in your terms false / impossible.
What is being discussed here is not the training of employees to take on more skilled and better paid jobs. It's paying more for the same.

The person boxing jeans for £6.20ph, is now going to get £7.45 (or £8.45 in London)

What is the effect of this increase on the price of goods, other employees in the same companies doing slighlty better skilled jobs?

*The jeans boxer increases from £6.20 to £7.45 (20.16% increase)
The driver on £6.50 want to maintain their skill base knowledge premium also wants the 20% increase to £7.80
The accoutnant on £7.80, now seeing his valuation decreased to the same as the lorry driver wants £9.36
The designer on £12.00 now wants £14.40.
The owner see's all his costs increase 20%, thus increases his products by 20%
Extrapolated, the people of UK see the price of goods increase 20% and thus push for 20% + wage increases to maintain / better their quality of life.

In the end, we lose these jobs overseas which are more competative.
In your example, this is ok AS LONG AS WE INCREASE HIGHER SKILLED JOBS.
Is this happening?

* Note all figures hypothetical and randomly picked to show the effect of increasing minimum wage.

Loughton_Monkey

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

.....What is being discussed here is not the training of employees to take on more skilled and better paid jobs. It's paying more for the same.

The person boxing jeans for £6.20ph, is now going to get £7.45 (or £8.45 in London)

What is the effect of this increase on the price of goods, other employees in the same companies doing slighlty better skilled jobs?.....

I'm don't altogether buy the concept of skilling as "the" answer.

Don't get me wrong, it can help, but only up to a point.

One big (unanswered) question is how you measure 'skill'. The trouble is that economists tend to use a surrogate of GDP/Output per head. So if France produces $25,000 per head, and UK only $20,000 per head, we are perceived as lower skilled. But look here.....

Yes, that spotty lad in the transport cafe turning out sausage, bacon, fried bread & beans for £3.50 a pop is unskilled. Take 10 years to skill the lad up and he now works in the Waterside Inn turning out "Pan-fried lobster medallions with a white port sauce and ginger flavoured vegetable julienne.... and all the rimmings" for £100 a head.

But now look at something different. Take a good apprentice carpenter and train him for 10 years to produce high quality solid wood furniture. Pay him £35K a year, and his 'output' is probably £100K a year. Wonderful. But now invest in some high-tech machine doing all the intricate work to exacting tolerance and perfect finish.... It can probably turn out 10 times as much (output £1 million), with just a couple of minimum waged 'yoof' to load up the planks and unstack the finished goods.....

The second example is infinitely 'better' for the economy, despite having de-skilled. [Assuming the cost of the machine was viable].

Moreover, consider your costs when under pressure to increase wages. The carpenter wants 10%. So that's £3,500 extra for £100K of goods. The 'yoof' on the other hand would cost an extra £2,500 between them - for £1m of goods.

But some things cannot be mechanised. I bet the Waterside Inn would rather pay £20K a year for a waitress rather than minimum wage. She would have the 'skill' not to spill the soup, and to say "sir" rather than "... get that down yer, guv"

Intoodeep

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

N1AK wrote: »

I was polite and I believe that the remark was fair and accurate. The things you are suggesting aren't unlikely etc they are false/impossible. QUOTE]

I certainly was clear I wasn't asking whether it could or how it could be acheived.

Arguably, we could argue that anything is achievable, however sacrifices may need to be achieved.



Firstly, my bread example was just an example of davaluing thep roduct price. I ws meaning the dvaluing of all goods.

So open your options. Why can't we produce more home grown / manufactured products?

Sure, we probably can't produce some things like banana's (although if we created the right conditions why not?)

I believe we canacheive whatever we desire if we put our minds to it. Your arguments suggest not putting your mind in trying to achieve the near impossible.



Now this is in your terms false / impossible.
What is being discussed here is not the training of employees to take on more skilled and better paid jobs. It's paying more for the same.

The person boxing jeans for £6.20ph, is now going to get £7.45 (or £8.45 in London)

What is the effect of this increase on the price of goods, other employees in the same companies doing slighlty better skilled jobs?

*The jeans boxer increases from £6.20 to £7.45 (20.16% increase)
The driver on £6.50 want to maintain their skill base knowledge premium also wants the 20% increase to £7.80
The accoutnant on £7.80, now seeing his valuation decreased to the same as the lorry driver wants £9.36
The designer on £12.00 now wants £14.40.
The owner see's all his costs increase 20%, thus increases his products by 20%
Extrapolated, the people of UK see the price of goods increase 20% and thus push for 20% + wage increases to maintain / better their quality of life.

In the end, we lose these jobs overseas which are more competative.
In your example, this is ok AS LONG AS WE INCREASE HIGHER SKILLED JOBS.
Is this happening?

* Note all figures hypothetical and randomly picked to show the effect of increasing minimum wage.

As I previously commented on this thread

Differentials

Conrad

grizzly1911 wrote: »

If you are happy for hard working people to be paid a pittance so you can indulge your whims enjoy.

.

I'm always argueing we should make purchasing decisions based on how well workers are tret.

Yet this very forum is dedicated to reducing costs which will often mean workers being paid less.

Most people I encounter are not the slightest bit concerned with workers / trades peoples incomes when it comes to thier own buying decisions. Left wing types are in my experience the tightest of all, out to improve thier position with most of thier buying decisions.

Conrad

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

But now look at something different. Take a good apprentice carpenter and train him for 10 years to produce high quality solid wood furniture. Pay him £35K a year, and his 'output' is probably £100K a year. Wonderful. But now invest in some high-tech machine doing all the intricate work to exacting tolerance and perfect finish.... It can probably turn out 10 times as much (output £1 million), with just a couple of minimum waged 'yoof' to load up the planks and unstack the finished goods.....

The second example is infinitely 'better' for the economy, despite having de-skilled. [Assuming the cost of the machine was viable].

Yes, and consumers will vote with thier wallets, inspite of thier espoused supposed concern for the lot of workers. They nearly always do.

I have a left wing mate forever spouting that workers should be paid more and yet he spends his spare time surfing thr net for bargains, not once stopping to wonder whether these firms have a decent pay and conditions policy. It's this hippochrasy I find so illuminating..........

He is complicit in keeping wages down, China up and mechanisation a necessity!