Please sign This petition Ian Duncan Smith to live on £53 a week.

HopScotch

lukieboy96 wrote: »

Just read in the paper today that they are thinking about 'REDUCING' the minimum wage!!! They are really hitting the poor. How can they go back on what they say?

I don't agree with you here, this is more of a good thing than bad.

Cutting the minimum wage allows small businesses to take on employees that they would have been unable to afford had minimum wage stayed at a reasonable rate. People complain about unemployment and there being no jobs so here is a current solution, simple laws of supply and demand. Better surely to work 40 hours per week in a reduced wage than stick in a rut and take your £53 in benefits?

mazza111

Dunroamin wrote: »

Seeing that the only people who would have to live on this amount (£57 not £53) are healthy under 25s, do we actually want to be paying an amount that will be comfortable for them to live on indefinitely, particularly as the majority of them will be living in the parental home? The UK has a big enough problem with NEETS already, without making a benefit lifestyle any more desirable.

If this was the amount payable for older people it would be a totally different situation, but it isn't.

Actually, those under 25 and on assessment rate of ESA get this amount too.

leveller2911

HopScotch wrote: »

I don't agree with you here, this is
more of a good thing than bad.





Cutting the minimum wage allows small businesses to take on employees that
they would have been unable to afford had minimum wage stayed at a reasonable
rate.

I don't agree, if you cut the minimum wage small/medium size businesses may employ more people but their profit margins would increase.There is no incentive for business to pass on any increase in profits to the workers. You only have to look at Aldi supermarket.When they came to the UK they were paying their staff £6.50 an hour, that was 10 years ago and in that 10 years wage increase was negligable but company profits have risen.

Fact remains in keeping NMW low (even without lowering it) the supermarkets etc know that tax credits will make up the wage so they don't need to pay a "liveable wage", its not in their interest.We are in fact subsidising the Supermarkets business.

When you see Tescos profit for the year at £2 billion it should make us all think again.


Oh and I run a small business.......To make a real difference they need to bring the cost of living down and create wealth by educating the workforce to carry out skilled jobs. For example having components made in China is cheap and low profit margins.The real profit/wealth is in designing the components not making it.

nannytone_2

HopScotch wrote: »

I don't agree with you here, this is more of a good thing than bad.

Cutting the minimum wage allows small businesses to take on employees that they would have been unable to afford had minimum wage stayed at a reasonable rate. People complain about unemployment and there being no jobs so here is a current solution, simple laws of supply and demand. Better surely to work 40 hours per week in a reduced wage than stick in a rut and take your £53 in benefits?

had minimum wage stayed at a reasonable rate? you think $6.19 an hour is excessive?
people working full time shouldnt need benefits... their wage should be enough ... but in many cases it isnt!
i see your point regarding small business, but you have retail giants like tesco,asda and morrisons oaying their staff little above NMW ;evel, if it was lowered, then they would lower the wages accordingly. are you saying that companies like these cant afford to pay a living wage?

HopScotch

leveller2911 wrote: »

I don't agree, if you cut the minimum wage small/medium size businesses may employ more people but their profit margins would increase.There is no incentive for business to pass on any increase in profits to the workers. You only have to look at Aldi supermarket.When they came to the UK they were paying their staff £6.50 an hour, that was 10 years ago and in that 10 years wage increase was negligable but company profits have risen.

Fact remains in keeping NMW low (even without lowering it) the supermarkets etc know that tax credits will make up the wage so they don't need to pay a "liveable wage", its not in their interest.We are in fact subsidising the Supermarkets business.

When you see Tescos profit for the year at £2 billion it should make us all think again.


Oh and I run a small business.......

I do agree that large businesses will benefit, especially so in the case of retail which it is not a labour intensive business.

Profit per employee is huge for just this reason. The use of self service checkouts has lead to a reduction in labour force as they've been made redundant by a simple scanner.

In a labour intensive industry where staff are crucial to the task being carried out there would be a more positive effect.

I'm not taking this off topic re the benefit cuts and the topic of this thread but a "liveable wage" is an ambiguous term and depends on differing circumstances for each individual.

Jennifer_Jane

mazza111 wrote: »

The point isn't whether or not he got a job. It was the fact that he said he could, and the fact that he said he had lived on the breadline after 2 bouts of unemployment..sure he did...

I won't be signing the petition either, as I seen it as just to raise awareness to show how hard some people will be having things.

Do you have evidence that he didn't?

leveller2911

HopScotch wrote: »

leveller2911 wrote: »

In a labour intensive industry where staff are crucial to the task being
carried out there would be a more positive effect.





I'm not taking this off topic re the benefit cuts and the topic of this
thread but a "liveable wage" is an ambiguous term and depends on differing
circumstances for each individual.

Why? what incentive is there for a boss to pass on some of his/her profit to their workforce when they can keep for themselves.There are good business role models such as the John Lewis group but they are few and far between IMO.

I agree with regards to a "Liveable wage" being amiguous but bringing down the cost of living would benefit all in Society.I'm actually in favour of many of the benefits cuts but at the same time Government should be investing in training a skilled workforce and they are failing dismally imo...

Bit off thread topic

mazza111

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Do you have evidence that he didn't?

I have evidence that he's married to inherited wealth. Why would he live on £53 (although I still don't know where he got that figure) when he has a millionaire wife?

guilds

Dunroamin wrote: »

An aging actor with a background in the BNP - can't argue with him then.

I have meet Ricky a number of times at charity gigs, he is not the same man as then, you will see from my avatar I will have no truck with racists, like me and most young men and women he made a bad judgement call.

My Personal experience below

My parents and older sister were out and out racists, My parents were living in Birmingham in the 50s they were scared and feared immigration they past their views on to my older sister, I came along early 60s when immigration was in full swing I then went to school with Black, Asian, Indian kids they were just kids, I gravitated to the afro Caribbean community more so because of the Music, gradually my black friends used to come to my home my parents soon dropped their views to the point of inviting their parents round for tea ,then to parties then invites were reciprocated and best friends were made my Mother loved the food and vibe, Dad loved the straight talking no nonsense chat, my best mate was and is called Desmond, his dad Delmar introduced me to the Blues and is wholly responsible for my career, I will be forever grateful to him. Delmar died 10 years ago both my parents and especially my sister were beside themselves with grief at his funeral, people can and do change :A

Soubrette

HopScotch wrote: »

I don't agree with you here, this is more of a good thing than bad.

Cutting the minimum wage allows small businesses to take on employees that they would have been unable to afford had minimum wage stayed at a reasonable rate. People complain about unemployment and there being no jobs so here is a current solution, simple laws of supply and demand. Better surely to work 40 hours per week in a reduced wage than stick in a rut and take your £53 in benefits?

You are wrong, it is red tape and employment laws that stop small business employing people. I'm not sure of an equitable way of dealing with it but from a SME point of view, it's too much hassle for one guy who has no expertise in HR to bother employing someone, he'd probably rather work 80 hours a week. Of course from an employee point of view, low paid work with no employment rights is not very appealing.

Morlock - you have hit the nail on the head and it always puzzles me that people don't see it, unemployment is absolutely essential in a corporate run system such as ours - leaving a job one day and walking into another the next day gives far too much power to the employee. Full employment has not been pursued by any Govt of any flavour for over 20 years. As a nice side effect, it keeps down inflation too!

Of course it makes a domestic demand led recovery nigh on impossible as more and more people's salaries fail to keep pace with inflation and thus less and less is available for discretionary spends. The very rich of course can just move their money to tax havens.