Cut in Minimum Wage

dori2o

Itismehonest wrote: »

A NMW which is topped up by benefits is neither use nor ornament.
It probably means some companies which would fail actually stay in business which isn't necessarily for the best in the long run.
Every tax-payer ends up supporting businesses which may be better going to the wall. How many of those businesses would continue to pay NMW even if they were a fantastic success? Probably most while they can keep their workers, pay them low & have the tax-payer cough up.

We have yet to find a successful way of simultaneously being customers who pay as little as possible for our goods & services while also being employees who earn good wages. We'll buy cheap from abroad & then bemoan the loss of our home-grown industries.
Bottom line is we've priced ourselves out of the market on far too many things but don't seem to have worked that out & still think we should just all earn more.

It's not about wanting to earn more and more, it's about keeping up with the rising cost of living.

We moved into this house 10 years ago. Back then the gas and electricity costs were approx £800 a year. It's now £1300 a year, and during the 10 years we have been here we've had a A rated boiler fitted. A rated DG fitted, Loft insulation done, cavity wall insulation done, TRV's on all rads, etc etc.

Do you really think that if companies reduce their salaries by 50% prices will reduce by 50%? Of course they won't, it just means more will have to come from the state.

The State is unwilling to control the obscene prices we pay for fuel/utilities which in 99.9% of cases are absolutely essential to live even a limited existence. Year after year these companies make hundreds of millions of pounds worth of profits. Their top directors and shareholders take hundreds of thousands/millions in bonuses/wages and dividends.

The State however is willing to do all it can to make the lives of those at the bottom of the ladder even harder by restricting the money they have available to them.

The day the Government, whoever it may be, allows employers to offer <£1 per hour salaries is the day this country finally dies on its knees.

As an example. My uncle died in his 40's from a heart attack. He was relatively healthy, played football and rugby and didn't drink. Looked after himself and trained for and ran in the London Marathon in the late 80's.

He worked 55 hours a week as a security guard for (what was then) Littlewoods catalogues distribution centre. He was paid just short of 1.10p per hour.

55 hours at 1.10p per hour was £60a week, or approx £3150 per year.

If we allow the Government and businesses to take us back to those days then I'm sorry, but the country is doomed.

wotsthat

Itismehonest wrote: »

A NMW which is topped up by benefits is neither use nor ornament.
It probably means some companies which would fail actually stay in business which isn't necessarily for the best in the long run.
Every tax-payer ends up supporting businesses which may be better going to the wall. How many of those businesses would continue to pay NMW even if they were a fantastic success? Probably most while they can keep their workers, pay them low & have the tax-payer cough up.

Working tax credit should be seen for what it is - working to receive benefits. Unemployed people don't work so get reduced benefits.

It's up for debate whether this is a sensible long term policy but because it's seen as some sort of tax break rather than a direct benefit payment it allows employees to delude themselves that they are 'taxpayers'.

Employers are maybe not so deluded but they are effectively subsidised by the taxpayer to provide jobs for the low skilled. How profitable would Asda or Tesco be if they, as employers, had to pay people sufficiently to ensure they were over tax credit thresholds?

Itismehonest

CLAPTON wrote: »

Well there is a simple way that nature designed to reconcile our wish for cheap imports but to have high wages for little work.

It requires no civil servants, no parliamentary committees, no highly paid economists, no political parties;
in fact it doesn't work if they get involved, it's called exchange rates

sadly Greece, Ireland, Cyprus etc. haven't discovered this natural, sustainable, affordable organic cure.

True.

However, how would one over come the problem of high wages in the service sector?
Take, for instance, the rush to outsource telephone call-centres. Here we pay x, India pays y. For y a company can either employ more people or save money. Outcome everything goes to Bangalore, thousands of jobs are lost here & every time I have to call I feel like I'm taking part in an episode of IT Ain't Half Hot Mum

N1AK

StevieJ wrote: »

Here is an interesting chart, Mexico, I don't know why they bother :eek:

A Lemon can cost around $2 in Australia; which is now a very expensive country to live in. Mexico's minimum wage is still shockingly low even accounting for costs but I'd suggest that the Aus minimum wage is probably the equivalent of around £7.50 an hour when Mexicos is more like £2-3. A vast difference but not the 30x difference it would appear.

Itismehonest

dori2o wrote: »

It's not about wanting to earn more and more, it's about keeping up with the rising cost of living.

We moved into this house 10 years ago. Back then the gas and electricity costs were approx £800 a year. It's now £1300 a year, and during the 10 years we have been here we've had a A rated boiler fitted. A rated DG fitted, Loft insulation done, cavity wall insulation done, TRV's on all rads, etc etc.

Do you really think that if companies reduce their salaries by 50% prices will reduce by 50%? Of course they won't, it just means more will have to come from the state.

The State is unwilling to control the obscene prices we pay for fuel/utilities which in 99.9% of cases are absolutely essential to live even a limited existence. Year after year these companies make hundreds of millions of pounds worth of profits. Their top directors and shareholders take hundreds of thousands/millions in bonuses/wages and dividends.

The State however is willing to do all it can to make the lives of those at the bottom of the ladder even harder by restricting the money they have available to them.

The day the Government, whoever it may be, allows employers to offer <£1 per hour salaries is the day this country finally dies on its knees.

As an example. My uncle died in his 40's from a heart attack. He was relatively healthy, played football and rugby and didn't drink. Looked after himself and trained for and ran in the London Marathon in the late 80's.

He worked 55 hours a week as a security guard for (what was then) Littlewoods catalogues distribution centre. He was paid just short of 1.10p per hour.

55 hours at 1.10p per hour was £60a week, or approx £3150 per year.

If we allow the Government and businesses to take us back to those days then I'm sorry, but the country is doomed.

I worked for £18 pw when I first started. I also had to pay rent from that so I mainly lived on beans & crisp sandwiches. That was around 1970 so toward the end of the Wilson era. People were poor then, too, it isn't a recent invention. It was a case of get a 2nd job, get promotion or find a better paid job which, in times of economic problems isn't easy, I know, but is still possible.

The State controlled the energy companies in the 70s & where did it get us? All that happened was the Unions held the country to ransom. Even then we were paying over the odds for coal. I remember living & working by candlelight & the country grinding to a halt. We were known as The Sick Man of Europe & it was a title that was deserved.
Along with many others, I felt a great deal of sympathy for miners - a hellish way to make a living - but eventually the majority of the country got sick of having to live like that just because a bunch of hardliners who weren't accountable democratically were prepared to wreck the lives of the majority for their own ends. The Unions have themselves to thank for Thatcher getting into power.

But back to the NMW. A company works in much the same way as a family. It has a certain amount of money to cover payment for the things it needs to survive. Money doesn't grow on trees for employers any more than it does for employees. When a company needs to make cuts in its' expenditure it may delay redundancies but unless it can make more money or save in other areas they become inevitable. Having a NMW which means that some smaller companies can't afford to employ the number of people they would like & may make their business more viable is not sensible. There is only one way to make the situation better & that is to improve the productivity of every employee (work harder, longer but ultimately cost less) which is something this country, particularly the Unions, fight tooth & nail. In other countries some Unions have understood this, work closer with the employers & are less confrontational.

StevieJ

N1AK wrote: »

A Lemon can cost around $2 in Australia; which is now a very expensive country to live in. Mexico's minimum wage is still shockingly low even accounting for costs but I'd suggest that the Aus minimum wage is probably the equivalent of around £7.50 an hour when Mexicos is more like £2-3. A vast difference but not the 30x difference it would appear.

Surely you should compare to the US as it could be possible for a Mexican to live in Mexico and work in the US.

Itismehonest

wotsthat wrote: »

Working tax credit should be seen for what it is - working to receive benefits. Unemployed people don't work so get reduced benefits.

It's up for debate whether this is a sensible long term policy but because it's seen as some sort of tax break rather than a direct benefit payment it allows employees to delude themselves that they are 'taxpayers'.

Employers are maybe not so deluded but they are effectively subsidised by the taxpayer to provide jobs for the low skilled. How profitable would Asda or Tesco be if they, as employers, had to pay people sufficiently to ensure they were over tax credit thresholds?

I imagine they'd be just as profitable as they were before tax credits were invented but they would employ less people. Unfortunately, the NMW is a bit of an I'm Alright Jack move. Those in work wanting more can keep others out of work. It's much the same as when people moan about house prices saying that barmy vendors insist on getting too high a price. NMW prices people out of the market, too.

grizzly1911

wotsthat wrote: »

Working tax credit should be seen for what it is - working to receive benefits. Unemployed people don't work so get reduced benefits.

It's up for debate whether this is a sensible long term policy but because it's seen as some sort of tax break rather than a direct benefit payment it allows employees to delude themselves that they are 'taxpayers'.

It also allows the government to account for the payment in different ways, camouflaging the true cost, or am I just being cynical again.

StevieJ

Itismehonest wrote: »

I imagine they'd be just as profitable as they were before tax credits were invented but they would employ less people. Unfortunately, the NMW is a bit of an I'm Alright Jack move. Those in work wanting more can keep others out of work. It's much the same as when people moan about house prices saying that barmy vendors insist on getting too high a price. NMW prices people out of the market, too.

I think if they drop the minimum wage the only Jacks that will be alright will be the employers that will be able to use the flood of legal immigrants to undermine the wage structure at the bottom (even more).

N1AK

StevieJ wrote: »

Surely you should compare to the US as it could be possible for a Mexican to live in Mexico and work in the US.

I chose Australia because they have the highest minimum wage on the chart and was trying to point out that simply looking at pay amount without living costs doesn't tell people much.