Cut in Minimum Wage

dori2o

CLAPTON wrote: »

the reason for mentioning houses was your vision of shanty towns... more and cheaper housing would direct address the issue

as I've already said, on many posts, in the current climate lower wages will provide more jobs...

You're not really asking me to spell out the effects on society of more young (and older) people in gainful employment rather than the dole?

This is where people like you really lose the argument.

You detest people on the dole yet want them to work for next to nothing, which in turn increases the welfare bill for that/those individual(s).

There are far better ways of creating growth and jobs in the UK than by returning to the days of 50+ hour weeks and 50p per hour wages.

CLAPTON

dori2o wrote: »

This is where people like you really lose the argument.

You detest people on the dole yet want them to work for next to nothing, which in turn increases the welfare bill for that/those individual(s).

There are far better ways of creating growth in the UK than by returning to the days of 50+ hour weeks and 50p per hour wages.

If there are better ways of creating growth and employment I rejoice in that and welcome their speedy introduction.

I have been unemployed myself and no I don't detest me.

Many of my friends have been unemployed and I don't detest them.

The rest of your post is absurd.

StevieJ

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

dori2o

CLAPTON wrote: »

If there are better ways of creating growth and employment I rejoice in that and welcome their speedy introduction.

I have been unemployed myself and no I don't detest me.

Many of my friends have been unemployed and I don't detest them.

The rest of your post is absurd.

How exactly is it absurd.

Are you saying that the majority of employers who now pay as little as possible would not reduce salaries to <£1 per hour?

It is quite simple to understand thsat in the UK currently there is not enough work to go around the population. There are many reasons for this. Successive Governments over ther past 30 years decimating manufacturing. Successive Governments refusing to invest in anything outside of the service sector and banking.

Until these 2 main points are addressed then the status quo will remain.

One very simple way of increasing the availability of work is to reduce the standard working week.

Reduce the maximum working week to 32 hours, or go to a 4 day working week rather than 5. This would mean that for every four 40 hour/5day employee you could employ one more person.

It would reduce the need for childcare, it would reduce the unemployment and welfare bills, it would provide better assistance and more relaxation time for working families

Also abolish employers NIC and remove the upper threshold for employees NI meaning everyone pays 12% NI on everything over the exempt amount, not 12% and then 1% after £40k or so.

Freezing/Capping/Abolishing the NMW does nothing for the economy. If people don't have money to spend then companies don't have the money to invest, therefore they dont have the ability to expand and take on more staff.

Removing money from the economy is not the answer.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

I have no view as to the correct wage.

Many people (yourself I would guess) get more than the NMW because you have expertise and experience.

Getting started is very important so people can gain experience and expertise.

The fact that it's not a living wage for a person with kids and a mortgage is not the issue.

I don't understand your last line about 'nothing left to build'; we all did OK before the NMW as introduced.

"won't be anything to build " as it will be thrown up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17185294

It isn't just about getting started any more, many are subsisting on NMW or if lucky, just above.

CLAPTON

dori2o wrote: »

How exactly is it absurd.

Are you saying that the majority of employers who now pay as little as possible would not reduce salaries to <£1 per hour?

It is quite simple to understand thsat in the UK currently there is not enough work to go around the population. There are many reasons for this. Successive Governments over ther past 30 years decimating manufacturing. Successive Governments refusing to invest in anything outside of the service sector and banking.

Until these 2 main points are addressed then the status quo will remain.

One very simple way of increasing the availability of work is to reduce the standard working week.

Reduce the maximum working week to 32 hours, or go to a 4 day working week rather than 5. This would mean that for every four 40 hour/5day employee you could employ one more person.

It would reduce the need for childcare, it would reduce the unemployment and welfare bills, it would provide better assistance and more relaxation time for working families

Also abolish employers NIC and remove the upper threshold for employees NI meaning everyone pays 12% NI on everything over the exempt amount, not 12% and then 1% after £40k or so.

Freezing/Capping/Abolishing the NMW does nothing for the economy. If people don't have money to spend then companies don't have the money to invest, therefore they dont have the ability to expand and take on more staff.

Removing money from the economy is not the answer.

Obviously employers pay a little as possible... which of course often is a lot

if they didn't, people like most of the UK (possibility including yourself) would ensure they go out of business

Did you pour your money into woolies, axminster, jessops, HMV etc etc , well I didn't and if I see the same product in two shops at different prices, all other things being equal, I buy at the cheapest.


There are many reasons why manufacturing declined; sadly the rubbish british cars, the intransient unions but in fact UK is the 6th largest manufacturer in the world.


we agree about abolishing the employers NI and abolishing the upper limit on employees N1 ( the rate over 42k is 2% and not 1% but that is irrelevant to the discussion)

And as for reducing the working week, that's being done, with the rise in part time working, zero hours contracts, etc

and of course if there was no need to compete in the world so we could buy oil, gas and food and raw materials |I would full agree with you with further compulsory flexibility but until we are self sufficient I will have to reserve judgement

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

And as for reducing the working week, that's being done, with the rise in part time working, zero hours contracts, etc

/QUOTE]

If that had been achieved with people keeping full (reduced) time employment, protection and benefits and at least pro rata pay, with career and pay progression that may have worked.

Unfortunately it has been achieved at NMW in largely go nowhere roles.

The 42K threshold will become irrelevant for growing numbers it will unattainable.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

"won't be anything to build " as it will be thrown up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17185294

It isn't just about getting started any more, many are subsisting on NMW or if lucky, just above.

of course before we had NMW we did not have these back garden shanty towns

I made no assumption about casual links

Itismehonest

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.

CLAPTON

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.

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.