Adult minimum wage to rise by 19p per hour

furthest

BillJones wrote: »

Yes having only one person working, on the minimum wage, when they've chosen to have children, and need one person to stay home and look after them, is going to mean that you are poor.

This is why most of us make sure that we can earn more than the minimum wage, and delay having children until we can afford them.

There's a lesson in there, if you choose to see it, or a class based moan to be vented, if you don't.

Not everything can be planned for. One could be earning above minimum wage, be made redundant and then be able to only find work at minimum wage.

szam_

Interesting debate.

At the risk of sounding very unpopular with most of the posters in here, I'll add my 2p.

In my opinion, the minimum wage is a good thing. Remove it, and what would happen? Likely the lowering of wages in a race to the bottom. You also can't have a minimum wage rise massively faster than inflation, because products and services would rise to counteract this in order to retain the same level of staff (especially small companies), and you'd be no better off than where you started. Not economics, but common sense, wouldn't you think? Pay more to your staff, require extra turnover to balance the books for the increase...?

I have to disagree with people complaining that it is too low. What is too low, anyway? The principle above is applied, in my opinion. However, I'd have thought that if you were unhappy with the quality of life that the NMW is giving you, you'd seek improvement. I'm going to be very unpopular for saying this, but I see a lot of blame on everyone else but themselves, when in reality, you either need the ambition or drive to do something yourself, or settle for what you have.

For example, not happy with the lack of opportunities in your area? Relocate, I know I had to leave all my friends and family behind just to get ahead and increase my wage and standard of living, because where I used to live was dead for jobs and opportunities.

Not getting promoted, or a pay rise? Work on your skills, learn new skills in your own time, ask, take opportunities and everything as a positive. Go the extra mile as it were.

I don't believe in the excuse, "but there are just no jobs to go to"...keep improving yourself and keep applying for that next step opportunity and eventually you'll get one, unless of course you're doing something seriously wrong.

At the end of the day, if you're not willing to put in the extra hours, extra commitment, and extra effort, you won't go anywhere, and minimum wage is rightly or wrongly, what you will be paid. This coming from someone who has had to work up from the bottom, an ASDA employee stacking shelves, to where I am starting a proper career 7 years on, on double the NMW.

I wanted that increase in wage, so I went out and earned it. You shouldn't expect something for nothing, albeit the mentality of a lot of people I come across these days.

mattcanary

BillJones wrote: »

Yes having only one person working, on the minimum wage, when they've chosen to have children, and need one person to stay home and look after them, is going to mean that you are poor.

This is why most of us make sure that we can earn more than the minimum wage, and delay having children until we can afford them.

There's a lesson in there, if you choose to see it, or a class based moan to be vented, if you don't.

Not everyone is capable of doing a moderately high-powered job earning decent pay.

If there were no cleaners, shop assistants, general labourers, etc industry would be in a mess.
Should these people never have children?

BillJones

furthest wrote: »

Not everything can be planned for. One could be earning above minimum wage, be made redundant and then be able to only find work at minimum wage.

Yes, that is true. What exactly is your point, though? If unfortunate things happen, life can be a bit tough.

Are you suggesting that minimum wage needs to be at a level such that one person working 35 hours a week can comfortably support a young family, including non-working partner?

If not, I can't see at all what your point is. Minimum wage is pretty good if you have two people living together doing a properly full-time job. It's a struggle if you've one person supporting a family on a few hours a week.

BillJones

mattcanary wrote: »

Not everyone is capable of doing a moderately high-powered job earning decent pay.

If there were no cleaners, shop assistants, general labourers, etc industry would be in a mess.
Should these people never have children?

I'm not going to tell people that they shouldn't have children, no. If they are on a 35 hour week, though, then it's hardly outrageous that they need to tighten their belts if they want to start a family.

Edited to add, you need to remember that a single minimum wage earner on low hours is going to get a decent set of benefits once they have children.

mattcanary

BillJones wrote: »

Yes, that is true. What exactly is your point, though? If unfortunate things happen, life can be a bit tough.

Are you suggesting that minimum wage needs to be at a level such that one person working 35 hours a week can comfortably support a young family, including non-working partner?

If not, I can't see at all what your point is. Minimum wage is pretty good if you have two people living together doing a properly full-time job. It's a struggle if you've one person supporting a family on a few hours a week.

60 hours a week is not doing a properly full time job. It is doing a full time job with plenty of overtime on top.
If you work 5 days a week, that is 12 hours a day, say 8am-8pm every weekday. You have no time or energy to do anything except work.

mattcanary

BillJones wrote: »

I'm not going to tell people that they shouldn't have children, no. If they are on a 35 hour week, though, then it's hardly outrageous that they need to tighten their belts if they want to start a family.

Edited to add, you need to remember that a single minimum wage earner on low hours is going to get a decent set of benefits once they have children.

Yes, but I don;t agree with Tax Credits. Employers should be paying a decent wage, not the government.

Of course, the massive increase in house prices over the last twenty years (and rents) means this is hard to achieve.

szam_

mattcanary wrote: »

Yes, but I don;t agree with Tax Credits. Employers should be paying a decent wage, not the government.

You cannot just expect employers to pay everyone a decent wage but expect the price of goods and services to remain the same. It's just not how it works. That decent wage would rapidly become a "poor" wage again because employers have to make up the numbers from paying their staff a substantial amount more.

I wish it was as black and white as you describe it, if only it was that simple.

BillJones

mattcanary wrote: »

If you work 5 days a week, that is 12 hours a day, say 8am-8pm every weekday. You have no time or energy to do anything except work.

Wow, it's hard to know what to say to that.

I work 7-7 on a normal day (with no breaks), and this is pretty normal in my job. It's a hard, mentally challenging high stress job, yet I still find plenty of time to see friends, go out for a meal, get to the gym, and do all of the normal things that need to be fitted in outside the office, such as shopping, laundry, getting the car repaired, and so on.

I do wonder, with attitudes like you espouse above, how you manage to progress up through the ranks at work, and to get ahead. Don't you find your insistence on working a 37 hour week is holding you back?

furthest

BillJones wrote: »

Yes, that is true. What exactly is your point, though? If unfortunate things happen, life can be a bit tough.

Are you suggesting that minimum wage needs to be at a level such that one person working 35 hours a week can comfortably support a young family, including non-working partner?

If not, I can't see at all what your point is. Minimum wage is pretty good if you have two people living together doing a properly full-time job. It's a struggle if you've one person supporting a family on a few hours a week.

No, I am suggesting that people are paid a living wage. Why should taxpayers subsidise businesses that fail to pay an adequate wage to their employees.