milliband - 1 in 5 on low pay

Gavin83

Bill_Shidding wrote: »

So, what is the answer to ensuring companies pay all their employees enough to live, without state support?

I'm honestly not sure there is one. The capitalist system requires some people to be earning a low salary and some people to be earning a high salary, with many in between. The only real way around it is for individuals to improve their earning prospects which was the point I was making earlier.

Despite how I may be coming across I'm not anti low paid people, I just don't think increasing NMW is the answer. In an ideal world everyone would earn more than enough to do everything they wanted but realistically this isn't gonna happen.

The other (possible) solution is to offer lower price state produced alternatives to everything. Council houses (although we can all see how successful this is), state run transport, state produced energy and state produced commodities. This would almost inevitably lead to an increase in taxes though, moves away from capitalism and clearly doesn't fit your criteria of no state support.

Pont

Gavin83 wrote: »

Even if they didn't increase everyone's salary by 25% prices would go up. Most people involved in the manufacture, distribution and sale of goods are generally low paid and would be included in the increase of minimum wage which would push prices up anyway.

Of course doing it this way just means people on NMW will be able to get the same for their money and those on a higher salary will get less so in effect no one wins.

Think Ed needs to return to the drawing board? The average 10 year old could see this ain't the best idea. I can't help but think that if this is the best 'idea' the opposition can muster...god help us all!!

tir21

There would be no problem if someone earning half the average wage could buy a house that cost 50% of what someone on the average wage could afford.

But the rich buy all the property, pushing up prices.

High wages dont just reward those receiving it, they deprive everyone else on lower wages

tir21

There is always going to be a lag effect. If min wage went up £1.50 then it would take a few years for higher paid workers to get that increase

I doubt that if the min wage went up £1.50 next week I would get a £1.50 rise the week after

Gavin83

tir21 wrote: »

There would be no problem if someone earning half the average wage could buy a house that cost 50% of what someone on the average wage could afford.

But the rich buy all the property, pushing up prices.

High wages dont just reward those receiving it, they deprive everyone else on lower wages

This is a separate issue entirely but one that clearly needs rectifying. This one seems fairly simple though, simply make owning more than 1 property less lucrative, most likely through increased taxation. There are far too many private landlords or people who own many empty houses at the moment. I also think it should be made much more difficult for someone who doesn't actually live in this country (or a citizen) to own property here either.

specialboy

The introduction of the minimum wage and tax credits were the stupidest things Labour did

Gavin83

Pont wrote: »

Think Ed needs to return to the drawing board?

Yes. However like a typical politician he's just telling people what they want to hear to secure votes. I think the idea is unworkable and if he were to get in I don't think it would happen anyway.

tir21

Gavin

I'm honestly not sure there is one. The capitalist system requires some people to be earning a low salary and some people to be earning a high salary, with many in between.

But how poor do the poorest paid need to be? It cant be static and unchangeable. I saw a film a few years ago, think it was called the flaw. Its main argument was that since the 50's the wages of those at the top have kept rising while those at the bottom have stagnated requiring more and more debt in order for the same number of widgets to be bought by consumers

Now there is no reason for the diffetential between highest and lowest earners to have been wrong in the 50's but right now

In a way the wage inflation at the top is pretty unfathonable to me. They are not earning money for themselves any longer. But their childrens childrens children

King_Nothing

1 in 5 on low pay, so 4 out of 5 aren't on low pay, that's good news.

vroombroom

I work in a supermarket for just over minimum wage. I started on doing nightshift for them and even that wasn't near £9 per hour.

It makes me sad when I stack pots of honey that cost 3 hours work for me