Minimum wage

kinger101

Andy_L wrote: »

and how much of that is due to minimum wage going up and how much is opportunistic price hiking?

Yes, 80 pence (with NI) is equivalent to 1 hr 24 mins of the additional 50 p per hour. And the £5 is 8 hr 47 mins.

Jason74

Mistermeaner wrote: »

how much does the public sector employ people (directly or indirectly) on the minimum wage?

There was alot of stink about care workers being effected and the increase in costs to councils, for which councils were allowed the privilege of increasing council tax (for tax payers) by 3%

I know you will disagree, but my reaction to the point in bold is that this is very much that this is a very good thing indeed. People who need care of the type delivered by care workers deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, while those who provide this vital service (one that adds a lot more value to society than a lot of higher paying private sector jobs imho) deserve to earn a decent living wage.

Anyone who objects to paying an extra £5 (or even £10) per Month to ensure that both of the above things happen (which is all we're talking about in the context of a 3% CT rise) is imho a pretty sorry excuse for a human being.

CLAPTON

Jason74 wrote: »

I know you will disagree, but my reaction to the point in bold is that this is very much that this is a very good thing indeed. People who need care of the type delivered by care workers deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, while those who provide this vital service (one that adds a lot more value to society than a lot of higher paying private sector jobs imho) deserve to earn a decent living wage.

Anyone who objects to paying an extra £5 (or even £10) per Month to ensure that both of the above things happen (which is all we're talking about in the context of a 3% CT rise) is imho a pretty sorry excuse for a human being.

are these people more or less worthy than people who produce food; many of whom earn enormously less than these carers

Mistermeaner

Jason74 wrote: »

I know you will disagree, but my reaction to the point in bold is that this is very much that this is a very good thing indeed. People who need care of the type delivered by care workers deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, while those who provide this vital service (one that adds a lot more value to society than a lot of higher paying private sector jobs imho) deserve to earn a decent living wage.

Anyone who objects to paying an extra £5 (or even £10) per Month to ensure that both of the above things happen (which is all we're talking about in the context of a 3% CT rise) is imho a pretty sorry excuse for a human being.

I guess you would be more than happy then paying a couple of hundred extra a month voluntarily so that perhaps 20-40 people who don't agree with you can have the freedom of choice?

mwpt

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I guess you would be more than happy then paying a couple of hundred extra a month voluntarily so that perhaps 20-40 people who don't agree with you can have the freedom of choice?

That isn't how the system works. We vote in a government who take these decisions and socialise the costs across everyone. If you are able to vote in a government who doesn't do this stuff, then you can have your way, but until then you have to put up with living in a democracy and a social welfare state. Or, you should move country. I did, I came here, because the alternatives were worse.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

That isn't how the system works. We vote in a government who take these decisions and socialise the costs across everyone. If you are able to vote in a government who doesn't do this stuff, then you can have your way, but until then you have to put up with living in a democracy and a social welfare state. Or, you should move country. I did, I came here, because the alternatives were worse.

care costs are indeed paid by the state for some people
and care cost are paid by people who need care or their family in other cases
charitable giving is not unknown even in a socialist country like the UK

there is the larger issue of whether salary should be fixed by the worthiness of the job or by people's willingness to do it.
So should a care worker be paid a very high salary because what they do is deemed, by some, as socially very valuable or do you pay them a rate, that reflects the low level of skill and plentiful supply.

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

So should a care worker be paid a very high salary because what they do is deemed, by some, as socially very valuable or do you pay them a rate, that reflects the low level of skill and plentiful supply.

I personally think the latter, though I respect the opinions of those that don't. Imo, If people are willing to do care work for a certain cost, then clearly they have made the judgement in their head that their time and effort in the job is worth the pay, or they'd do something else (walk dogs for example).

In this case, I think the Tories have got another agenda which is that they are desperate to stoke some inflation and perhaps move people out of WTC brackets.

But all that said, I was just responding to the notion that crops up now and then that we should run our society by voluntary tax.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

I personally think the latter, though I respect the opinions of those that don't. Imo, If people are willing to do care work for a certain cost, then clearly they have made the judgement in their head that their time and effort in the job is worth the pay, or they'd do something else (walk dogs for example).

In this case, I think the Tories have got another agenda which is that they are desperate to stoke some inflation and perhaps move people out of WTC brackets.

But all that said, I was just responding to the notion that crops up now and then that we should run our society by voluntary tax.

for others to say, but I don't think the suggestion was to run society on voluntary tax, but rather that those happy to pay more then why don't they pay more voluntarily.

Mistermeaner

mwpt wrote: »

That isn't how the system works. We vote in a government who take these decisions and socialise the costs across everyone. If you are able to vote in a government who doesn't do this stuff, then you can have your way, but until then you have to put up with living in a democracy and a social welfare state. Or, you should move country. I did, I came here, because the alternatives were worse.

Well aware of that I'm just always interested to see how much those in favour of providing social stuff through higher taxation voluntarily handover to help out.

I

HornetSaver

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Well aware of that I'm just always interested to see how much those in favour of providing social stuff through higher taxation voluntarily handover to help out.

If your real life has any sort of resemblance to your forum persona, the answer from most people would be "more than you, as you don't believe in voluntarily paying anything".

Your reply would be "not if you count what I am forced to pay through the socialist tax structure".

Theirs would be "I am forced to pay into the same structure".

Yours would be "yes, but I earn more, which means that I contribute more".

There. I've saved you several hours' worth of reading and typing over the next year or so without charging a penny for the service, and what's more both you and those who disagree with you will probably agree with the summary. Philanthropy does occasionally work.

---

As for the discussion about care worker earnings, there is to me a distinction between:

1. Someone who does something non-essential purely through the love of doing it, regardless of the financial downsides
2. Someone whose career choices are purely motivated by money, but whose skillset is limited.
3. Someone working in a job where the skill requirements are low but the expectation for staff to deeply care about what they do is high

Groups 1 and 2 are by and large responsible for their development and life choices, and therefore there is an argument about whether a "living wage" should be applied to them.

I personally think it should, because if their jobs did not provide more than the minimum wage's worth of value to the employer, the posts would sooner or later be made redundant. Therefore if the minimum wage has been set too high it will eventually correct itself. I am cynical about - but do respect and understand the logic of - the alternative view. That by freezing (in cash terms), lowering or removing the minimum wage more jobs could be created, and there would be a far stronger incentive for those at the bottom of the employment scale to develop themselves, providing a double boost in productivity (lower costs and a more skilled workforce). The main problems being that large swathes of people not being able to afford to put a roof over their heads is a cost that would ultimately fall to the state in one form or another, and that the less attractive being an employee in the UK market is, the fewer workers will be available in the UK.

Group 3 on the other hand is a tricky one. You want to set the wage low enough that only those who love the job, or those who will go above and beyond to hold a job down, are likely to apply. You also want to set it high enough to ensure that these people have a good standard of living. And I don't see this as a leftie view. It doesn't particularly bother me if the person working on a petrol forecourt, ticket office or supermarkets gives two hoots about their job (provided that the minimum requirement of me being able to buy fuel, tickets and food is fulfilled). It would bother me greatly if the person looking after my frail relative doesn't give two hoots about their job.