Minimum Wage

[andy222]

Heard something on the news today they want the minimum wage to be raised. £7.10 outer london and £8.20 if your in London. Just like your thoughts on this?

[Terpe]

I think it's not referring to raising the legal National Minimum, but to to persuade employers to uplift low incomes by paying a 'living wage'.

The logic is that if people get paid what is considered to be a living wage then the taxpayer does not need to support benefits payments to those on minimum wage.

Well something like that anyway.

[sars_notd_virus]

I had a pay rise a couple of months ago...i dont mind another one :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[bigmarco]

The people who decide these figures have no concept of living in the real world. They claim more than this in expenses .

[imagine]

The people who decide these figures have no concept of living in the real world. They claim more than this in expenses .

yeah its tough at the top:icon_lol:

[andy222]

The people who decide these figures have no concept of living in the real world. They claim more than this in expenses .
I agree thats why they will not take the challenge of living on the minimum wage. How can these millionaire politicians know what it is like living in the real world.:icon_rolleyes:

[Iani]

I think Labour have said something to this affect, at the moment we have a situation where people are claiming benefits to supplement their peanuts wages to enable them to live................and the companies who pay these disgusting wages are often multi billion nationals.
So basically the taxpayer is subsidising the profits of these companies, because they know they can get away with paying such rubbish reward.

In a way, this almost brings us back to that perpetually discussed thing on here - the £18,600, and how if this is what the government thinks is a minimum for a managable standard of living, then this throws up moral issues surrounding minimum wage and benefits. (but of course, governments always like to have it both ways)

There would be another huge knock on affect to if they did actually raise minimum wages to this level - the fact this would affect the entire labour market as other already higher wages would have pressure on them to rise, to maintain a market competition.

Would this cause more greedy companies, wanting to maintain their bonus's so that their suited fatcats don't have to give up that 12th holiday this year in St Vincent, to do more outsourcing? Hmmmm

[lastlid]

Yes. Could drive more and more companies out of the UK in search of a cheaper labour force?

[hawk]

am working as much as i can but its still not enough to be able to get wife here i can only work as long as my digi card and hours permited and its still not anywere near so upping wages wont mean didly scwhat 2 me and lots of others

[andy222]

am working as much as i can but its still not enough to be able to get wife here i can only work as long as my digi card and hours permited and its still not anywere near so upping wages wont mean didly scwhat 2 me and lots of others
Join the club hawk. So much for democracy too. They are dictating who we are allowed to marry ie if we marry a european everything is fine.

[stevewool]

the more you earn the more you pay, i have the chance of doing more work and it would add another £200 a month before tax, but i am to tired and old

[Arthur Little]

the more you earn the more you pay, i have the chance of doing more work and it would add another £200 a month before tax, but i am to tired and old

:iagree: ... there comes a time when a worker needs to say, "enough is enough" and, for MOST ordinary mortals, that time has [usually] arrived whenever the person hits 50/60.

[imagine]

the more you earn the more you pay, i have the chance of doing more work and it would add another £200 a month before tax, but i am to tired and old

comes to us all mate, just keep your health, do what you need to do and thats enough

[stevewool]

our company pays the min wage but adds bonus and other things to it, try getting drivers to work on that pay, also if he or she has kids, its not worth them working at all it seems, all is wrong but if they can get away with it, then why not everyone else seems to

[Michael Parnham]

I don't know what HGV drivers earn these days as I've been retired for ten years now Steve, but I always remember when I was Transport Manager the last ten years of my working life, the drivers always earned far more than me, and I started work 6am and sometimes finished as late as 10pm but normally 7 30 pm. But even though I had finished work and arrived home the phone used to ring at least two or three times after that, sometimes during the night. Boy was I glad when I retired!!

[andy222]

It all comes down to the very high cost of living in this country. Greedy polititions and buisinessmen have made it that way. The normal working man just cant keep up. Vicious circle.

[Iani]

Many people aren't going to like me saying this - and I honestly don't know if this is true, but it's something I once read - what does anyone think? As someone who has studied economics, it certainly is "possible"

What I read, is that low wages in the UK can be linked to women working once they are married and have children - I shall explain the logic of the article I read.

Apparently, back in the day, the man went out to earn the bread, the woman stayed at home, looked after the kids, then when her man got home, scrubbed his back. He had to work hard to support his family.

This however was the working class way. The middle classes - upper middle classes that is - the women used to work, albeit in doddle jobs.
It is said in a socio-economic sense, that the middle classes had "guilt" over this, knowing their children really wanted their parents, not a nanny. They managed over the decades to pass this guilt on to the working class majority, who now felt obliged to go out to work - but they couldn't of course afford nannies, they send their kids to daycare (note - don't confuse working class with coal miners sitting in a tin bath once a week, it means anyone working who has to really).

Now in kicks simple economics. With both parties in a marriage working, the pay levels will naturally come down, as both sides can afford to take lower pay - and in a competitive market will.

So this report concluded, low pay is because companies know full well they can pay peanuts - and do.
If women didn't work it went on - then the men would refuse to accept rubbish pay, and the companies would be forced to raise pay levels.

As I said, I've studied economics, this IS possible, but on the other hand, I can see loopholes you could drive a train through. Outsourcing, cheap labour from abroad, take it or leave it attitudes with employers etc

Sort of made me think for a while though - maybe it is a contributing factor. Then again, "back in the day" when only the man did work, they didn't exactly pay huge wages for working to an early death down in the mill did they.

[nnomad]

:iagree: ... there comes a time when a worker needs to say, "enough is enough" and, for MOST ordinary mortals, that time has [usually] arrived whenever the person hits 50/60.

huh,,, not so sure about that mate,, i turn 62 next month and still doing 7 x 12s !!!!!!
( ok, i have day off today !! )

[lastlid]

Many people aren't going to like me saying this - and I honestly don't know if this is true, but it's something I once read - what does anyone think? As someone who has studied economics, it certainly is "possible"

What I read, is that low wages in the UK can be linked to women working once they are married and have children - I shall explain the logic of the article I read.

Apparently, back in the day, the man went out to earn the bread, the woman stayed at home, looked after the kids, then when her man got home, scrubbed his back. He had to work hard to support his family.

This however was the working class way. The middle classes - upper middle classes that is - the women used to work, albeit in doddle jobs.
It is said in a socio-economic sense, that the middle classes had "guilt" over this, knowing their children really wanted their parents, not a nanny. They managed over the decades to pass this guilt on to the working class majority, who now felt obliged to go out to work - but they couldn't of course afford nannies, they send their kids to daycare (note - don't confuse working class with coal miners sitting in a tin bath once a week, it means anyone working who has to really).

Now in kicks simple economics. With both parties in a marriage working, the pay levels will naturally come down, as both sides can afford to take lower pay - and in a competitive market will.

So this report concluded, low pay is because companies know full well they can pay peanuts - and do.
If women didn't work it went on - then the men would refuse to accept rubbish pay, and the companies would be forced to raise pay levels.

As I said, I've studied economics, this IS possible, but on the other hand, I can see loopholes you could drive a train through. Outsourcing, cheap labour from abroad, take it or leave it attitudes with employers etc

Sort of made me think for a while though - maybe it is a contributing factor. Then again, "back in the day" when only the man did work, they didn't exactly pay huge wages for working to an early death down in the mill did they.

I got an A level in Economics. :xxgrinning--00xx3:

Yep. Supply and demand for jobs. No doubt with all these women going out to work in the UK, over the last 50 years or so, has made a difference to the labour market.

[Michael Parnham]

I never seem to have worked for a company and had a pay increase, the only way that my pay increased was to move from one company to another, having said that I have never had a day off work in my working life apart from public holidays or a pre arranged annual holiday that were few and far between.

[Arthur Little]

Many people aren't going to like me saying this ...

... :anerikke: ... TOUGH whether anyone likes it or not, Ian - it's the truth ...



... low wages in the UK can be linked to women working once they are married and have children ...

... :yeahthat:'s what I've long-maintained - and, to my mind at least - it doesn't need a qualification in Economics to work that out! :NoNo:

[Arthur Little]

I got an A level in Economics. :xxgrinning--00xx3:

Congratulations ... I failed! :bigcry:


Yep. Supply and demand for jobs. No doubt with all these women going out to work in the UK, over the last 50 years or so, has made a difference to the labour market.

Agreed! But its 'genesis' goes even further back than that ... to the period between 1939~45 in fact - when women were drafted into the workforce to keep the nation's economy ticking over while their menfolk went off to war.

Understandable ... during wartime. However, it follows that, with an ensuing drop in the birthrate, many women were, not unnaturally, reluctant to relinquish their newly-found earning power :cwm25: in the immediate aftermath of hostilities - particularly in a period of severe, ongoing austerity - and, notwithstanding the resultant emergence of the so-called "Baby-Boomer" era, this trend took hold nationwide and continued throughout the 1950s and into the early '60s.

And so it has remained over the past half century ... to the extent of ultimately becoming 'the norm' - with *no signs of abating - *a characteristic it shares with the relentless advance of technology in being largely responsible for today's shortage of opportunities in the job market. :doh

[lastlid]

Congratulations ... I failed! :bigcry:



Agreed! But its 'genesis' goes even further back than that ... to the period between 1939~45 in fact - when women were drafted into the workforce to keep the nation's economy ticking over while their menfolk went off to war.

Understandable ... during wartime. However, it follows that, with an ensuing drop in the birthrate, many women were, not unnaturally, reluctant to relinquish their newly-found earning power :cwm25: in the immediate aftermath of hostilities - particularly in a period of severe, ongoing austerity - and, notwithstanding the resultant emergence of the so-called "Baby-Boomer" era, this trend took hold nationwide and continued throughout the 1950s and into the early '60s.

And so it has remained over the past half century ... to the extent of ultimately becoming 'the norm' - with *no signs of abating - *a characteristic it shares with the relentless advance of technology in being largely responsible for today's shortage of opportunities in the job market. :doh

Women
Immigrants
Technology

I guess all three of those.

[Arthur Little]

comes to us all mate, just keep your health, do what you need to do and thats enough

:iagree:, Stewart ... "health IS wealth" - an oft~repeated phrase of Myrna's ...

[Arthur Little]

... which is one of the principal reasons I'm totally opposed to the Government raising the official retiral ages.

:yeahthat: and - aside from the one I've already advocated in #12 - the fact that it will surely deprive young people of the obvious feelings of satisfaction to be derived from the realisation that they'd be "doing THEIR bit" towards boosting our country's ailing GNP.

Let's face it ... the majority of older people :oldlady: :olddude: :oldlady: have had their chance to contribute to society - now it's the turn of future generations - leaving the "golden oldies" the RIGHT to enjoy the rest of their lives free from harness as nature intended.

N.B. Positioning of appropriate smilies has been deliberately arranged in the order shown above ... since it would be hardly suprising to find that women accounted for twice the number of men currently employed in the modern workplace.