Supermarkets make billions of pounds profit while paying staff minimal wages...

[Mathom]

The issue was whether the company would know the circumstances of its employees and whether it should tailor the salary it paid to employees with different domestic circs despite the fact that they do the same job.

 

You're doing a lot of winking but not much answering.

 

Hey, gimme a chance! I shall have to go and attend to a stinky bum (not mine ) in a moment anyway...

 

No, salaries should not be tailored to individual needs as that would be unworkable. But they should be high enough to cater for 'most' people's needs, certainly above minimum wage levels. Companies know how much their staff are getting in tax credits so that ought to give them more than enough hints if high numbers of their staff are not earning enough to live on.

[Darbees]

yes Iwas lucky that my parents subsidised me while I was training.Iwas lucky not all kids can get that support.Does that give me the right to look down on them.

I don't think there has been any suggestion of looking down on anyone other than by certain individuals who, bizzarely, look down on people who they think are doing better than them.

[Darbees]

Companies know how much their staff are getting in tax credits so that ought to give them more than enough hints if high numbers of their staff are not earning enough to live on.

That would be completely unworkable and I've never heard of any company paying their workforce according to their social needs. Using your theory a company employing parents with children would have to pay higher wages across the board. I wonder how they would get over that one........hmmmm let's think now..........employ people who don't have kids with less financial commitments and the parents can all stay unemployed perhaps?

 

If you want more money Mathom, get working harder cos no one is going to give you for anything else.

[mr contrite]

No, we're saying the same thing effectively - my point is that as so many have been bought up by landlords, if you actually want to buy one to live in round there, you'll have to pay through the nose, and the bidding war will not be pleasant. So those who do want to live there often have to rent...and so it goes on...

 

It's not just all down to lack of housing being available as the population simply hasn't gone up by that much.

 

From the quick bit of research i have looked at, the population oof Sheffield rose 12,500, between 2001 and 2006, the number of properties built since 2002/3 was approx 1,500, and there is a high proportion of those in the 20 to 24 age bracket, mainly caused by the student population, who are unlikely to purchase whilst at uni, put those facts together and it appears that the buy to let market is driven by the student population, allied with a failure to build enough houses to cope with the increased population.

[nick2]

From the quick bit of research i have looked at, the population oof Sheffield rose 12,500, between 2001 and 2006, the number of properties built since 2002/3 was approx 1,500, and there is a high proportion of those in the 20 to 24 age bracket, mainly caused by the student population, who are unlikely to purchase whilst at uni, put those facts together and it appears that the buy to let market is driven by the student population, allied with a failure to build enough houses to cope with the increased population.

 

I would be interesting to know how many council houses (or flats) were demolished in the same time period.

[Mandem]

Perhaps it's because those on the minimum wage in these (or any other company) are hardly doing what could be called a skilled or responsible job? If they want more cash, they should work to get a skilled and/or responsible position. Simple.

 

Quite true, but where would their profits come from if they didn't have people at the grass roots who do the low paid menial tasks. Not everyone can be professional people, some one has to do the "bottom of the pile jobs", or there would be no-one to serve you in the pub, and no-one to serve you in shops and supermarkets. No-one to sweep the street, or empty the bins, I could go on but I think you get the picture.

[Tricky]

Hey, gimme a chance! I shall have to go and attend to a stinky bum (not mine ) in a moment anyway...

 

No, salaries should not be tailored to individual needs as that would be unworkable. But they should be high enough to cater for 'most' people's needs, certainly above minimum wage levels. Companies know how much their staff are getting in tax credits so that ought to give them more than enough hints if high numbers of their staff are not earning enough to live on.

 

Congratulations on being able to maintain any sort of coherence with the proud owner of a stinky bum around. I need the tranquility of work to post properly.

 

Back on topic....So the current system is that Tescos earns billions, on which it pays billions in taxes. Tescos pays wages based on the goverment set minimum wage and the government takes some of that tax revenue to make that wage up to a living wage based on an assessment of their need.

 

Your system is that Tesco should pay the living wage to all employees, whether they need it or not.

[Tricky]

I would be interesting to know how many council houses (or flats) were demolished in the same time period.

 

Are you really interested?

[nick2]

Are you really interested?

 

Not realy, no.

[mr contrite]

I would be interesting to know how many council houses (or flats) were demolished in the same time period.

 

 

I think this was from 94 or 95, but it doesnt state whether they were all demolished.

 

The latest proposals suggest that approximately 989 properties may be demolished across Sheffield, about 180 of which are currently owner-occupied. Some owner-occupiers will require additional financial assistance to bridge the gap between the value of their current property and that of a sustainable replacement.