L00b Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Some of those would be self cancelling eg loss of tax revenue from EU workers..if they weren't here they wouldn't get health care etc etc.You forgot to add: if they need healthcare, and in what proportion (relative to, say, domestic and Mediterranean shores-based UK OAPs). See, might not be as self cancelling as you think, either it's not as clear cut as you are portraying..I never protrayed it as clear-cut. Quite on the contrary, I was aiming to show it as vastly more complicated than what scorpioguy was portraying. Which it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randolf Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Why would I work hard for years to work in Tesco's? If you didn't read I am training as an Accountant! So I don't need to take ANY job. Maybe if I had no other options then I would work in places like you mentioned but seen as I have no need to I won't be! Work in Tesco's or train as an Accountant? Very hard decision. removed, Greavsy made his position clearer further on in the thread. for a moment there, i thought he was suggesting that he was too good to be working at tescos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 The government could create all these jobs that need doing and pay the minimum wages with a range of working hours from part time to full time. Then assess what each claimant would receive on benefits and give them one of the created jobs that match their skills and pay the same as they would receive on benefits. It would be called working benefits instead of unemployment benefits and wouldn’t cost any more. This government opposed the minimum wage. If people start 'working' for benefits it will undermine those on the minimum wage which will decline. I think your idea plays into the government's hands. We want to get people off benefits and into proper jobs paying at least the minimum wage. I repeat, if work needs doing then it's a job, and if it's a job it should pay the minimum wage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 This government opposed the minimum wage. If people start 'working' for benefits it will undermine those on the minimum wage which will decline. I think your idea plays into the government's hands. We want to get people off benefits and into proper jobs paying at least the minimum wage. I repeat, if work needs doing then it's a job, and if it's a job it should pay the minimum wage. What about if the claimants did the hours that equated to earning minimum wage...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickiethecat Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 This government opposed the minimum wage. If people start 'working' for benefits it will undermine those on the minimum wage which will decline. I think your idea plays into the government's hands. We want to get people off benefits and into proper jobs paying at least the minimum wage. I repeat, if work needs doing then it's a job, and if it's a job it should pay the minimum wage. If the minimum wage is stopping people working then we need to scrap the minimum wage. In a time of high unemployment it's better to have 2 million people working for £3 an hour than 1 million people working for £6 an hour and the other million people sat on their backsides! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randolf Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Just for accuracy's sake - (And I'm not a Tory apologist) it wasn't this government that opposed the minimum wage. This government is a coalition of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties and only came into existence after the last general election, long after the introduction of the minimum wage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 If the minimum wage is stopping people working then we need to scrap the minimum wage. In a time of high unemployment it's better to have 2 million people working for £3 an hour than 1 million people working for £6 an hour and the other million people sat on their backsides! How are people to live on less than the minimum wage? The cost of living in this country is high. It isn't a case of 'managing better' or 'cutting down,' -the minimum wage is already pared down to the bone. It is considered the lowest wage that someone can survive on. especially with a family. Remember too that we are all supposed to be putting money away for our old age, etc. If the aim is to make people independent of government handouts then people need a living wage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andikay Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 This government opposed the minimum wage. If people start 'working' for benefits it will undermine those on the minimum wage which will decline. I think your idea plays into the government's hands. We want to get people off benefits and into proper jobs paying at least the minimum wage. I repeat, if work needs doing then it's a job, and if it's a job it should pay the minimum wage. Originally Posted by andikay View Post The government could create all these jobs that need doing and pay the minimum wages with a range of working hours from part time to full time. Then assess what each claimant would receive on benefits and give them one of the created jobs that match their skills and pay the same as they would receive on benefits. It would be called working benefits instead of unemployment benefits and wouldn’t cost any more. Red covers your points, and what’s this government got to do with our ideas for getting people off benefits, it’s not like they are going to read it or implement it is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickiethecat Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 How are people to live on less than the minimum wage? The cost of living in this country is high. It isn't a case of 'managing better' or 'cutting down,' -the minimum wage is already pared down to the bone. It is considered the lowest wage that someone can survive on. especially with a family. Remember too that we are all supposed to be putting money away for our old age, etc. If the aim is to make people independent of government handouts then people need a living wage. Work longer hours! The £3 reference was just an example, what I mean is that employers should be free to set whatever hourly wage rate they choose, that way they can decide for themselves how many people to take on and what to pay them rather than have it imposed by the state. If working class people work longer hours they'll also spend less time drinking smoking and taking drugs so they'll save money there as well and there'll also be less crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Work longer hours! The £3 reference was just an example, what I mean is that employers should be free to set whatever hourly wage rate they choose, that way they can decide for themselves how many people to take on and what to pay them rather than have it imposed by the state. If working class people work longer hours they'll also spend less time drinking smoking and taking drugs so they'll save money there as well and there'll also be less crime. Last time I checked, slavery was abolished a few hundred years ago.. I support the NMW, I just wish the likes of Philip Davies MP would shut their cakehole about disabled working for less than it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.