Britain is Full and over crowding?

[MrSmith]

Yes, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this, I feel that the best incentive to work is for work to provide a significantly better lifestyle than benefits, but I believe benefits should be available to those in need.

 

As for the highest in company willingly giving up their pay - they don't 'happily' give it up but they get away with paying as little as they can do. If they had to pay their workforce more there would be less left over to pay themselves and they would be forced to cut their own wages. If there was more competition for workers their hand would be forced, there's no 'happy' about it.

 

You are not disagreeing with me, we both agree that benefits are necessary and that work should always pay better than benefits, I just don't think benefits for doing nothing is helpful to anyone, it’s a disincentive to find a job.

 

The way it works now is that someone could get £200 a week for doing nothing, so why work 40 hours for an extra £40 which would make them better off. If they had to do something to get the £200 it would create an incentive to work for the extra £40.

 

Or put their prices up because their costs had risen.

[MrSmith]

You've just contradicted yourself by giving a reason as to why the shareholders would be interested.

 

If you'd been following the news you may have noticed that shareholders, and pension funds who as some of this countries biggest shareholders, are starting to take an interest in executive pay, and there are proposals to give the shareholders more power.

 

It’s not a contradiction, share holders look at the share price and if they can find a better home for their investment they will move their money, they are interested in the best return for their investment and not what the employees of the company are paid. They might vote for the executives to get a lower wage but it doesn't follow that everyone else’s pay will increase.

[JFKvsNixon]

It’s not a contradiction, share holders look at the share price and if they can find a better home for their investment they will move their money, they are interested in the best return for their investment and not what the lowest employees of the company are paid.

 

I think you've managed to confuse yourself a little, as what has your reply got to do with my post that you've quoted?

[Badlittlepup]

You are not disagreeing with me, we both agree that benefits are necessary and that work should always pay better than benefits, I just don't think benefits for doing nothing is helpful to anyone, it’s a disincentive to find a job.

 

The way it works now is that someone could get £200 a week for doing nothing, so why work 40 hours for an extra £40 which would make them better off. If they had to do something to get the £200 it would create an incentive to work for the extra £40.

 

Or put their prices up because their costs had risen.

 

Would they put the costs up though? If the consumer is demanding a certain price they may not be able to put the price up, they may have no demand at a higher price so they would be forced to cut corners elsewhere in the business, and where better to look than overinflated boardroom pay. Otherwise the logic must follow that with or without higher pay for staff we will constantly have to pay higher and higher prices to line the pockets of the boardroom. Perhaps there is something in that?

 

And I am disagreeing with you in so far as I don't believe that it is possible to have work done by the unemployed without taking away what should be a paid job from someone else, in addtion it's quite possible that the work would be poor quality and badly done.

 

IMO benefits should pay for the basics. A roof over someones head, food, utilities, basic clothing so people are housed, clothed, fed and warm.

 

The problem now is that if you are working on low wages, to use your example, you won't be getting the £200 with the extra £40, you will only be getting £160 and you will have to take your work expenses out of that. There are plenty of people who work who are getting less than benefits because companies pay so little these days. Companies shell out less per week for their staff than the government does per week in benefits for some people.

 

I can understand why some people think 'what's the point' when after taking into account their travel to work expenses etc they are thinking, 'What's the point' if they're going to be worse off. If benefits are only supposed to cover the basics then how the hell are people supposed to survive in jobs that pay less than them?

[Badlittlepup]

It’s not a contradiction, share holders look at the share price and if they can find a better home for their investment they will move their money, they are interested in the best return for their investment and not what the employees of the company are paid.

 

If it was in the interests of the company's profits that they had the best employees they may well agree with increasing wages. At the moment they know that they don't have to train when they can bring someone fully trained in from abroad, they don't have to pay well for skills when they can bring someone cheap in from abroad.

 

Look at IT support and construction. These were well paid professions until the number of immigrants doing them increased, they're not now and had started to cease to be well before the recession.

[MrSmith]

I think you've managed to confuse yourself a little, as what has your reply got to do with my post that you've quoted?

 

I'm sorry if you find it confusing, you have been confused for some time, maybe you should stick to topic you understand.

[MrSmith]

Would they put the costs up though? If the consumer is demanding a certain price they may not be able to put the price up, they may have no demand at a higher price so they would be forced to cut corners elsewhere in the business, and where better to look than overinflated boardroom pay. Otherwise the logic must follow that with or without higher pay for staff we will constantly have to pay higher and higher prices to line the pockets of the boardroom. Perhaps there is something in that?

 

And I am disagreeing with you in so far as I don't believe that it is possible to have work done by the unemployed without taking away what should be a paid job from someone else, in addtion it's quite possible that the work would be poor quality and badly done.

 

IMO benefits should pay for the basics. A roof over someones head, food, utilities, basic clothing so people are housed, clothed, fed and warm.

 

The problem now is that if you are working on low wages, to use your example, you won't be getting the £200 with the extra £40, you will only be getting £160 and you will have to take your work expenses out of that. There are plenty of people who work who are getting less than benefits because companies pay so little these days. Companies shell out less per week for their staff than the government does per week in benefits for some people.

 

I can understand why some people think 'what's the point' when after taking into account their travel to work expenses etc they are thinking, 'What's the point' if they're going to be worse off. If benefits are only supposed to cover the basics then how the hell are people supposed to survive in jobs that pay less than them?

 

The other option any company would have is that if legislation makes operating in the UK unfavourable they can easily move to a country that as more favourable legislation. Why pay a higher wage here when they can simply move to where people are prepared to work for much less.

 

 

As I have said before there is plenty of work the unemployed could do that isn't being done.

[MrSmith]

If it was in the interests of the company's profits that they had the best employees they may well agree with increasing wages. At the moment they know that they don't have to train when they can bring someone fully trained in from abroad, they don't have to pay well for skills when they can bring someone cheap in from abroad.

 

Look at IT support and construction. These were well paid professions until the number of immigrants doing them increased, they're not now and had started to cease to be well before the recession.

 

When I left school constructions workers were not well paid in comparison to well educated people, over the years a shortage of construction workers had increased demand for their skills and eventually their wage exceeded the wage of the well educated, they basically priced them self out of the market and cheaper labour was required which came from abroad, the solution should have been to motivate and train our unemployed instead of relying on foreign labour. Ultimately though their wage needed to be lower, highly paid construction workers just increases the cost to build and makes housing less affordable.

[stevie1957]

This article, by Ruth Edwards, (Telegraph 14 Apr 2011) is very even-handed and thought provoking.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8451917/Who-is-to-blame-for-fractured-Britain.html

 

This is why I applaud the Prime Minister for admitting that people are profoundly disturbed by the havoc that mass immigration has wreaked on parts of Britain. “When there have been significant numbers of new people arriving in neighbourhoods,” he said, “perhaps not able to speak the same language as those living there, on occasions not really wanting or even willing to integrate, that has created a kind of discomfort and disjointedness in some neighbourhoods.”

 

So, Ed Miliband is ecohing what David Cameron said a year ago.

 

It was good to see, my fellow left winger, Hilary Benn (on the BBC) agree with Ed Miliband that it is not bigoted to be concerned about mass immigration.

[boyfriday]

Ultimately though their wage needed to be lower, highly paid construction workers just increases the cost to build and makes housing less affordable.

 

Try telling that to the highly paid construction worker.

 

You're engaging in wishful thinking again. Any successful or highly paid worker has his/her own interests at heart, just like most of us. In order to facilitate the kind of regime your proposing there would have to be a cap on incomes..can you really see that happening?