Is the minimum wage worth working for anymore?

[Anna B]

The constant flow of 'Fat cat' stories in the media has devalued honest hard work, making mugs of the low paid.

[frededwards]

so is it really still worth giving up 40 hours week in week out to maintain a standard of living to which an equivalent standard of living is provided for free to anyone who is prepared to swallow their pride and depend on state support?

 

 

There's also a small thing called "self respect."

[llamatron]

they said that when the minimum wage was brought in, it didnt happen, and if everyone paid there staff more they would have more money to spend which would probably improve all business

 

maybe I am being dumb but if people have more money to spend won't prices just go up?

 

Prices are presumably set by what the average wages are effectively, if you are making a product aimed at someone on the minimum wage and their wages go up won't the price of that product go up as they can afford to spend more on it?

[Rupert_Baehr]

According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation following their study, hourly wages needed for a minimum income standard: £8.38 for a single person, £9.39 for a couple with two children and £12.20 for a lone parent with one child.

 

I don't doubt the figures - perhaps they are even higher in some parts of the country than in others. The .pdf talks about 'soaring childcare costs' and 'soaring transport costs.' Those two items have indeed risen, but you don't have to look far to find out why. - Soaring overhead costs.

 

When I was a child, childcare tended to be provided by grandparents - in those comparatively rare cases where there was only one parent or where both were at work.

 

When my son was a child (and both his parents worked) then we had to arrange childcare privately. Childcare providers were not licenced, nor were they inspected, nor did they have to have CRB or other checks. - They provided child care in their own homes and their overheads were probably somewhat lower than those of a (modern) daycare nursery.

 

My grandchildren attend such a nursery, which has a dedicated building (those don't come cheap!) plenty of CRB-cleared staff (who expect to be paid) and (no doubt) admin staff - who also expect to be paid.

 

If you want to scrap the requirement for CRBs, allow in-home unlicenced childcare then no doubt the costs would go down. - Of course, you would also put those people working in commercial childcare centres out of work. - And it seems that a significant number of people in the UK make a living from providing services/selling insurance to one another.

 

Transport costs have indeed soared, but then again, fuel prices have risen dramatically, some (not all) transport workers are paid handsomely and somebody has to pay.

 

The Rowntree foundation note that both childcare costs and transport costs have risen more rapidly than inflation ... Who would've thought that could happen? 'Inflation' seems to be some sort of mythical figure concocted by the government and used only when they're considering index-linked rises and comparing pay rises. - It has little to do with the increase in 'real world' prices.

 

As far as I'm concerned employers who do not allow their employees at least a minimum standard of living are thoroughly abhorrent individuals, thieves in my book whether the law says they can get away with it or not.

 

Let's set minimum wage at £12 an hour. Those employers who aren't prepared to pay it can stop trading (and stop employing people.)

 

There are bound to be one or two who would say that direct labour costs are a significant part of their overheads; their businesses wouldn't stand the increased cost and they can't afford to continue to operate their businesses ... not in the UK, anyway. Let them go.

 

The services they no longer provide can be provided by somebody else (all those people who lose their jobs could become self-employed and pay themselves as much as they like.) Surely, all those self-employed people could 'fill the vacuum'?

 

... if everyone paid there staff more they would have more money to spend which would probably improve all business

 

If everybody paid their staff more - Let's say everybody doubled the pay of their staff - then the goods and services provided by those employers would cost more. All those people who had more money in their pockets would find that the things they bought cost more - or do you think they might import them from elsewhere?

 

Instead of having your cutlery made in Sheffield and your shoes made in Northampton, both cutlery and shoes would be made in China - where the workforce isn't paid as well.

 

...The fact remains that businesses do well when they make a lot of money in profit. Profit is simply your turnover minus your outgoings, so if you maximise the former, whilst minimising the latter, you have a high profit business.

 

And if your overheads are low (and direct labour costs are often a significant overhead) then you can price your product at a level which will allow it to compete with that of your competitors. If your overheads are high and force your prices higher than those of the (often foreign) competition, do you think your potential customers (in the UK) will choose your product or will they buy cheaper imports?

 

... If you have enough decent staff, and more willing to take their place, which is particularly the case now, why would you reward staff with a high amount of pay, more than is average for their job.

 

It's a horrible way of looking at it, and I'm a wage slave myself, but I realise that there's no way on this planet my boss would pay me £10,000 more than an equivalent firm. They don't have to. Whilst there's competition for jobs, and everyone's on roughly the same, they can keep paying the basic and keep reaping the profits.

 

Is it fair - not really. It means the rich get richer and the workers get the same as always.

 

Is it understandable though from a business view - of course it is.

 

Where the 'barriers to entry' for a given trade or profession are high (and that could be because of length, complexity and /or cost of training - or occasionally because that trade or profession required rare skills) then the number of people who manage to join that profession will be low, the competition for jobs amongst those established in the profession is likely to be low, pay high and job security may well be rather higher than in many other trades or professions. The exception to that is where (as in the present economy) the number of jobs within certain professions is decreasing.

 

In that case, people are either going to be forced to re-train (time consuming and very expensive [ I've been there!]) or find a place (and it may be a place a very long way away) where there is a demand for people qualified in that profession.

 

Where the barriers to entry are very low, there are likely to be more applicants than jobs and the pay is likely to be low.

 

If you have more low-skilled applicants than there are low-skilled jobs, an increasing population and a decrease in the number of unskilled jobs, you've got a problem.

[Location114]

In my opinion it is a simple answer YES it is worth working for minimum wage in my job I am fortunate enough to be paid over the minimum wage but it wasn't always like that I did a job that were a 16 hour a week job and after bills and such like I ended up with £20 for the week.

 

Did I care that I didn't earn alot NO not really because the money I had left after bills was mine I went and earned it not just took it from a taxpayer.

 

In my opinion no amount of money can buy pride wether that is a £1000 or £10,000 so yes if it was a choice between working for a minimum wage and signing on without a doubt id be working.

 

Its a massive misconception that goverment funded louts live a better standard of living but they don't at all. When do you ever see them on the way to the airport to fly off for two weeks.....never.

In my opinion people who wont work because the pay isn't sufficient enough shouldn't be allowed to claim JSA because what that says to me is the person who has declined the job clearly has enough money not to have to work so why should he/she be allowed some of mine?

 

If I was looking for work I wouldn't have the option to decline work because i need the money.

[Rensh]

If i was on minimum wage (I'm not on too much more as it is) i couldnt live the way i do. I wouldnt be able to put any money in savings towards a mortgage deposit and would be stuck renting for the rest of my life.

 

I can honestly say if i was on minimum wage, working 40 hours away from my missus and kids just to pay the bills, I WOULD go on benefits, I would get everything paid for me and a few quid left over as well as an extra 40 hours a week with the missus and kids which is priceless!

 

As it is there isnt a big enough difference between benefits and minimum wage. once childcare costs have come in to play, most parents work for nothing. my Missus stays at home with the youngest (oldest at school). We were going to see about her grabbing a part time job for exra money but once childcare costs for the youngest and travle costs have come off then she would be working for around £2 per hour! as well as not seeing our youngest as much.

 

The minimum wage needs to be at a level where people think 'maybe i would be better off working' as oppose to 'why should i work 40 hours a week for an extra £20?'

 

As i said, i wouldnt have an issue being on benefits rather than minimum wage, if they were my 2 options.

[LeMaquis]

After all, would retiring with nothing more than the state pension after working and paying taxes all of your working life be any more worthwhile?

 

Working tax credits can be added to the minimum wage for a lot of people. There is also Pension Credit that tops up a state pension for pensioners without other income such as private pensions and/or much in savings. Pension Credit can then be used to get other benefits like Council Tax Benefit. So people who only earn minimum wage can get a top up while working and people only on a state pension can get a top up after retiring.

[Anna B]

There's also a small thing called "self respect."

 

I agree, but at what point does self respect tip over into stupidity?

 

If minimum wage is not a viable amount to live on, (I'm not talking about luxuries, but basic needs,) then you owe it to yourself to take the option that is, possibly benefits.

 

It's not that benefits are too much, but that minimum wage is too little. It needs to rise by a considerable sum. A simple wage for full time work should by definition be enough to live on without state subsidies. If it isn't then there's something wrong.

 

And before someone says that they manage just fine on minimum wage / benefits, can I remind them that everyone's circumstances are different, and we are all starting from a different place.

[bigsexydoug]

maybe I am being dumb but if people have more money to spend won't prices just go up?

 

Prices are presumably set by what the average wages are effectively, if you are making a product aimed at someone on the minimum wage and their wages go up won't the price of that product go up as they can afford to spend more on it?

 

yes of course, but bringing in the minimum wage didnt affect prices too much did it, and with prices going up anyway, their wage effectivley becomes less to live on. and with healthy competition the prices shouldnt be affected too much for normal shopping goods as the cheapest supermarket tends to win that fight no matter what !

[laura2201]

Thats why the country is in such a mess with attitudes like that! Where does money come from to pay benefits if no one pays any tax it??

 

People who choose to be on benefits when they can work should be ashamed!