Anna Glypta Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Surely if a company decides to take on some labour. They do the sums first? At the moment thay do the sums to the tune of "what's the least I can get away with paying legally?" They do their sums, and then Ford closes down its UK operation and moves production to its factory in Rumania where wages are 75% less than the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 In a way, that's my point too. If they can't afford a living wage, then they will probably get dross that doesn't actually want the job anyway, been forced into it, and be unreliable and will leave as soon as another job comes along which pays better. So it's self defeating paying a minimum wage surely? EDIT: I've been in that boat myself, when times were hard. I've taken a min wage job just to make ends meet or try to, and at that time I had to do 2 jobs. But as soon as something better came along I was soon off! Hasn't that been the way of the world since the year dot, though? Staff turnover has always been higher (highest?) the lower the skills required. My first job was as a general labourer on a building site. Minimum wage (the French equivalent) of course. I expect that hasn't changed much in 25-odd years, nor is it ever likely to. And that, before any form of minimum wage was ever dreamt up, it was still bottom-of-the-totem-pole pay. It's 100% unskilled labour, period. Doesn't deserve more in any way, shape or form, under any egalitarian or socio-economic logic you care to put forward. The message is simple enough, the same as it's ever been: pay attention at school, apply yourself, and have some self-respect. So I enrolled myself on a monteur-voltigeur ('abseiling fitter' or somesuch) course, to get at the big boys' money. Pointless trivia: if you have ever been to Paris and seen the glass building in which the newspaper Le Monde rehoused in 1990...I helped build that (and Pilkington supplied the highly-specialised glass, so good points for UK exporters ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 29, 2012 Author Share Posted October 29, 2012 Are you saying that everyone on the minimum wage is dross? Surely not... of course companies will pay what they have to to get the job done.. Obviously not!...But I would proffer the anyone on minimum wage would jump at the chance of a job paying Living Wage, given the same criteria in jobspec! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Obviously not!...But I would proffer the anyone on minimum wage would jump at the chance of a job paying Living Wage, given the same criteria in jobspec! No doubt..I'm not sure what you'r point is.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 If you increased the government set minimum wage you would drive inflation which would push up rents. (Social rents rise ABOVE inflation). You need to change the government set rent controls (have rental caps instead of rent floors and stop increasing rents above inflation) to make people better off. The minimum wage has rose below inflation for 3 years. That means for 3 years the minimum wage has fallen in real terms. Whilst for the past 3 years social rents have risen above inflation every year (they have done for 10 years now). The minimum wage didn't lead to a loss of jobs. Labour in this country has already been pushed below its natural value. It continues to be pushed further below it. We could raise the minimum wage, reduce rents, actually build housing in the first place and other infrastructure and create jobs. Instead the economy revolves around selling land tenures to each other inefficiently at vast cost via large amounts of debt at interest. So instead of a creating productive businesses, saving and investing, most people parasitically seek rent, borrow and spunk up a wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saunaman Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Max Keiser ( RT 85 , tues ,th ,sat ) hit the nail on the head when he referred to the "slavery" model of economics . Such as when the world's biggest employer Walmart have 20% of their US staff on food stamps because the wages paid to staff were so cr@p . This seems to be becoming a global model . The only companies who the banks seem willing to lend to without controversial "SWAPS" agreements are those predatory companies who just take over other profitable businesses and run them into the ground , they don't create positive growth and yet the main high street banks fund them , and the big 4 accountancy firms give them a clean bill of health year on year - we are stupid sheepy mugs ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parvo Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 If the minimum wage becomes a living wage it could damage the ability to compete internationlly. this hasn't held back companies like morrisons and tescos-they pay minimum wages, use apprentices knowing that their employees will get benefits to live on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 30, 2012 Author Share Posted October 30, 2012 this hasn't held back companies like morrisons and tescos-they pay minimum wages, use apprentices knowing that their employees will get benefits to live on. The whole of the employment system in todays jobs market is geared towards low pay and benefit top-ups. Oh and part time employment, again driven by the benefits culture. How many people only work 16 hours a week (or whatever the limit is), so that it won't affect their benefits? How many would much prefer a full time job, if it paid a 'living' wage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Plans to deliver a "living wage" of at least £7.20 per hour for millions of people in the public and private sector are being put at the centre of Labour's bid to return to power, Ed Miliband has said. The leader of the opposition said the wage - the minimum hourly rate needed for an acceptable standard of living - was a key plank of his "One Nation" vision to share prosperity. Miliband has been working closely with his brother, David, at looking at three ways of making the pay terms the new norm, including naming and shaming listed companies who do not pay the wage through corporate governance rules, the Daily Mail reports. It is also considering introducing rules that will see Whitehall contracts awarded to firms who pay workers the living rage or above and giving Treasury-funded incentives to companies who introduce the wage structure. In an interview with the Independent on Sunday, Miliband said: "You go out, slog your guts out...you deserve a decent wage if the company can afford it. "We've got a growth crisis in Britain but we've also got a living standards crisis, because the proceeds of economic growth are not being fairly distributed any more. "This is the next step for One Nation, because One Nation is about everybody having a stake in society. It is about prosperity being fairly shared." He added: "It is about giving people a proper stake in the future of the country." The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that for every person moved on to the living wage, the Treasury would save around £1,000 from less spending on tax credits and from increased tax revenue. A number of major firms already pay workers and contractors a living wage - which stands at £8.30 an hour in London - or higher. Barclays has paid the living wage in London since 2007, while 19 local authorities have been accredited as "living wage employers". Miliband said wage was good for businesses because staff turnover was lower. David Miliband, in an interview with the Observer, said: "Our living wage campaign involving unions, students and voluntary organisations is sometimes quietly, sometimes noisily, changing lives. "A growing number of companies and public-sector employers are leading the way in signing up to the living wage. "And the Labour party is on board, from the leadership team to the grassroots. "Poverty pay has no place in the 21st century. Modern employers understand that; we just need to bring the rest with us." The idea of naming companies who do not offer the wage and paying money back to employers through Treasury savings was set out last week in a report on living standards by the Resolution Foundation. Gavin Kelly, the think tank's chief executive, said: "One in five British workers are low paid and it's a major reason why so many lower-income families feel as if they're running uphill - working hard but getting almost nowhere. "The high price of low pay is also borne by the taxpayer through in-work subsidies - so we all have reason to do something about it. "Requiring listed companies to report how many of their employees receive less than the living wage would introduce the power of transparency to this debate; it would be a vital step and help galvanise change." http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11/04/living-wage-labour-miliband-one-nation_n_2070783.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cuk%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk2%26pLid%3D135380 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 It’s ironic that it was his party’s policies that caused the housing bubble which in turn prevented some people affording a house without housing benefits, now he wants companies to pay more wages to compensate for his parties incompetence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.