Anna Glypta Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 It'll cost about 2 pound peanut. The council only employ 275 people on the minimum wage. The vast majority of the "plebs" they outsource to the private sector, which will not be affected by the change. Political stunt writ large. But if those on lowest pay rate get a 15% pay rise, those on next scale up also want a 15% pay rise to maintain differentials, and so it goes on. ... and the council tax goes up 15% to pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 But if those on lowest pay rate get a 15% pay rise, those on next scale up also want a 15% pay rise to maintain differentials, and so it goes on. ... and the council tax goes up 15% to pay for it. The council don't spend 100% of their budget on wages, and whilst there probably is a knock on effect, it can be reduced at each level (making the differentials smaller). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Glypta Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 The council don't spend 100% of their budget on wages, and whilst there probably is a knock on effect, it can be reduced at each level (making the differentials smaller). Regardless of exactly how much it goes up, are you happy to pay it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 London specifically has a different value for it than everywhere else. But your point is a good one. Portsmouth is probably more expensive to live in than Barnsley, living costs vary across the coutry, particularly accomodation costs. It's difficult to legislate for, what if people want to work part time? I am not suggesting anywhere near 100%. There are definitely companies that avoid taking on full time permanent members of staff because they cost so much more. If we enforce a certain percentage they would have to support their staff better which in my eyes is better than increasing the minimum wage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 If it costs me £0.04/month then I really won't care. If it costs me £30/month then I will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted November 6, 2012 Author Share Posted November 6, 2012 If that were true the Nationalised coal mines and steel works would still be profitable. Only one of your 4 points referred to either job = less staff turnover,because they were overpaid. Workers should get paid what the job is worth - if that doesn't mirror what they think they should be earning don't take the job. However in answer to your question i do think the minimum wage should be a living wage. The problem is, that you probably have the luxury of being in a well paid job. I do too. It's kind of the ivory tower syndrome. It's easy to be aloof and say if the job doesn't pay enough then don't take the job. The reality is very much different, if you're not well educated. You have the luxury of being well paid. Is the guy who litter picks in the street any less valuable to society than being a solicitor or something? We need them all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 I am not suggesting anywhere near 100%. There are definitely companies that avoid taking on full time permanent members of staff because they cost so much more. If we enforce a certain percentage they would have to support their staff better which in my eyes is better than increasing the minimum wage. How does a full time member of staff cost more than 2 part time members of staff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Glypta Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 If it costs me £0.04/month then I really won't care. If it costs me £30/month then I will. TBH I suspect that it will end up costing more than £30/month. It starts in the public sector and puts pressure on the private sector to do likewise. In the meantime businesses start passing on their increased costs and pretty soon the pond shops are charging £2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted November 6, 2012 Author Share Posted November 6, 2012 But if those on lowest pay rate get a 15% pay rise, those on next scale up also want a 15% pay rise to maintain differentials, and so it goes on. ... and the council tax goes up 15% to pay for it. The reality is, that it's just the differentials that get squeezed. It's not an across the board rise. My OH is in that unfortunate boat. Those who work under her, are only 40p per hour worse off than she is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilldig Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Hi truman, sorry about the message being shown twice,it's because the original one didn't show up at first, but if it's a minimum living amount then everyone should get it,or do you not give the unemployed enough to live on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.