Living/minimum wage

[tinfoilhat]

I was reading an interesting article in yesterday's Guardian about how although Unemployment is at a 40 year low (though there have been over 20 changes to the official count), wages have not increased. I'll post it here:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/15/uk-unemployment-wages-pay-growth

 

There have been a number of explanations given for this:

Increased supply of labour

low productivity

increasing automation

Little power of workers or unions to bargain

reliance of employers on benefits / tax credits

Lack of investment in high skilled jobs (e.g. engineering)

 

I'd agree with all of that list tbh. And while ever there's a skills gap like in engineering, there's going to be a lack of investment.

[Mister M]

incidentally, while it's welcome that there is a minimum wage, living wage for those at the very bottom - what about the differentials? That is people who were in semi skilled work, but whose wages haven't also increased?

One might imagine that in the future people looking at semi skilled work might think, what's the point in trying to better my circumstances if there is no financial incentive?

[sgtkate]

incidentally, while it's welcome that there is a minimum wage, living wage for those at the very bottom - what about the differentials? That is people who were in semi skilled work, but whose wages haven't also increased?

One might imagine that in the future people looking at semi skilled work might think, what's the point in trying to better my circumstances if there is no financial incentive?

 

But then there will be less people wanting to go for semi-skilled work, meaning supply is scarce, meaning demand outstrips supply, meaning the employers need to pay more for those jobs to tempt people and the circle is completed. This is the basic principle of supply and demand economics and without interference often works.

[Mister M]

But then there will be less people wanting to go for semi-skilled work, meaning supply is scarce, meaning demand outstrips supply, meaning the employers need to pay more for those jobs to tempt people and the circle is completed. This is the basic principle of supply and demand economics and without interference often works.

 

I understand that.

 

I'm in a situation where the job I was doing over the last 17 years has been down graded in a recent job evaluation at my workplace from what was skilled to semi skilled. I studied up to and including NVQ level 5 - Irrespective of this my pay and grading went down.

This was a good few years ago. As I work in the public sector I guess I'll just have to wait until people in my line of work refuse to do it on comparatively low pay, and then the penny will drop when management realise that 'anyone can't do' the job I've been trained in.

I'm happy to report that Managers in our organisation have not been regraded, and have maintained their luxurious salaries. Hurrah

[Jacktari]

What is 'Wage Push Inflation'

 

Wage push inflation is a general increase in the cost of goods that is preceded by and results from an increase in wages. In order to maintain corporate profits after an increase in wages, employers must increase the prices they charge for the goods and services they provide. The overall increased cost of goods and services has a negative effect on the wage increase, and eventually, higher wages will be again needed to compensate for the increased prices for consumer goods.

 

Add to that the fact that wage push inflation will affect UK made goods more than imported goods and it could also see job losses as we import more and produce less.

Surely that should be 'price push inflation'.

If the prices did not keep rising there would not be the demand for greater pay.

The problem comes from the employers greed wanting more profit from less outlay.

[spilldig]

I don,t see how a minimum wage based on an hour works anyway.

Surely the minimum wage is a minimum on which you can live.

The normal working week in this country has been 40 hours so a minimum wage should be a weekly thing surely.

I mean if you take an extreme example. If someone works 1 hour per week are the government saying,well that person is protected by the minimum wage so they are o,k on £7.20 per week ?

As I said an extreme example, but if it's 16 hours per week are they o'k on 16x£27 per week, or 30 hours If you see what I mean. I just fail to see how a minimum amount for living on can be based per hour.

[Jacktari]

Based on a 37.5 hour week, a pensioner is paid about £3.00 per hour.

 

Not much after 50 years hard work.

[Cyclone]

I don,t see how a minimum wage based on an hour works anyway.

Surely the minimum wage is a minimum on which you can live.

The normal working week in this country has been 40 hours so a minimum wage should be a weekly thing surely.

I mean if you take an extreme example. If someone works 1 hour per week are the government saying,well that person is protected by the minimum wage so they are o,k on £7.20 per week ?

As I said an extreme example, but if it's 16 hours per week are they o'k on 16x£27 per week, or 30 hours If you see what I mean. I just fail to see how a minimum amount for living on can be based per hour.

 

Why should someone have the choice to work 1 hr a week?

[El Cid]

Based on a 37.5 hour week, a pensioner is paid about £3.00 per hour.

 

Not much after 50 years hard work.

 

You need 30 qualifying years of National Insurance contributions for a full pension.

[spilldig]

Why should someone have the choice to work 1 hr a week?

 

I have no idea. I never mentioned choice.

 

---------- Post added 17-03-2017 at 14:36 ----------

 

Based on a 37.5 hour week, a pensioner is paid about £3.00 per hour.

 

Not much after 50 years hard work.

 

Precisely. The minimum each pensioner should be on is £7.20 x 40 per week.

Edited March 17, 2017 by spilldig