[interestrateripoff]

http://www.telegraph...risis-Live.html

Quote

11.34 The National Minimum Wage rises by 1.8pc for adults this October but is frozen for 16 to 20 year old over concerns that it is damaging job prospects, Ricard Tyler reports.

Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, said it had been a “very hard decision” but the one million under 25s who are out of work would benefit if more jobs are created.

Quote In these tough times freezing the youth rates has been a very hard decision – but raising the youth rates would have been of little value to young people if it meant it was harder for them to get a job in the long run.

The adult rate rises 1.8pc or 11p an hour to £6.19, while the rates for 18 to 20 year olds stay at £4.98 and those for 16 to 17 year olds remain at £3.68. However, the rate for apprentices jumps 5p to £2.65 an hour.

This should help get growth back in the economy. Just what most small business would hope for an increase in costs.

1.8% should help people close the gap on inflation...

[Gone to Ireland.]

It's a good job benefits are going up 5.2 percent.

I would like to see a graph of 40h/week at minimum wage vs JSA/Income support + rent over the last 10 years.

Extrapolate the graph and you will see the gap is closing at an alarming rate. soon you will lose money by working.

[tinker]

Quote

the rate for apprentices jumps 5p to £2.65 an hour

[Ascii]

khards, on 19 March 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

It's a good job benefits are going up 5.2 percent.

I would like to see a graph of 40h/week at minimum wage vs JSA/Income support + rent over the last 10 years.

Extrapolate the graph and you will see the gap is closing at an alarming rate. soon you will lose money by working.

Isn't that already the case for those in low paid jobs?

Ultimately that minimum wage needs to be removed altogether - it hasn't helped anything at all.

[Orsino]

Ascii, on 19 March 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

Isn't that already the case for those in low paid jobs?

Ultimately that minimum wage needs to be removed altogether - it hasn't helped anything at all.

That makes no sense. Despite the predictions, the introduction of the minimum wage did not crash the economy, and it works perfectly well in other European countries too. What is clearly wrong is that some benefits are too high - particularly related to housing. For work to pay, it's benefits that need to be cut, not wages.

[timebandit]

How many hours would you have to work on the minimum wage to cover your weekly rent? See what the data says

[richc]

Orsino, on 19 March 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

That makes no sense. Despite the predictions, the introduction of the minimum wage did not crash the economy, and it works perfectly well in other European countries too. What is clearly wrong is that some benefits are too high - particularly related to housing. For work to pay, it's benefits that need to be cut, not wages.

Youth unemployment has been climbing in the UK for the past 10 years, and youth unemployment in Spain is now running at 50%. It's young people who are primarily affected by the minimum wage, so I'm not sure how safe of a claim it is to say that it works perfectly. (I do agree, however, with your main point that the problems have to do more with the relative level of benefits vs. wages.)

This post has been edited by RichC: 19 March 2012 - 01:23 PM

[OnlyMe]

Any company that cannot pay at least £5 a hour given the current cost of living should not be in business. They are either utterly ineffcient or basically making a profit out of screwing people.

[richc]

OnlyMe, on 19 March 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

Any company that cannot pay at least £5 a hour given the current cost of living should not be in business. They are either utterly ineffcient or basically making a profit out of screwing people.

In a competitive market, a lot of companies don't have a choice. How is farmer going to explain to Tesco that the price of his vegetables is 20% higher than the next guys because he's decided to pay his workers more than the market rate? How long is he going to be around? And if Tesco agrees to pay more, how long are they going to be around when they raise their prices by 20%?

[Ascii]

Orsino, on 19 March 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

That makes no sense. Despite the predictions, the introduction of the minimum wage did not crash the economy, and it works perfectly well in other European countries too. What is clearly wrong is that some benefits are too high - particularly related to housing. For work to pay, it's benefits that need to be cut, not wages.

It makes perfect sense. All the minimum wage has done has reduce productivity. Without a minimum wage you're rewarded according to productivity with minimum wage the reward for outstanding production is removed hence productivity drops to a consistent low level; what was the film - was it I'm All right Jack?

All you do is remove any expected production excess (as per Pareto) from the capable as there is no incentive for them to produce excess.

Whilst the economy may not have crashed, I would say we're in a long decline.Empirically I would say we have been in recession since about 2003 - we've just been bringing future earnings forward by borrowing. Contrast that with Germany that has reduced wages (per unit) by increasing productivity in excess of wages if not by actually reducing wages (and also by manipulating a number of south European currencies out of direct competition).

OnlyMe, on 19 March 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

Any company that cannot pay at least £5 a hour given the current cost of living should not be in business. They are either utterly inefficient or basically making a profit out of screwing people.

There are plenty of people out there that fail to produce beyond what they cost. There are those that are unproductive at £3 an hour let alone £6+ an hour - ultimately it's why we outsource about 80% of what we do here. I'll let somebody else worry about productivity; I prefer fixed costs. You can legislate a minimum wage but you can't legislate minimum productivity - it's incredibly difficult to get rid of a slacker.

The underlying problem (or for most people the elephant in the room - clearly not those on this site) is the cost of living, the majority of which is likely to be due to housing costs though of course the size and profligacy of the state is both part of the problem via housing subsidies, benefit subsidies and other channels (just noticed today on Guido that parliament has a resident lifestyle coach).

Quite how you unravel it all though is beyond me; I guess piece by piece in the same way that it was unrolled in the first place.

[crash2006]

Ascii, on 19 March 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

It makes perfect sense. All the minimum wage has done has reduce productivity. Without a minimum wage you're rewarded according to productivity with minimum wage the reward for outstanding production is removed hence productivity drops to a consistent low level; what was the film - was it I'm All right Jack?

All you do is remove any expected production excess (as per Pareto) from the capable as there is no incentive for them to produce excess.

Whilst the economy may not have crashed, I would say we're in a long decline.Empirically I would say we have been in recession since about 2003 - we've just been bringing future earnings forward by borrowing. Contrast that with Germany that has reduced wages (per unit) by increasing productivity in excess of wages if not by actually reducing wages (and also by manipulating a number of south European currencies out of direct competition).



There are plenty of people out there that fail to produce beyond what they cost. There are those that are unproductive at £3 an hour let alone £6+ an hour - ultimately it's why we outsource about 80% of what we do here. I'll let somebody else worry about productivity; I prefer fixed costs. You can legislate a minimum wage but you can't legislate minimum productivity - it's incredibly difficult to get rid of a slacker.

The underlying problem (or for most people the elephant in the room - clearly not those on this site) is the cost of living, the majority of which is likely to be due to housing costs though of course the size and profligacy of the state is both part of the problem via housing subsidies, benefit subsidies and other channels (just noticed today on Guido that parliament has a resident lifestyle coach).

Quite how you unravel it all though is beyond me; I guess piece by piece in the same way that it was unrolled in the first place.

Productivity has risen and wages havent kept up with productivity,

[crash2006]

http://anticap.files...614&h=404&h=404

[Ascii]

That productivity increases in that scheme is a given, it's just a product of automation.

Remind me when was minimum wage introduced and where does it fit on that graph.

[OnlyMe]

crash2006, on 19 March 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

Productivity has risen and wages havent kept up with productivity,

On the other side produvity has lagged behind other countries becuase invesment hasn't been made - wy scale up and improve efficiency when you can just go short ter and employ near slave labour - in the long run running this way soemone else will eat your chips - one of the reasons we import so much food.

[Ascii]

OnlyMe, on 19 March 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:

On the other side produvity has lagged behind other countries becuase invesment hasn't been made - wy scale up and improve efficiency when you can just go short ter and employ near slave labour - in the long run running this way soemone else will eat your chips - one of the reasons we import so much food.

Which is another way of saying that productivity has declined. The comparison has to be against other economies not against previous production which is meaningless.