Guest BoomBoomCrash Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 http://www.economist.com/world/britain/dis...ory_id=14062327 Yep, paying people minimum wage is the problem. If only people would work for free we'd have no unemployment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 "Minimum Wage"? Do you mean the law prohibiting young people from offering their labour at a rate of their choice? Obviously it doesn't have any effect on their employment prospects because if it did there'd be loads more kids unemployed than older age groups, like there wasn't in France when they made it impossible for young people to make competitive offers there. Unemployment in kids is all down to businessmen, everyone knows that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agentimmo Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 http://www.economist.com/world/britain/dis...ory_id=14062327Yep, paying people minimum wage is the problem. If only people would work for free we'd have no unemployment. See my latest reply on the Jim Knight on Newsnight thread. That's precisely what the 2 young unemployed were saying : We will work for nothing if need be. An employer's dream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 http://www.economist.com/world/britain/dis...ory_id=14062327Yep, paying people minimum wage is the problem. If only people would work for free we'd have no unemployment. Totally retarded from the economist. You could pick up coke tins all day and earn or just wander round looking for change all day - why the ****** would you work for nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Totally retarded from the economist. You could pick up coke tins all day and earn or just wander round looking for change all day - why the ****** would you work for nothing. chickenfeed. shame they stopped the 3d on r whites bottle returns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 chickenfeed.shame they stopped the 3d on r whites bottle returns I used to haul in loads when on holiday in Wales as a kid by spending half an hour going to the caravan rubbish dump and salvaging loads of lemonade bottles then taking them back for deposits. I could fund all my sweet shop purchases for a half hour of work then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no-way Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Totally retarded from the economist. You could pick up coke tins all day and earn or just wander round looking for change all day - why the ****** would you work for nothing. there are people gulliable enough to fall for it though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 I used to haul in loads when on holiday in Wales as a kid by spending half an hour going to the caravan rubbish dump and salvaging loads of lemonade bottles then taking them back for deposits. I could fund all my sweet shop purchases for a half hour of work then. The reason this sort of thing can't be countenanced is - No rentier payments! Only "jobs" that can afford to pay for all the states shit, the hefty banker mortgage/rent etc are allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) Well youth should consider themselves lucky! Wait till they are 50+ Basically you are only "desirable" for employers between 25 - 49 and you should be fully trained! Edited July 16, 2009 by HostPaul TAFKA Rover2000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 The Government claim to want more employment, yet they make employment for those who either cannot, or choose not to work at above the minimum wage illegal. Income taxes don't help either. Perhaps when they claim to want more employment they are being disingenuous, what I mean is they are lying but we're not allowed to say that of our politicians are we? Has anyone ever found out what will happen if I say they are lying, do I not get any presents from Santa Claus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete.hpc Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 The reason this sort of thing can't be countenanced is -No rentier payments! Only "jobs" that can afford to pay for all the states shit, the hefty banker mortgage/rent etc are allowed. Very good point ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACR Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Who'd want voluntary labour anyway? Charity shops are hardly a retail master class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.C. Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 "Minimum Wage"? Do you mean the law prohibiting young people from offering their labour at a rate of their choice? What a wonderful world you get without all these fussy employment laws. It's not like removal of the minimum wage is going to mean grateful employers will be showering the poor with gold coin and exotc silk undergarments. The reality is the greedy mill owner makes them work 16 hours a day, 6 days a week and pays them in a mill issued currency that can only be used in the mill shop where every loaf of bread costs three times as much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Who'd want voluntary labour anyway? Charity shops are hardly a retail master class. Back in the nineties I was "in between" contracts and helped out unpaid at a local ISP. I did have some skills though in Unix system administration which helped get a much better job later. Somehow these kids have to pick up some skills and make themselves attractive to employers. Its a kind of bootstrapping, but I doubt many have the motivation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athom Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Minimum wage is just like all those other bureaucracies put in place to "help us" or "protect us". The only thing they end up doing is being like all other bureaucracy - a hindrance. "no son you're not allowed to work for £30 a week. You have to stay home and be given it. Now don't get into trouble will you!" Idealism has been rampant. I guess this is one of the costs of being faux wealthy for a while, we think we can afford all sorts of things that sound nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Minimum wage is just like all those other bureaucracies put in place to "help us" or "protect us". The only thing they end up doing is being like all other bureaucracy - a hindrance. "no son you're not allowed to work for £30 a week. You have to stay home and be given it. Now don't get into trouble will you!" Idealism has been rampant. I guess this is one of the costs of being faux wealthy for a while, we think we can afford all sorts of things that sound nice. I'll put in my replies from another thread here, since they are very apt. Not a case of won't do them, but won't do them at the salaries offered. The obvious answer is to then raise salaries until they reach the point of attracting the candidates they need. Its simply the function of supply and demand economics. It seems to apply to most upper level employment sectors so why not the lower paid also? Look at any employment sector in the uk where it's claimed there are shortages, be it of scientists, or cleaners, or chef's. Each and every one of them is low paid relative to the amount of skill/effort/ability required. You don't hear of their being a shortage of accountants or managers do you? But then we don't attempt to flood the uk with immigrant labour competition to these individuals. As with any good/service if you flood the market with it/them (e.g. subsidized chinese steel) you drive out their homebased competition (e.g. american steel manufacturers) on a cost basis. Labour is simply one example of this. Its a well know economic phenomenon, however the vested interests know which side their bread is buttered on, so do their utmost to paint uk workers as lazy, chavish, etc. Hopefully after reading this post, more of those who visit this site will throw off their propaganda based shackles. and - My view point on this, is to allow everyone to have access to benefits if not working for however long they wish with no questions asked. However the benefits would cover only the essentials to maintain life in the uk (food, housing, heating, lighting, etc) + a few pounds extra. These would be the only benefits payed out ever. On the other side immigration would be limited to 1 in 1 out. Only taking inward migrants of the same socioeconomic class that leave. Thus if you can't find a suitable uk worker..... tough luck raise your salaries to the point where you do or train someone up to fill that spot. If you cant afford to pay the clearing wage in the uk for that type of worker, then go elsewhere, the rest of the uk population are not here to subsidize your employment practices. Also institute a means of balancing our trade deficit, buffets import certificate concept would be ideal. Our economic competitors would scream, but so what, if they have never played fair why should we? Combined these would bring back the lost jobs, narrow the inequality in the uk, and make the uk a better place for the majority Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Totally retarded from the economist. You could pick up coke tins all day and earn or just wander round looking for change all day - why the ****** would you work for nothing. You could wander around all day and use the money found to pay off your mortgage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACR Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 I'll put in my replies from another thread here, since they are very apt.Not a case of won't do them, but won't do them at the salaries offered. The obvious answer is to then raise salaries until they reach the point of attracting the candidates they need. Its simply the function of supply and demand economics. It seems to apply to most upper level employment sectors so why not the lower paid also? Look at any employment sector in the uk where it's claimed there are shortages, be it of scientists, or cleaners, or chef's. Each and every one of them is low paid relative to the amount of skill/effort/ability required. You don't hear of their being a shortage of accountants or managers do you? But then we don't attempt to flood the uk with immigrant labour competition to these individuals. As with any good/service if you flood the market with it/them (e.g. subsidized chinese steel) you drive out their homebased competition (e.g. american steel manufacturers) on a cost basis. Labour is simply one example of this. Its a well know economic phenomenon, however the vested interests know which side their bread is buttered on, so do their utmost to paint uk workers as lazy, chavish, etc. Hopefully after reading this post, more of those who visit this site will throw off their propaganda based shackles. and - My view point on this, is to allow everyone to have access to benefits if not working for however long they wish with no questions asked. However the benefits would cover only the essentials to maintain life in the uk (food, housing, heating, lighting, etc) + a few pounds extra. These would be the only benefits payed out ever. On the other side immigration would be limited to 1 in 1 out. Only taking inward migrants of the same socioeconomic class that leave. Thus if you can't find a suitable uk worker..... tough luck raise your salaries to the point where you do or train someone up to fill that spot. If you cant afford to pay the clearing wage in the uk for that type of worker, then go elsewhere, the rest of the uk population are not here to subsidize your employment practices. Also institute a means of balancing our trade deficit, buffets import certificate concept would be ideal. Our economic competitors would scream, but so what, if they have never played fair why should we? Combined these would bring back the lost jobs, narrow the inequality in the uk, and make the uk a better place for the majority Hopelessly optimistic the jobs won't come back. The paradigm's broken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashConnoisseur Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 http://www.economist.com/world/britain/dis...ory_id=14062327 Young people are not the only losers from the recession, of course. A report this week from PWC, an accountancy firm, pointed out that people approaching retirement have also suffered a big blow in the falling value of houses and equities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrB Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Totally retarded from the economist. You could pick up coke tins all day and earn or just wander round looking for change all day - why the ****** would you work for nothing. Yeh I wholeheartedly agree. Price controls either cause a surplus or a shortage - it's so simple it is retarded to not grasp this point. Fixing the price of labour above market rates will create a surplus (unemployment) Imagine a firm with £100,000 to spend on labour. It can employ 2 people at £50,000pa, or 10 people at £10,000 pa. Below is a graph a saw somewhere in some Austrian piece. It stuck in my mind (excuse the lame recreation, apologies): Wages.bmp Wage rate Y axis Supply of labour X axis The shaded area is unemployed due to artifically high wage rates. Wages.bmp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Yeh I wholeheartedly agree. Price controls either cause a surplus or a shortage - it's so simple it is retarded to not grasp this point. Fixing the price of labour above market rates will create a surplus (unemployment) Imagine a firm with £100,000 to spend on labour. It can employ 2 people at £50,000pa, or 10 people at £10,000 pa. Below is a graph a saw somewhere in some Austrian piece. It stuck in my mind (excuse the lame recreation, apologies): Wages.bmp Wage rate Y axis Supply of labour X axis The shaded area is unemployed due to artifically high wage rates. Nice illustration - the point is well made. Minimum wage is a crowd pleaser (read: vote winner), but it doesn't fit into the supply/demand model. It forces people into unemployment or free labour, where earning something would be better than nothing. The whole benefits system needs reforming, with JSA and MW being scrapped and replaced by a system which is more flexible and avoids the benefits trap. A citizen's income could provide basic income (so people have something to always fall back on), topped up by low paid work if needed (better low pay, than no pay). There just may not be enough money for high employment at more than minimum wage for many years - perhaps even decades. The longer this situation goes on and the more unemployed people there are, I think there will be real pressure for a change in the way we think about benefits. Something has to give or it will get messy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athom Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 I always think of the Welsh valleys when i wonder about the wisdom of the welfare state. I'm sure before mining there were few people living there, some farmers etc. Then work came with the mining. People moved there to work. Then the mining work dried up. Did people move to where the work is? No. they were paid to stay in the valley and sit on their arses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!) Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Price controls either cause a surplus or a shortage - it's so simple it is retarded to not grasp this point. yep but people think central bankers are good at it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 The reason this sort of thing can't be countenanced is -No rentier payments! Only "jobs" that can afford to pay for all the states shit, the hefty banker mortgage/rent etc are allowed. And if you can't make all those inflicted costs, you are expected to fall on your knees before your abusers and beg their charity (which they can remove on a political whim) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
contractor Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Nice illustration - the point is well made.Minimum wage is a crowd pleaser (read: vote winner), but it doesn't fit into the supply/demand model. It forces people into unemployment or free labour, where earning something would be better than nothing. The whole benefits system needs reforming, with JSA and MW being scrapped and replaced by a system which is more flexible and avoids the benefits trap. A citizen's income could provide basic income (so people have something to always fall back on), topped up by low paid work if needed (better low pay, than no pay). There just may not be enough money for high employment at more than minimum wage for many years - perhaps even decades. The longer this situation goes on and the more unemployed people there are, I think there will be real pressure for a change in the way we think about benefits. Something has to give or it will get messy. If you are going to mess with the benefits system, make sure that you have already revamped the justice system, imposing much stricter and harsher penalties.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.