Should All Employers Who Pay Minimum Wage ?

[geoffk]

I've noticed no one has bothered to address the real issue here: that the state (via tax credits for example) are subsidising businesses and markets by proxy. I understand the state is very good at giving with one hand whilst taking with the other, but this fact still remains.

Why would anyone stretch themselves to get a better job, when they can plod along on MW and retain the monetary difference with benefits?

Exactly..people on here hate dole scroungers but when it comes to employers its ok for some tosser who cant be bothered to pay his or her staff well to make the state pay the bill.,,,

[winkie]

There are always young, inexperienced people literally popping out every year. Some even start with a paper round, earning well under NMW. Should they be put out of a job or would people pay double or triple to have a paper delivered? Would them people then decide that they may as well just call at the paper shop on the way to work instead and save the money too?

There are also people who do part time, happy to get out of the house for a natter, while doing a simple job. Why do you want to keep it illegal for them to do this?

I agree, as long as it is their choice and they are not exploited....many do work and are happy to work, and it is not for the money they earn they work for something far more worthwhile.

[South Lorne]

Gordos is no mate of mine i saw the light twenty five years ago and have a deep hatred of them all...

784 company owned, 465 franchised,

...the reality check is that although they pay min wage as basic ...people earn more through the performance culture ...in other words your volume speed and quality of handling ....that brings wages up....seems to be a true living business ethos ...not like some civil service areas where bonuses were awarded to whoever....?....

Edited May 27, 2010 by South Lorne

[Traktion]

Employees that own the companies that they work for can then pay themselves a wage that they believe are worth from a profit they have made.

Indeed.

Perhaps someone should canvas all of those McDonalds employees, asking them to stump up cash/loan/equity for a new fast food enterprise, so that they can all share in a slice of profit, should it materialise... all at the risk of losing it all. How many do you think would get their card out or re-mortgage their house for the chance?

As I said above, there is a reason that there aren't more cooperatives and that is because people want others to take the risk. It doesn't stop them moaning about how they deserve a bigger share of the profits once the company is successful though!

[Riedquat]

There are always young, inexperienced people literally popping out every year. Some even start with a paper round, earning well under NMW. Should they be put out of a job or would people pay double or triple to have a paper delivered? Would them people then decide that they may as well just call at the paper shop on the way to work instead and save the money too?

There are also people who do part time, happy to get out of the house for a natter, while doing a simple job. Why do you want to keep it illegal for them to do this?

In which case both groups are having to rely on others in order to survive. You want to increase the number of people in that situation. Anyway, the minimum wage doesn't preclude part time work, so what's your second point about? And in any case both groups exist under the current situation, so they're hardly examples that highlight a flaw with the current system.

[Traktion]

Exactly..people on here hate dole scroungers but when it comes to employers its ok for some tosser who cant be bothered to pay his or her staff well to make the state pay the bill.,,,

The state should withdraw its help to the companies too.

[Traktion]

In which case both groups are having to rely on others in order to survive. You want to increase the number of people in that situation. Anyway, the minimum wage doesn't preclude part time work, so what's your second point about? And in any case both groups exist under the current situation, so they're hardly examples that highlight a flaw with the current system.

So it's ok to work part time for less money, but not full? Why? Is it ok to 'exploit' people part of the time?

They are going to have to rely on others anyway (if there is a NMW), through benefits when they have no job, so why do you want to force them into that position? Personally, I'd rather be on 60% earned and 40% benefits, with a reason to get up each day and a chance of getting a better job, rather than on the 100% benefits scrap heap. Not only that, but it would cost a lot less and make the UK a whole lot more productive too. Handy when you have a huge deficit and a sovereign debt crisis threatening.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Traktion

[Cogs]

Indeed.

Perhaps someone should canvas all of those McDonalds employees, asking them to stump up cash/loan/equity for a new fast food enterprise, so that they can all share in a slice of profit, should it materialise... all at the risk of losing it all. How many do you think would get their card out or re-mortgage their house for the chance?

As I said above, there is a reason that there aren't more cooperatives and that is because people want others to take the risk. It doesn't stop them moaning about how they deserve a bigger share of the profits once the company is successful though!

They can get a loan like every other entrepreneur. Lots of schemes around. Its a bit of a myth that cooperatives are uncommon or scarce. Anyhow, most equity in the world is inherited. The Chancellor has about 4 million pounds + investments in his back pocket, what risk do you think he took to "earn" that beyond being his father's son? Always the same though isn't it, people who want to work for a living are treated as scroungers for actually wanting their effort to be fairly rewarded and we pretend the Osbornes and Paris Hiltons of this world are only rich because of their driving Ayn Rand will to power drives. You'd have a point if we had 100% inheritance tax, but we don't.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Cogs

[winkie]

Indeed.

Perhaps someone should canvas all of those McDonalds employees, asking them to stump up cash/loan/equity for a new fast food enterprise, so that they can all share in a slice of profit, should it materialise... all at the risk of losing it all. How many do you think would get their card out or re-mortgage their house for the chance?

As I said above, there is a reason that there aren't more cooperatives and that is because people want others to take the risk. It doesn't stop them moaning about how they deserve a bigger share of the profits once the company is successful though!

I hear the John Lewis/Waitrose partnership profits are rather good so to are the staff bonuses... the staff provide a great customer service with a smile (makes all the difference) happy people make others happy, the after sales service is second to none.....hows that, what about more of the same?

[huw]

The taxpayer is in effect subsidising Global company profits for companies like McDonalds, KFC, Pizza chains etc

They pay minimum wages to staff, who can't live off that wage without Xtra govt/council housing 'subsidies' - ultimately taken from? The taxpayer?

So your 'cheap' meal has already been 'subsidised' by part of your taxes!

I disagree. McDonalds has traditionally been even cheaper in other parts of the world ... who is subsidising your 'cheap' meal then?

The subsidy really goes to people like landlords, speculators and financiers who benefit from operating in a high-cost (propped up by things like HB) economy.

[Lucifer]

So you're admitting it's not a free market, then?

What was your point again?

Doh! I'll try and expain this very simply for you. Its called a paradox. An unregulated "free" market tends to collapse into greed and corruption. In the process it ceases to operate as a free market as it becomes, in effect, rigged in favour of the most powerful and

most wealthy. If you want to see that in action, just look around.

Now if you still don't understand that then I'm afraid that whilst the wheel of your intellect is still turning, the hamster is most definitely dead.

[Britney's Piers]

The free market does work.....That is why most of our manufacturing jobs have gone to the Far East and Eastern Europe.......because wages in this country are too high, and in other countries people will work for less than a pound per hour!

When has Red China been a "free market"?

The government supresses wages through currency manipulation, and if anyone complains, they jail them, kill them, or put them in a labour camp. This is what you are competing with in the unfree marketplace.

It's a race to the bottom for most of the population of Earth, with a small oligarchy at the top. Of course they want you to think its "free markets", but it doesn't matter, most are aware of what's going on, but carry on regardless since they must have their cheap tat.

[winkie]

Highly greedy private equity has stolen the wealth of profitable businesses....highly leveraged, pure greed.....they were of course allowed to get away with it....all that is now left is the dregs

[Lucifer]

When has Red China been a "free market"?

The government supresses wages through currency manipulation, and if anyone complains, they jail them, kill them, or put them in a labour camp. This is what you are competing with in the unfree marketplace.

It's a race to the bottom for most of the population of Earth, with a small oligarchy at the top. Of course they want you to think its "free markets", but it doesn't matter, most are aware of what's going on, but carry on regardless since they must have their cheap tat.

+1

I'm afraid these free market chappies simply don't see the paradox at the heart of their own argument.

[Tired of Waiting]

Why does the west deserve to earn more than the east?

+ 1

Nicely put.

[winkie]

+ 1

Nicely put.

Because they don't......and they won't for that much longer.

[erranta]

Many / most of the fast food restaurants that you mention are run on a franchise basis. They are therefore a number of smaller privately owned and run businesses. They pay the going rate for the job, which is NMW.

I have recently sold a restaurant business. Most of my staff were on NMW. If you had closed down my business, you would be supporting me and my family and my head chef's family and all of my staff via the benefits system. Instead of them all being contributing tax payers, they would all be benefits claimants. Multiply this hundreds of thousands of times around the country, and you would destroy the entire economy with in a month............which is even faster than Gordon Brown!

As an employer I was not raking in millions. The OP is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Ask yourself why the minimum wage is not sufficient to live on? Mainly due to housing costs. Reduce the cost of housing and the problem is solved. (NB You might also have to get the general population to reassess what are essentials, and what are luxuries.)

You were partly running your business on subsidies forcibly payed by the Blitish Taxpayer - simple as!

[shipbuilder]

The problem is employment itself. It's been with us for so long that we see it as natural and unchangeable, however it is anything but. Co-operatives are natural, employment is paid slavery.

We don't see it because the employers/land owners effectively removed the choice for us centuries ago.

[Tired of Waiting]

The arguments of the left are not about equality. They are about getting as much for themselves as possible.

Capitalists are clear about their goals. The left try to cloak their greed under the mantle of fairness.

+ 1

I was in America in the mid 90s, when the NAFTA issue was at its peak. Mexican workers would be lifted form starvation, whilst American workers would just have to delay by a few months the upgrade of their VCRs. Still a idealistic, naive lefty, I witnessed the American Workers Unions raging against NAFTA.

"International solidarity of workers" my a @rse!

And before anyone mentions "races to the bottoms", in salaries or labour standards: They have never happened, in 300 years, since the English industrial revolution. What always happened was that the new developing country gets rich too, like the USA, Germany, France and Italy in the 1800s, Japan, Asian Tigers, etc. in the 20th century, and now the BRICs and others. And Africa next, hopefully.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[Guest anorthosite]

this post has been nominated for the dumbest post of HPC award...

This poster has been nominated for the dumbest poster on HPC award.

[Guest anorthosite]

Let's raise it to 100,000k a year and we can all be rich!

You are Injin and I claim my $5,000,000 Injin dollars

[ken_ichikawa]

HK anybody? HK has NO NMW and has NO such thing as tax credits council tax benefits or anything like that, they do have negative income tax if you have children but effectively you can earn a livable wage and pay ferk all tax.

Some interesting things happening over in HK lately, they had a massive jobs fair for uber low wage workers $3000-$5000 the place was to accomodate 15,000 attendees, 92 people turned up, and only 3 people got jobs.

HK job adverts are odd things, they are not like UK job adverts, an offer is made, a week or so later if the position is not filled the job is readvertised and the pay is increased and increased until somebody takes it on.

In the UK I've noticed MW jobs stay MW if nobody applies they keep on putting it up as MW and just keep on advertising nearly forever.

Is this a good system?

Note you can make up to 15K a year in HK and pay NO income tax and about £212 of council tax, no such thing as VAT either CGT or IHT. HOWEVER there is a very high LVT.

Edited May 27, 2010 by ken_ichikawa

[Tired of Waiting]

Spoken like a true psychopath.

Really? Lets see:

What is your opinion regarding the international solidarity of workers?

Are you in favour of free trade with poorer countries? Or are you in favour of protectionism? Suppose they are democracies, with full workers rights, like ... Latin American democracies for instance.

With freer trade their salaries would increase a little, allowing their families better nutrition and health. Yours would freeze for a few years, and you would have to delay the upgrade to 3D TV.

[Tired of Waiting]

Spoken like a true socialist.

More like a pseudo-socialist - alas, by far the most common type though.

[SNACR]

The problem is employment itself. It's been with us for so long that we see it as natural and unchangeable, however it is anything but. Co-operatives are natural, employment is paid slavery.

We don't see it because the employers/land owners effectively removed the choice for us centuries ago.

Nah, co-operatives aren't natural they're a cuddly-wuddly fantasy daydream of self-hating human beings.

From before you're born sperm competes to fertilise the egg. You compete with other schoolchildren to get the best grades. You compete with other people to secure the best life partner. You compete to get the best job at the best wage. Any fantasy that any model that doesn't mirror this fundamental component of human nature fails ultimately.

Obviously, people co-operate when they're united against the same thing, like say competing against another co-operative. Where co-ops fail is through their internal power structure, which usually involve a lot of meetings, commitees and an everyone's a winner anti-darwinian mentality.

People losing and failing is not a bad thing, per se, provided everyone can quickly be dealt another hand in the game.