Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Boom Boom

Minimum Wage Effectively Rescinded

Recommended Posts

Sad as technology and productivity advance forward we should raise the minimum wage in line. Even if technically a business could find a replacement willing to work for less.

Replacement value is not a sane way for a society to decide compensation for its citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad as technology and productivity advance forward we should raise the minimum wage in line. Even if technically a business could find a replacement willing to work for less.

Replacement value is not a sane way for a society to decide compensation for its citizens.

So what should it be based on? And at what point do those who work harder / have more skills / are more productive / are more rare, give up as their return on the investment of their time / skills / capital is stripped out to pay for our glorious equalized pay structure.

We do have a problem as a society in that productivity is now not largely based on labour input. The person working at McDonald's makes no more input than the person working at the burger van down the road yet McDonald's makes fabulous profits that billy burger van could never dream of due to economies of scale, standardized equipment and processes and an awesome supply chain. Joe burger flipped didnt create any of that and yet by some people's estimation he should get a share of it.

What share should someone get of productivity for which they are not responsible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:unsure: Lowering the wage people are paid will do wonders to reduce the benefits trap and make work pay more, or as well as, benefits....

Edited by rented

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:unsure: Because lowering the wage people are paid will do wonders to reduce the benefits trap and make work pay more, or as well as, benefits.

Thinking about it though, it's a way for the government to subsidise jobs, since people will be able to claim for tax credits to make up the loss in earnings.. better than having them out of work entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:unsure: Lowering the wage people are paid will do wonders to reduce the benefits trap and make work pay more, or as well as, benefits....

The State can't save your axse a good or bad thing, a fact which is evidentially becoming plain.

Edited by Zngland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should instead apply National Minimum wages standards to all imported goods (and environmental and social standards).

That works until the profit rises to surpass the fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what should it be based on? And at what point do those who work harder / have more skills / are more productive / are more rare, give up as their return on the investment of their time / skills / capital is stripped out to pay for our glorious equalized pay structure.

We do have a problem as a society in that productivity is now not largely based on labour input. The person working at McDonald's makes no more input than the person working at the burger van down the road yet McDonald's makes fabulous profits that billy burger van could never dream of due to economies of scale, standardized equipment and processes and an awesome supply chain. Joe burger flipped didnt create any of that and yet by some people's estimation he should get a share of it.

What share should someone get of productivity for which they are not responsible?

No single individual created the complex beast that is Mcdonalds today- it is the outcome of the efforts of many different individuals on many levels. So by your logic no one at all is entitled to share in that productivity, since none can claim individually to have created it.

The simple solution to this issue is to have wage ratios whereby the lowest paid in company cannot be paid less than say 10% of the highest paid- this would preserve income differentials to reflect superior skill and effort, while flattening the income disparity.

It would also mean that increases in profitability would really 'trickle down' to the lowest paid.

Strangely enough, however, this version of trickledown is not favoured by those who seem to so keen on it as theory- perhaps because this version would actually work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about it though, it's a way for the government to subsidise jobs, since people will be able to claim for tax credits to make up the loss in earnings.. better than having them out of work entirely.

Yup, better to have a job + topped up with a little benefits than having no job + lots of benefits.

NMW was always a daft idea though, IMO. It's a nice concept, but it doesn't seem to work - being pushed onto the benefits scrap heap isn't what anyone wants.

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strangely enough, however, this version of trickledown is not favoured by those who seem to so keen on it as theory- perhaps because this version would actually work.

:lol:

Well said!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lets make it £100,000 per week like those england footballers

link

All demand curves are falling, and the demand for hiring labor is no exception. Hence, laws that prohibit employment at any wage that is relevant to the market (a minimum wage of 10 cents an hour would have little or no impact) must result in outlawing employment and hence causing unemployment.

If the minimum wage is, in short, raised from $3.35 to $4.55 an hour, the consequence is to disemploy, permanently, those who would have been hired at rates in between these two rates. Since the demand curve for any sort of labor (as for any factor of production) is set by the perceived marginal productivity of that labor, this means that the people who will be disemployed and devastated by this prohibition will be precisely the "marginal" (lowest wage) workers, e.g. blacks and teenagers, the very workers whom the advocates of the minimum wage are claiming to foster and protect.

The advocates of the minimum wage and its periodic boosting reply that all this is scare talk and that minimum wage rates do not and never have caused any unemployment. The proper riposte is to raise them one better; all right, if the minimum wage is such a wonderful anti-poverty measure, and can have no unemployment-raising effects, why are you such pikers? Why you are helping the working poor by such piddling amounts? Why stop at $4.55 an hour? Why not $10 an hour? $100? $1,000?

It is obvious that the minimum wage advocates do not pursue their own logic, because if they push it to such heights, virtually the entire labor force will be disemployed. In short, you can have as much unemployment as you want, simply by pushing the legally minimum wage high enough.

Edited by lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, better to have a job + topped up with a little benefits than having no job + lots of benefits.

NMW was always a daft idea though, IMO. It's a nice concept, but it doesn't seem to work - being pushed onto the benefits scrap heap isn't what anyone wants.

Not again,

What is your obbsession with those on minimum wage , by your own post you state that it is not a living wage , yet you want people to work for even less.

Minimum wage scrapped people earn less + toped up with benefits somewhere between little benefits and lots of benefits.

More people earning less more benefits paid , more tax payers supporting companies that have dropped wages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not again,

What is your obbsession with those on minimum wage , by your own post you state that it is not a living wage , yet you want people to work for even less.

Minimum wage scrapped people earn less + toped up with benefits somewhere between little benefits and lots of benefits.

More people earning less more benefits paid , more tax payers supporting companies that have dropped wages.

Frankly, I can't be arsed to explain this again. Suffice to say, you think NMW helps those in poverty, where as I do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I can't be arsed to explain this again. Suffice to say, you think NMW helps those in poverty, where as I do not.

So lowering it helps them even more does it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, as they can legally get a job, rather than being forced to rely on handouts.

Why do you use the word legally ?

Lower NMW more people rely on more handouts, like the HB ends up in the hands of the landlords via the claiment , The top up via benefits for those on lower NMW ends up in the hands of the company owners who have cut the wages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, as they can legally get a job, rather than being forced to rely on handouts.

How does that help them?

I am sick and tired of my wages being taxed to subsidise companies who pay people far below a living wage in this country.

The minimum wage should be £15k.

Housing benefit, tax credits should be scrapped for all those in work.

Invalidity should be scrapped for all those who CAN work.

Then, instead of gloating at Europe about their Unemployment problem we could start dealing with ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does that help them?

I am sick and tired of my wages being taxed to subsidise companies who pay people far below a living wage in this country.

The minimum wage should be £15k.

Housing benefit, tax credits should be scrapped for all those in work.

Invalidity should be scrapped for all those who CAN work.

Then, instead of gloating at Europe about their Unemployment problem we could start dealing with ours.

dont worry its collapsing anyway

15k why stop there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you use the word legally ?

Because NMW is the law.

Lower NMW more people rely on more handouts, like the HB ends up in the hands of the landlords via the claiment , The top up via benefits for those on lower NMW ends up in the hands of the company owners who have cut the wages.

It's amazing business worked at all before the 1990s eh? :rolleyes:

There is competition for wages at all levels. Adding a NMW doesn't change this; it just marginalises those without the skills/experience to earn above minimum wage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple solution to this issue is to have wage ratios whereby the lowest paid in company cannot be paid less than say 10% of the highest paid- this would preserve income differentials to reflect superior skill and effort, while flattening the income disparity.

There really isn't one simple, fair solution or right solution. All workable solutions tend to be a compromise of various viewpoints and priorities. I strongly believe that the 10:1 solution will be virtually impossible to implement and very damaging if it was. Do you have any idea how many ways there are to 'manipulate' an employers reperations to avoid this limit:

  • High paid employees treated effectively as contractors (thus not on a wage).

    Very high and easy to achieve bonuses

    Lower normal working hours and very generous overtime rates for high earners

    Other perks such as company cars, holiday packages etc

    Hire low earners as contractors (contract cleaning for example)

    Ship the lowest paid jobs to other countries

    Ship the highest paid jobs to other countries

I can't speak for anyone else but I certainly don't think I'm alone in being willing to move countries if the financial cost of working in the UK got high enough. Put a 10:1 cap on wages and all you'll see is any major UK corporation setting up an executive head office abroad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does that help them?

I am sick and tired of my wages being taxed to subsidise companies who pay people far below a living wage in this country.

The minimum wage should be £15k.

Housing benefit, tax credits should be scrapped for all those in work.

Invalidity should be scrapped for all those who CAN work.

Then, instead of gloating at Europe about their Unemployment problem we could start dealing with ours.

NMW at £15k would probably force unemployment up another 5-10%. More people would be replaced by machines and more jobs would go to the developing nations.

Scrapping benefits for those in work is part of what causes the benefits trap. Once you've managed to sign on to all the various schemes, it's a risk to attempt employment.

We have to bring the cost of living down, not get obsessive about earnings. Globally, we have very high earnings already - the problem is the very high cost of living.

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing business worked at all before the 1990s eh? :rolleyes:

.

No its not amazing it is a fact , it did work and generally wages for the average were a lot higher then in real terms. But then companies started to cut them , Aided by a govenment's willingness to lie about inflation, stating that it was lower than it really was. Wage rises linked to this false figure ensured that in real terms wages fell for the masses.

Those at the top got more those in the middle less. However in order to stop those at the bottom really being shafted and the tax payer picking up all of the tab the govenment bought in the minimum wage as a saftey net, ( the companies did not get it all their own way ) .

You talk about free markets and not having price fixing , surley lying about inflation is market fixing as many markets move in relation to this figure , lying about it is fixing the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should instead apply National Minimum wages standards to all imported goods (and environmental and social standards).

That would mean strongest protectionism against the poorest countries.

Poverty does not give them competitive advantage. If it did, they wouldn't be poor any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 153 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.