Workfare Bill: Work For Less Than £2.50 An Hour

[Stars]

Didn't someone once say or write that the only way to compete with slaves is to become one?

They may have done so, but they were wrong

[Fudge]

Slaves are actually treated better than some workers.

To buy a slave is an investment, it costs money so it makes sense to look after a slave. Make sure they are fed, put a roof over their head look after them like you would a horse. A worker on the other hand you can work to death and it cost nothing to replace him or her.

£.2.50 an hour seems an awful lot. I am sure we could get kids to work for much less. Say 50p per hour.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

I'm ok with the super market charging me more if the difference goes to the people who are out there working. I calculated for the major supermarkets that a doubling of the low end wages across the board would lead to a 5% increase in the bill for the customers. This by looking at their costs on their income statements.

I'd gladly pay £105 for the groceries instead of £100 for the same groceries. If it meant all the workers made £11 an hour instead of £5.50.

I'm not one who thinks it should come out of the corporations profits or something silly. It also needs to be instituted across the entire country equally so that all firms are on a level playing field.

Right now one firm tries to do the right thing and pay more, and they simply get undercut by the competitor and all the customers go to the place that is slightly cheaper.

Soon there won't be checkout people. RFID will mean they are not necessary. Even now there are many self checkout options.

Shelf stacking will become redundant when I complete my shelf stacking robot. At the moment it's got some way to go as it keeps smashing the eggs.

[Azbola]

OK don't laugh, but what we need for the Star Trek type, no need to work, scenario from working?

What do we need to acheive?

Here is my inital list. Please add:

1) Free, unlimited energy

2) Robots to do all the shit jobs

3) Self repairing robots

4) Inifinite living space.

Hmm. OK, quite difficult then.

Also would be some problems:

1) Human progress would basically stop, as why would you strive for anything new when you already have everything you need

Has anyone read Consider Phlebas by Ian M Banks? A very interesting take on the same subject

[feed]

OK don't laugh, but what we need for the Star Trek type, no need to work, scenario from working?

That's not what we are talking about.

We are talking about what do to with billions of people whose labour is functionally worthless.

[Horridbloke]

I was getting 2.50 per hour for a low-skilled part time job - sitting behind a till at a petrol station - twenty odd years ago.

Anyone signing up for that figure now in return for mopping the floor might as well just top themselves. Who'd want to be young these days?

[alexw]

A nation of unskilled losers and moaners. Learn something, get skills that are in demand. Of course its much easier not to bother and complain while someone else pays your share of the bills while thinking you are hard done by.

Load of ********.

Nothing to do with skills and everything to do with the ability & power of one group to divert income to themselves and away from other groups.

Or are CEO's 20x more skilled than 15 years ago? Or our top financiers 100x more capable? And perhaps it takes 50% less ability now to answer phones in a call center, or 50% less skill to stack shelves in a supermarket?

Stop trying to justify your own (i presume) highly inflated salary via your highly inflated ego and highly inflated idea of your own self-worth. Do you work in finance by any chance? Someone did recently post that many financiers truely resemble psychopaths in their tendancies. Also you from your complete lack of empathy to others in all your posts that i have seen are unfortunately this way too (being completely honest here). Do some serious introspection, and make yourself a better person.

[Self Employed Youth]

I'd probably time limit this rate for a few months (say three) - and there must be the promise of a permanent (above NMW) job at the end of it, if they pass this probationary period.. Companies that abuse the system get struck off...

A lot of long unemployed initially start working part-time, and speaking to employment advisors, its quite a lot for them from going from nothing to 40 hours a week. If they started off at 20 hours a week (under the universal credit system, they'll be able to keep something like 60% of their earnings without it effecting their benefit), they can then gradually built up their hours..

Sod that. I point blank refuse any job below 40 hours a week for economical reasons and the job centre know that and agree with me.

If it is minimum wage, I need 40 hours minimum to yield a £1 per hour increase in income (that's not taking into account cash in hand), 60 hours is better, as I can yield about £3 an hour increase in income.

I want a 60 hour job if its minimum wage, with the option of overtime, give me the 84 hour week or 15 hour shifts and I graft. Give me 40 hours and I'm moaning like a ******* due to the effectively low pay.

[dubsie]

Since you are so upset about people on poor wages, maybe you should start leaving a tip when you shop at your local supermarket? Or tell them to keep the change. No? I thought not.

you don't even know me and i would happily pay more for my shopping if it went to the staff. Unfortunately

cashiers can't take tips in fact many supermarkets don't allow staff to carry cash.

[Johnny Storm]

Stop trying to justify your own (i presume) highly inflated salary via your highly inflated ego and highly inflated idea of your own self-worth. Do you work in finance by any chance? Someone did recently post that many financiers truely resemble psychopaths in their tendancies. Also you from your complete lack of empathy to others in all your posts that i have seen are unfortunately this way too (being completely honest here). Do some serious introspection, and make yourself a better person.

I dont need to justify anything. I earn exactly what I am worth, you do too, and this is what I believe in. I earn a modest £40 an hour because of the skills I have. Im sure there are many who earn more and Im glad for them.

If people are unhappy with what they earn then do something about it. This is also true of house prices. That average house price may get to £140 or £150k, but if your salary is still £18k then what difference does it make?

A lot of people on here need to leave fantasy land, and have to start grafting rather than posting on wishful thinking websites all day.

[Injin]

I dont need to justify anything. I earn exactly what I am worth, you do too, and this is what I believe in. I earn a modest £40 an hour because of the skills I have. Im sure there are many who earn more and Im glad for them.

If people are unhappy with what they earn then do something about it. This is also true of house prices. That average house price may get to £140 or £150k, but if your salary is still £18k then what difference does it make?

A lot of people on here need to leave fantasy land, and have to start grafting rather than posting on wishful thinking websites all day.

Fiat money system means it doesn't matter how many skills some acquire, theres no place for them.

It's designed that way.

Analogy time - everyone is being forced to run the 100 metres, the prizes are dished primarily out to the fastest 3 runners, and then on a sliding scale to everyone else, with the bulk getting next to nothing. When the bulk of people complain that the rewards aren't handed out particularly evenly, or that being forced to run the 100 metres is kinda dumb, the response of those at or near the front is to say "if you all ran faster then it would be fine."

[geoffk]

Since you are so upset about people on poor wages, maybe you should start leaving a tip when you shop at your local supermarket? Or tell them to keep the change. No? I thought not.

I have met your type so many times and you all have one thing in common....you eventually learn the hard way...

[erranta]

Fiat money system means it doesn't matter how many skills some acquire, theres no place for them.

It's designed that way.

Analogy time - everyone is being forced to run the 100 metres, the prizes are dished primarily out to the fastest 3 runners, and then on a sliding scale to everyone else, with the bulk getting next to nothing. When the bulk of people complain that the rewards aren't handed out particularly evenly, or that being forced to run the 100 metres is kinda dumb, the response of those at or near the front is to say "if you all ran faster then it would be fine."

LOL - at least someone gets it!

Not that you're paid over £40 p/hr to spell it out in plain language for the tw@t-faced 'morons' amongst us!

[Cinnamon]

http://intensiveactivity.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/uk-workfare-and-training-wage-bill-sub-2-50-wages/

This should help the supermarkets make even greater profits.

I think you posted the wrong link?

"The Government has recently introduced a new National Minimum Wage (NMW) rate for apprentices in their first year of apprenticeship (or under 19) so they are only entitled to £2.50 per hour."

This is about apprentices learning a trade, not workers in supermarkets nor about 'workfare'.

But if that really is your beef, remember for most apps, even £2.50 an hour is too expensive, most people would need to pay the employer to make up the costs they cause. I know this sounds mean because to the app it's real work, but, the place of work costs money to rent/furnish/run, and the time that experienced workers give up to teach the apps also doesn't come for free.

Most apps are not productive for at least a year and even then they break more than they produce. Which is why most companies don't want to know about teaching apprentices -- they can't afford them!

[rented]

I think you posted the wrong link?

"The Government has recently introduced a new National Minimum Wage (NMW) rate for apprentices in their first year of apprenticeship (or under 19) so they are only entitled to £2.50 per hour."

This is about apprentices learning a trade, not workers in supermarkets nor about 'workfare'.

But if that really is your beef, remember for most apps, even £2.50 an hour is too expensive, most people would need to pay the employer to make up the costs they cause. I know this sounds mean because to the app it's real work, but, the place of work costs money to rent/furnish/run, and the time that experienced workers give up to teach the apps also doesn't come for free.

Most apps are not productive for at least a year and even then they break more than they produce. Which is why most companies don't want to know about teaching apprentices -- they can't afford them!

For real trades I agree with your points, but the Apprenticeship system is being abused and used to replace school leaver entry level positions. Since when was basic office work a 'trade'? It would previously have been paid the NMW instead, the past year employers (including the NHS) have only been advertising apprenticeships for the lowest paid jobs whereas previously they were advertising for staff paid NMW on the lowest age-appropriate band for the NMW. In effect it's lowered wages at the bottom end for entry level work considerably. In such cases I don't see how anyone can claim that apprentices require such significant, intensive training that they are in any way significantly less productive or useful for the duration of an entire year.

[LJAR]

an increase in the minimum wage will not help the unemployed get jobs.

I have made the point many times that the min wage actually helps keep unemployment high and deepens the welfare trap we have created.

NB - the supermarkets pay more then NMW anyway and they pay that to 16 year-olds straight out of school.

Injin - your analogy assumes that the pot of wages is fixed - it isn't.

A better analogy would be to say that pay is allocated on a sliding scale according to the time they get.

[Injin]

an increase in the minimum wage will not help the unemployed get jobs.

I have made the point many times that the min wage actually helps keep unemployment high and deepens the welfare trap we have created.

NB - the supermarkets pay more then NMW anyway and they pay that to 16 year-olds straight out of school.

Injin - your analogy assumes that the pot of wages is fixed - it isn't.

A better analogy would be to say that pay is allocated on a sliding scale according to the time they get.

The pot of wages is fixed, because it's issued centrally via the CB and controlled with interest rates.

if we had a free market in money, the story would be very different, ofc. At present, it doesn't matter how hard or how skilled everyone is, the system will ditch a fixed percentage into unemployment and bankrupcy constantly.

[LJAR]

The pot of wages is fixed, because it's issued centrally via the CB and controlled with interest rates.

if we had a free market in money, the story would be very different, ofc. At present, it doesn't matter how hard or how skilled everyone is, the system will ditch a fixed percentage into unemployment and bankrupcy constantly.

you'll have to expand on your logic there as you've lost me.

[Johnny Storm]

Fiat money system means it doesn't matter how many skills some acquire, theres no place for them.

It's designed that way.

Analogy time - everyone is being forced to run the 100 metres, the prizes are dished primarily out to the fastest 3 runners, and then on a sliding scale to everyone else, with the bulk getting next to nothing. When the bulk of people complain that the rewards aren't handed out particularly evenly, or that being forced to run the 100 metres is kinda dumb, the response of those at or near the front is to say "if you all ran faster then it would be fine."

Well Injin I seem to have a car paid via the Fiat money system, next year Ill have a house paid for via it. So what is your point?

As to the runners, tell me why you think the 3 fastest runners should have to pay for those who couldnt even bother turning up? Like your good self.

[alexw]

I dont need to justify anything. I earn exactly what I am worth, you do too, and this is what I believe in. I earn a modest £40 an hour because of the skills I have. Im sure there are many who earn more and Im glad for them.

If people are unhappy with what they earn then do something about it. This is also true of house prices. That average house price may get to £140 or £150k, but if your salary is still £18k then what difference does it make?

A lot of people on here need to leave fantasy land, and have to start grafting rather than posting on wishful thinking websites all day.

You fail to understand that what you believe you are worth is in the context of the rules of the current system.

So what if the government of your current domicile changes its immigration rules? or if its trade partners manipulate their currency? or it lets employers ship in workers who benefit from currency arbitrage?

Its not some hard fast number that derives from 'worth', its nothing of the sort. If it was we'd not have seen the massive swings in income we continually see. Nor would we see the massive current disparities in income between different careers of comparable skill levels.

Rather its the effect of one group or other gaining ascendancy to rewrite societal/corporate/government rules to its benefit, so that it can redirect income to itself. What you think you are worth is primarily derived from this.

As for the other part of my post. You for example in another thread welcomed and seemed positively eager for the return of victorian workhouses and child labour. In another i remember you saying that if their were riots you'd hoped the police would shoot to kill. You show in all your posts no empathy for other individuals. And thats what a psychopath is, they have no empathy to others and so cannot and do not care what happens to them. I call a spade a spade, and you fit the profile of a psychopath.

[Fool's Gold]

You get for what you pay fo, i doubt that they'll get people to work, lets say you were forced to work in a shop for 2.50 i would give people more change:lol: and if asked i dont know how too do simple maths.

Hmm. You're quite right.

I count at least 7 spelling and punctuation errors in your post.....

[Injin]

Well Injin I seem to have a car paid via the Fiat money system, next year Ill have a house paid for via it. So what is your point?

In a win/lose system your ability to pay for something deprives someone else.

As to the runners, tell me why you think the 3 fastest runners should have to pay for those who couldnt even bother turning up? Like your good self.

They shoudn't pay.

They also shouldn't force everyone else to run. Right now everyone else is paying your costs. That's what a debt based fiat system means.

I'm glad you like my good self.

[Jason]

I got £2.49 in my first job - washing dishes!

I quit in protest on mothers day when they took the piss - they wanted me to work 14-15hours, and didn't even offer to feed me!

[Injin]

you'll have to expand on your logic there as you've lost me.

Banking system issues 100 units of currency and demands 100 + interest back.

Someone has to lose.

[Injin]

My sons did this too for the same wage. Taught them to get an education and try for a job that would mean they would be sitting on the other side of the hatch.

Which is the solution that most people go for, but doesn't actually solve the problem.

If there is a system of slaves and masters, it's better to be a master. Becoming a master doesn't solve the problem of a master/slave system.