tomandlu Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I caught a bit of Any Questions on Friday, and was amused by an exchange between George Monbiot and Doug Richard. Monbiot was (I think) trying to pick a fight with Richard, but was constantly thwarted. The exchange that both amused and intrigued me was about the minimum wage. I paraphrase.... GM: We need to raise the minimum wage DR: Go ahead, it's mostly an irrelevance. The genuine entrepreneurs will always be paying above the MW in any event - they value their staff. The only people who want to pay below it are the corporations who only survive by that kind of behaviour. We needs lots of small and middle scale entrepreneurs for a functioning economy - not a few big organisations. GM seemed somewhat stunned and was left incoherent with a lack of rage... (which amused me no end - I feel I ought to be on GMs side, but he always strikes me as a pompous, self-satisfied git) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) I disagree with both of them, tbh. There are many jobs which are uneconomical at NMW. Whether we think these jobs are good or the pay for them is 'fair' or not is irrelevant. If you take the view that said jobs are below the minimum standard of human rights and decency and would rather pay for people to not have to do them (ie. benefits), that's fair enough. Personally, I would rather see a decent base benefit (such as the universal credit or citizens income*), with no price fixing in the labour market. People can then choose to top up a very modest base income, without losing any of it - a pure incentive to work, without killing off simple, low paid, jobs. EDIT: * Which could/should be paid for by commensurate taxation on corporations, but preferably not small businesses who have enough overheads as it is. P.S. I heard the debate too. I thought the comment about the audience being full of lefties was funny! Edited February 21, 2011 by Traktion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 I disagree with both of them, tbh. It's a close call IMHO. To put it another way, if the job is so unprofitable that you cannot afford to pay the worker MW, then why does the job exist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 It's a close call IMHO. To put it another way, if the job is so unprofitable that you cannot afford to pay the worker MW, then why does the job exist? Maybe because it will eventually lead to a much higher wage than the NMW down the line. Such is the case with many start ups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 Maybe because it will eventually lead to a much higher wage than the NMW down the line. Such is the case with many start ups. I think that tends to be catered for - the company I now work for has three core members who scraped by for the first few years, but now (rightly) take the lion's share of the profits. However, once a company has established itself, then this model doesn't really apply. You only need to look at the con of 'interns' to see what happens when you let this persist... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1888 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 what we need is a MAXIMUM wage structure for the public sector Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 what we need is a MAXIMUM wage structure for the public sector A (higher) maximum wage for the private sector wouldn't be a bad thing IMHO either (although an anathema to most on this site I know). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 A (higher) maximum wage for the private sector wouldn't be a bad thing IMHO either (although an anathema to most on this site I know). Not logically possible! If you allocate a set of folks to take any excess off others earning over x amount, that amount they collect will be pooled. This means that those you asked to stop wages over x amount from forming will have wages over x amount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imminent_plunge Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Maybe because it will eventually lead to a much higher wage than the NMW down the line. Such is the case with many start ups. Start-ups pay NMW to all employees at the beginning, with an agreement to pay xx% of profits in bonuses to staff, thus a great motivator for everyone in the company to do as much as it can to maximise profits as they are stakeholders in the business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Start-ups pay NMW to all employees at the beginning, with an agreement to pay xx% of profits in bonuses to staff, thus a great motivator for everyone in the company to do as much as it can to maximise profits as they are stakeholders in the business. Yes, but the sort of start up where no one makes feck all for 3-6 months and then the wages come in once the business gets going can't occur. The whole point of the NMW is to keep asda/tesco and all the other big corps in a cheap labour and low competition environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 Not logically possible! If you allocate a set of folks to take any excess off others earning over x amount, that amount they collect will be pooled. This means that those you asked to stop wages over x amount from forming will have wages over x amount. You've lost me... (not that I was being THAT serious, just a bit serious). To deviate slightly, I was wondering about taxation the other day. AFAIK, tax is paid at basically a fixed rate on the whole of your earnings - i.e. if you fall into a 40% tax bracket, you pay 40% on the whole of your income. Wouldn't it be fairer/better if you only paid the tax bracket on the part of your income that exceeded the threshold for each bracket? e.g. 0 - 10,000 is 0% 10,000 - 20,000 is 15% 20,000 - 40,000 is 25% 40,000 - 100,000 is 50% 100,000 + is 100% (that's my max wage bit So, a salary of 95,000 = 10,000 @ 0% + 10,000 @ 15% + 20,000 @ 25% + 55,000 @ 50% The main advantage is there's no disincentive to having a rise that JUST takes you into the next bracket... That said, for all I know this is how it works... I'm a bear of very small brain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 You've lost me... (not that I was being THAT serious, just a bit serious). To deviate slightly, I was wondering about taxation the other day. AFAIK, tax is paid at basically a fixed rate on the whole of your earnings - i.e. if you fall into a 40% tax bracket, you pay 40% on the whole of your income. Wouldn't it be fairer/better if you only paid the tax bracket on the part of your income that exceeded the threshold for each bracket? e.g. 0 - 10,000 is 0% 10,000 - 20,000 is 15% 20,000 - 40,000 is 25% 40,000 - 100,000 is 50% 100,000 + is 100% (that's my max wage bit So, a salary of 95,000 = 10,000 @ 0% + 10,000 @ 15% + 20,000 @ 25% + 55,000 @ 50% The main advantage is there's no disincentive to having a rise that JUST takes you into the next bracket... That said, for all I know this is how it works... I'm a bear of very small brain. If they money is taken, it's taken by someone. Therefore you can't have a maximum possible income/wage by means of someone taking lots of others money. Why? Because they then have a maximum income (the money taken from others) which is higher than the threshold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 If they money is taken, it's taken by someone. Therefore you can't have a maximum possible income/wage by means of someone taking lots of others money. Why? Because they then have a maximum income (the money taken from others) which is higher than the threshold. Right... so, if I take £20 off a man who has a £120, I now have a £120? Welcome back, btw... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Right... so, if I take £20 off a man who has a £120, I now have a £120? Welcome back, btw... If you are talking about a maximum wage you are talking about taking £20 off a hell of a lot of people. Even if you weren't you yourself would have to be only less than £101 or you still break the threshold. And ty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19 year mortgage 8itch Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 You've lost me... (not that I was being THAT serious, just a bit serious). To deviate slightly, I was wondering about taxation the other day. AFAIK, tax is paid at basically a fixed rate on the whole of your earnings - i.e. if you fall into a 40% tax bracket, you pay 40% on the whole of your income. Wouldn't it be fairer/better if you only paid the tax bracket on the part of your income that exceeded the threshold for each bracket? e.g. That's wrong. Income tax is banded similar to how you describe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cica Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) Policies speak louder than words and even Labour saw the problems but refuse to address them fully. They set a lower minimum wage for apprentices. Why? What about people who are apprentices by nature but not by name? I agree with wage controls (maximum wage) where the government is responsible and this includes earnings from things like copyright in the private sector. Also, when we had an explosion of immigration from Eastern Europe soon after the introduction of the minimum wage...why were employers so consistent in employing them over British people? I think the answer is clear and that the minimum wage screwed over Britons' ability to undercut them. Edited February 21, 2011 by cica Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 what we need is a MAXIMUM wage structure for the public sector I actually agree with this. The notion that someone else can't do a £200k council ceo's job for half the salary to same (if not better) standard is nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 You've lost me... (not that I was being THAT serious, just a bit serious). To deviate slightly, I was wondering about taxation the other day. AFAIK, tax is paid at basically a fixed rate on the whole of your earnings - i.e. if you fall into a 40% tax bracket, you pay 40% on the whole of your income. Wouldn't it be fairer/better if you only paid the tax bracket on the part of your income that exceeded the threshold for each bracket? e.g. 0 - 10,000 is 0% 10,000 - 20,000 is 15% 20,000 - 40,000 is 25% 40,000 - 100,000 is 50% 100,000 + is 100% (that's my max wage bit So, a salary of 95,000 = 10,000 @ 0% + 10,000 @ 15% + 20,000 @ 25% + 55,000 @ 50% The main advantage is there's no disincentive to having a rise that JUST takes you into the next bracket... That said, for all I know this is how it works... I'm a bear of very small brain. Good news! Your idea was deemned so good it has been implemented. Actually, it's always been that way. You pay no tax on the first £7,500 you earn, then 20% upto 42,475, then 40% up to £150K, then 50% on everything after that. The only wrinkle is that at £150K you lose the £7,500 tax free allowance, but than that you only pay the X% on the amount in the band, not the whole amount. (These numbers apply from 1 Apr this year.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Also, when we had an explosion of immigration from Eastern Europe soon after the introduction of the minimum wage...why were employers so consistent in employing them over British people? I think the answer is clear and that the minimum wage screwed over Britons' ability to undercut them. I think not. Immigrants win over Brits because they work for less. You can afford to work for less when you are young/single/living with ten others including a couple sleeping in the kitchen. We also have Eastern Europe's middle class competing with our working class - so employers prefer the ones with an education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilchardthecat Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) . Edited February 21, 2011 by pilchardthecat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imminent_plunge Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Yes, but the sort of start up where no one makes feck all for 3-6 months and then the wages come in once the business gets going can't occur. The whole point of the NMW is to keep asda/tesco and all the other big corps in a cheap labour and low competition environment. John Lewis seem to do well out of a similar model and enjoy staff loyalty. How many people would be happy to earn feck all for 3-6 months if they felt directly responsible from thereon? Why couldn't the wages when the business gets going occur? A business would only be required to pay out in profitable times. If business fell back for any reason, they revert to NMW, which means it's in everyone's interests to maintain profitability and make money. In hard times, businesses keep their cost base low (and during that time families can claim tax credits, housing benefit etc) which saves jobs and companies. What's not to like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cica Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) I think not. Immigrants win over Brits because they work for less. You can afford to work for less when you are young/single/living with ten others including a couple sleeping in the kitchen. We also have Eastern Europe's middle class competing with our working class - so employers prefer the ones with an education. They don't work for less. Minimum wage. With a minimum wage system you obviously employ the educated and polite and that's it. There's no second place. I don't have any statistics (do you?) but from my experience of knowing a lot of Poles, Romanians, and Hungarians, they never lived in conditions different from the natives. I doubt it's anywhere near as extreme as you imply. Edited February 21, 2011 by cica Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest UK Debt Slave Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) I caught a bit of Any Questions on Friday, and was amused by an exchange between George Monbiot and Doug Richard. Monbiot was (I think) trying to pick a fight with Richard, but was constantly thwarted. The exchange that both amused and intrigued me was about the minimum wage. I paraphrase.... GM: We need to raise the minimum wage DR: Go ahead, it's mostly an irrelevance. The genuine entrepreneurs will always be paying above the MW in any event - they value their staff. The only people who want to pay below it are the corporations who only survive by that kind of behaviour. We needs lots of small and middle scale entrepreneurs for a functioning economy - not a few big organisations. GM seemed somewhat stunned and was left incoherent with a lack of rage... (which amused me no end - I feel I ought to be on GMs side, but he always strikes me as a pompous, self-satisfied git) Monbiot is such a knob He wrote a piece in the Grauniad a few weeks ago suggesting that owners of large houses should be forced to rent out their spare rooms to poor people to ease the housing crisis. I wish the Grauniad moderators had kept the comments up on CIF because they were overwhelmingly negative. The Grauniad moderators removed all the negative comments (including 2 of my own) and then closed the webpage to any further comments. Free Speech!!??? Not in the Grauniad! Edited February 21, 2011 by UK Debt Slave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 from my experience of knowing a lot of Poles, Romanian, and Hungarians, they never lived in conditions different from the natives. I doubt it's anywhere near as extreme as you imply. You're wrong - we used to live opposite (adjacent gardens rather than other side of streets) to a property that housed 12 (polish builders and a couple of girlfriends). The house had six small rooms including the kitchen and bathroom. Apart from the appalling euro-pop they were a nice enough bunch and we were very happy to have them as neighbours. They were hardly unique. The poles with families don't live like that, but the two lifestyles are pretty distinct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 Monbiot is such a knob My main gripe with him is that his form of environmentalism can seem very elitist. He seems to be forever patting himself on the back for something he does that simply wouldn't scale to the general population. He can come across like a modern day Marie Antoinette playing milk-maids (I wonder if he ever tried to milk a bull, as she was reported to have done - to the great pleasure of the watching crowd and, presumably, the bull). 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.