Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
SarahBell

Living Wage Demanded

Recommended Posts

A group of investors worth £13bn are holding a rally on Monday to push major companies into paying a "living wage".

The investor coalition, headed by religious groups and philanthropists in the UK and US, is lobbying the top 100 UK companies to improve salaries.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13253547

It says say £7.20 an hour should be the floor for wages outside London and £7.85 within the capital.

The living wage is what supporters of the campaign say is necessary for an individual to meet their basic needs.

The campaign, which has been running for 10 years, is backed by church groups, including the Methodist Church, as well as the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and unions Unison and Unite.

Collectively they hold £13bn of assets under management, including shares in major companies.

It says there are more than 3.5 million workers in the UK who earn under £7 an hour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, in the real world, companies are moving jobs from the UK to asia.

Its diversionary tactics. These so called philantropists know wages mean sweet FA, that they will drive inflationary policies, and futher enrich them, the owners of capital. As usual though, the useful idiots who make up the majority of the unions and left in this country are more than willing to do their bidding for them, just as with housing benefit or any other policy that results in higher living costs.

Real wages mean increased purchasing power, not higher toiletpaper money salaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....a living wage is a good idea in principal but would not higher wages create higher prices, taxes and greater unemployment.....what will those who don't work for whatever reason live on, higher benefits?.....many smaller firms will cut back on staff, make their staff work harder, put their prices up or go out of business. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should campaign for stricter mortgage lending, banning shared equity, no tax breaks for BTL investors then as house prices fall people's wages would be worth more without increasing it's nominal value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....a living wage is a good idea in principal but would not higher wages create higher prices, taxes and greater unemployment.....what will those who don't work for whatever reason live on, higher benefits?.....many smaller firms will cut back on staff, make their staff work harder, put their prices up or go out of business. ;)

Yes. Thats why these so called philantropists 'worth' £13bn want them. So next year they be worth £23bn.

But its OK, as the underlings 'represented' by the unions will have got their 5% RPi payrise. Even if RPi has jack all to do with living costs.

Drinks all round!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A group of investors worth £13bn are holding a rally on Monday to push major companies into paying a "living wage".

The investor coalition, headed by religious groups and philanthropists in the UK and US, is lobbying the top 100 UK companies to improve salaries.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13253547

It says say £7.20 an hour should be the floor for wages outside London and £7.85 within the capital.

The living wage is what supporters of the campaign say is necessary for an individual to meet their basic needs.

The campaign, which has been running for 10 years, is backed by church groups, including the Methodist Church, as well as the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and unions Unison and Unite.

Collectively they hold £13bn of assets under management, including shares in major companies.

It says there are more than 3.5 million workers in the UK who earn under £7 an hour.

haha the church petitioning for a living wage, one of the biggest rentiers on the planet, comedy gold,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....a living wage is a good idea in principal but would not higher wages create higher prices, taxes and greater unemployment.....what will those who don't work for whatever reason live on, higher benefits?.....many smaller firms will cut back on staff, make their staff work harder, put their prices up or go out of business. ;)

It depends, if we only have higher wages at the bottom this demographic then gets a larger share of the uk economic pie directly. There will be more incentive for low earners to work, less benefits need to be paid and less taxes as a result. Less inequality follows and a more balanced society.

The idea that it will cause job losses is a fallacy put forward by vested interests. The relative spending power at higher levels of society would decrease and increase at lower levels with no net change in spending power. Relative to other nations, higher wages at the bottom would necessarily result in inflation of the currency causing the value of the pound to drop, but at a rate less than the increase in the bottom end wages. Relative to other nations the higher levels of our society seeing no wage increases would lose out from this devaluation. Thus both internally and externally no net change occurs.

The obvious way to test this is to look at unemployment rates relative to gini coefficent which measures wage inequality. What you'll find is that more unequal (gini) countries do not have lower unemployment rates, in fact the inverse seems to be true. Thus the idea that higher wages at the bottom would increase unemployment is just bs.

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends, if we only have higher wages at the bottom this demographic then gets a larger share of the uk economic pie directly. There will be more incentive for low earners to work, less benefits need to be paid and less taxes as a result. Less inequality follows and a more balanced society.

The idea that it will cause job losses is a fallacy put forward by vested interests. The relative spending power at higher levels of society would decrease and increase at lower levels with no net change in spending power. Relative to other nations, higher wages at the bottom would necessarily result in inflation of the currency causing the value of the pound to drop, but at a rate less than the increase in the bottom end wages. Relative to other nations the higher levels of our society seeing no wage increases would lose out from this devaluation. Thus both internally and externally no net change occurs.

The obvious way to test this is to look at unemployment rates relative to gini coefficent which measures wage inequality. What you'll find is that more unequal (gini) countries do not have lower unemployment rates, in fact the inverse seems to be true. Thus the idea that higher wages at the bottom would increase unemployment is just bs.

I

....I prefer the lower taxes for low paid workers route.

....higher wages bring with it more automation, self-service, offshoring.......what we require is a lower cost of living such as rents and house prices.....higher wages at the bottom will push wages up throughout the pay scales......if johny on minimum wage gets a 5% pay rise, mary on just above will demand the same and so on. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

living wage of £7.35 per hour

37.5 hours/wk

52wks/year

take home pay = £12108

or £6.21 per hour

NMW = £5.93 per hour

cost to employer = £12183

or £6.25 per hour

we already pay people a "living wage" outside the capital. Governments just think that people don't deserve to keep their pay for some reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

living wage of £7.35 per hour

37.5 hours/wk

52wks/year

take home pay = £12108

or £6.21 per hour

NMW = £5.93 per hour

cost to employer = £12183

or £6.25 per hour

we already pay people a "living wage" outside the capital. Governments just think that people don't deserve to keep their pay for some reason.

Or the ability to pay rents? much cheaper if the government starts social house building, pushing up wages does sweet fa for our exports, while lower rents will increase our exports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where the commodity based model of employment falls over- the market is saying that wages must fall as the supply of labour increases relative to demand- but the dismal failure of the average human being to be just a commodity makes this model unworkable.

We need a new kind of human being that can be deactivated and stored in racks when not in use. All this food, shelter and 'living' stuff is external to our model and as such is buggering it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

living wage of £7.35 per hour

37.5 hours/wk

52wks/year

take home pay = £12108

or £6.21 per hour

NMW = £5.93 per hour

cost to employer = £12183

or £6.25 per hour

we already pay people a "living wage" outside the capital. Governments just think that people don't deserve to keep their pay for some reason.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends, if we only have higher wages at the bottom this demographic then gets a larger share of the uk economic pie directly. There will be more incentive for low earners to work, less benefits need to be paid and less taxes as a result. Less inequality follows and a more balanced society.

The idea that it will cause job losses is a fallacy put forward by vested interests. The relative spending power at higher levels of society would decrease and increase at lower levels with no net change in spending power. Relative to other nations, higher wages at the bottom would necessarily result in inflation of the currency causing the value of the pound to drop, but at a rate less than the increase in the bottom end wages. Relative to other nations the higher levels of our society seeing no wage increases would lose out from this devaluation. Thus both internally and externally no net change occurs.

The obvious way to test this is to look at unemployment rates relative to gini coefficent which measures wage inequality. What you'll find is that more unequal (gini) countries do not have lower unemployment rates, in fact the inverse seems to be true. Thus the idea that higher wages at the bottom would increase unemployment is just bs.

I

We don't live in a closed economy. If you force basic wages up here, those jobs will be mechanised and/or will go abroad, unless it's absolutely necessary to have bodies doing the job here. It's not BS, it's just bloody simple economics.

We also have some of the highest wages in the world, with our minimum wage being more than 65% of average wages in the world. Our wages are not the problem. It's the cost of living and doing business which is the problem.

If you want to lobby for something constructive, forget about NMW - lobby against it even. What you should be interested in is a NIT (negative income tax), to support those on low wages, but leave the wages to find their own floor (let the market do its thing). Then raise tax as required, but focusing on rent seekers (through a land value tax or some such) would be a good idea. We need to encourage business and kill off the parasites - price fixing low wages won't do either.

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends, if we only have higher wages at the bottom this demographic then gets a larger share of the uk economic pie directly. There will be more incentive for low earners to work, less benefits need to be paid and less taxes as a result. Less inequality follows and a more balanced society.

The idea that it will cause job losses is a fallacy put forward by vested interests. The relative spending power at higher levels of society would decrease and increase at lower levels with no net change in spending power. Relative to other nations, higher wages at the bottom would necessarily result in inflation of the currency causing the value of the pound to drop, but at a rate less than the increase in the bottom end wages. Relative to other nations the higher levels of our society seeing no wage increases would lose out from this devaluation. Thus both internally and externally no net change occurs.

The obvious way to test this is to look at unemployment rates relative to gini coefficent which measures wage inequality. What you'll find is that more unequal (gini) countries do not have lower unemployment rates, in fact the inverse seems to be true. Thus the idea that higher wages at the bottom would increase unemployment is just bs.

I

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....a living wage is a good idea in principal but would not higher wages create higher prices, taxes and greater unemployment.....what will those who don't work for whatever reason live on, higher benefits?.....many smaller firms will cut back on staff, make their staff work harder, put their prices up or go out of business. ;)

The living wage is not a 'nominal' wage. It needs to be set in line with average earnings in the UK. What matters here is

relative earnings, not a specific pound amount.

The reason a living wage is required is that inequality is so high.

Putting the poor buggers at the bottom of the pyramid (perhaps 10% of the workforce) on an extra quid or two per hour is not going to cause an economic meltdown.

I'm sad to see that you have swallowed the crap pumped out by self seeking crony capitalists.

Besides, even if it did create inflation, keeping the have-nots down is an horrifically immoral way of creating monetary stability.

Edited by scepticus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The living wage is not a 'nominal' wage. It needs to be set in line with average earnings in the UK world. What matters here is

relative earnings, not a specific pound amount.

The reason a living wage is required is that inequality is so high.

Putting the poor buggers at the bottom of the pyramid (perhaps 10% of the workforce) on an extra quid or two per hour is not going to cause an economic meltdown.

I'm sad to see that you have swallowed the crap pumped out by self seeking crony capitalists.

Besides, even if it did create inflation, keeping the have-nots down is an horrifically immoral way of creating monetary stability.

I know that this is a long running battle.

Changing one word in your post and deleting another changes the terms of reference significantly.

Trying to keep people who are born in "lucky sperm" geographies rich at the expense of the rest of the world "is an horrifically immoral way of creating monetary social stability in micro societies"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that this is a long running battle.

Changing one word in your post and deleting another changes the terms of reference significantly.

Trying to keep people who are born in "lucky sperm" geographies rich at the expense of the rest of the world "is an horrifically immoral way of creating monetary social stability in micro societies"

Well yes I agree of course. That is what QE is about. QE gives us our jobs back, and the rest of the world their fair share of the resources.

Of course, its destabilising. Kleptocracies in the emerging markets are exposed, and various troughing elements back home are

also exposed, and deluded constituencies (feckless borrowers and feckless savers, the non-jobs and the undeserving rentiers) are rudely awoken.

The minimum wage crowd in the west however, are not the problem, in fact they may be the solution.

QE is the spew of an inebriated world economy, its all has to come out, before there can be any sober awakening.

There won't be any hyperinflation, just a very painful social remix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes I agree of course. That is what QE is about. QE gives us our jobs back, and the rest of the world their fair share of the resources.

Of course, its destabilising. Kleptocracies in the emerging markets are exposed, and various troughing elements back home are

also exposed, and deluded constituencies (feckless borrowers and feckless savers, the non-jobs and the undeserving rentiers) are rudely awoken.

The minimum wage crowd in the west however, are not the problem, in fact they may be the solution.

QE is the spew of an inebriated world economy, its all has to come out, before there can be any sober awakening.

There won't be any hyperinflation, just a very painful social remix.

Your vision of a top down economy where people are pieces to be moved accross a grand chessboard is both comical and ******ing scary.

That it's wrong goes without saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your vision of a top down economy where people are pieces to be moved accross a grand chessboard is both comical and ******ing scary.

That it's wrong goes without saying.

But that's not my vision, its your vision of my vision., overloaded with all your prejudices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's not my vision, its your vision of my vision., overloaded with all your prejudices.

Hey, I only know what you write.

If you can't be clearer, time to brush up - not my issue at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I only know what you write.

If you can't be clearer, time to brush up - not my issue at all.

You have a vast inventory of issues, the main one being that you don't admit you have a problem when everyone else can see it clearly.

Indeed many people have tried to help you but you seem beyond help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a vast inventory of issues, the main one being that you don't admit you have a problem when everyone else can see it clearly.

Indeed many people have tried to help you but you seem beyond help.

Right, lets take me being mental as read and ignore it as usual, now you can write up your post in such a way that the top down hierarchy of choice thing doesn't scream out from every line.

In your own time.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, lets take me being mental as read and ignore it as usual

You are mental, and yes I generally ignore this fact and engage with you as if you were not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are mental, and yes I generally ignore this fact and engage with you as if you were not.

Ok, but about your post - the one you have completely failed to talk about so far?

Any comment, or are you still living in a giant game of sim city?

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.

  • 311 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.