Why Should Anyone Work For Minimum Wage?

[BoomBoom]

Look at living costs in this country and the rate at which they are inflating. There are millions of full-time jobs in this country paying minimum wage, some even requiring real skills. The people forced into these jobs cannot make ends meet, and almost without exception have gone into debt simply to keep a roof over their heads. Millions of people kept in poverty so they can be offered up to unscrupulous money lenders like lamb to slaughter. It's a scandal.

[Brett]

Look at living costs in this country and the rate at which they are inflating. There are millions of full-time jobs in this country paying minimum wage, some even requiring real skills. The people forced into these jobs cannot make ends meet, and almost without exception have gone into debt simply to keep a roof over their heads. Millions of people kept in poverty so they can be offered up to unscrupulous money lenders like lamb to slaughter. It's a scandal.

Don't expect sympathy for those views in here. The wannabe Trumps will go an English-bashing crusade again.

The Poles will work for minimum wage after all, since they are so perfect, and we are just simpletons lacking in work ethic!

[The XYY Man]

No-one should have to work for minimum wage - it's shit - but the truth is that 10 people do so that one person can enjoy a £100,000 salary.

Welcome to the shitty capatalist world we inhabit my friend, but don't expect popular solutions that are easy, or easy solutions that are popular.

Far better to accept the short-term, partisan vote-grabbing measures that have been the norm for many years, and you will seldom be disappointed.

(Frequently miserable mind you, but seldom disappointed...)

[bearly hopeful]

Why Should Anyone Work For Minimum Wage?

Because if they did'nt rich people would'nt be err rich

[bearly hopeful]

No-one should have to work for minimum wage - it's shit - but the truth is that 10 people do so that one person can enjoy a £100,000 salary.

Welcome to the shitty capatalist world we inhabit my friend, but don't expect popular solutions that are easy, or easy solutions that are popular.

Far better to accept the short-term, partisan vote-grabbing measures that have been the norm for many years, and you will seldom be disappointed.

(Frequently miserable mind you, but seldom disappointed...)

Drat beat me to it.

If you really wonder why try and trace back where your wage comes from as far as possible . I did seven years ago whilst I was earning a fantastic (for me) wage and did'nt like it so I gave it up.

[Compounded]

If you work a full week on minimum wage you pay income tax.

Where is the ******* justice in that.

[The XYY Man]

If you really wonder why try and trace back where your wage comes from as far as possible . I did seven years ago whilst I was earning a fantastic (for me) wage and did'nt like it so I gave it up.

I'd keep quiet about that if I were you and try to speak to some "reality TV" bods - could be ITV's answer to that family-tree tracing show the BBC have done lately...

PS - that last comment started off as a joke, but as I hover on the "Add Reply" button, I'm getting concerned that someone's already signing up Ant 'n' Dec to front this show...though it's easy in their case - dodgy premium rate phone calls shouldn't prove too difficult to trace backwards....

[FreeTrader]

No matter where one's sympathies lie on the minimum wage debate, one consequence of its introduction has been a huge shift in power towards the supermarkets at the expense of independent retailers. I don't say this as a matter of conjecture or observation, but because I have first hand knowledge of the game that is being played here (but I'm not going to supply any evidence, so by all means take what I say with a large pinch of salt).

During the 80's and 90's the independent retail sector was still vibrant despite the rise of the national supermarket chains. Tens of thousands of small shops were staffed by hundreds of thousands of part-time employees, primarily women. For many of these employees the wages weren't the be-all and end-all of the job – it was also a means to get out of the house for a few hours each day and to socialise with others in the community.

I'll leave it to the astute and rightly cynical members of this board to research and judge for themselves who exactly pushed most for the introduction of the National Minimum Wage. Would it surprise you though to learn that for the national supermarket chains it was a godsend? They knew that independent retailers largely worked on fixed margins, and any increased wage costs well above the rate of their sales growth would ultimately send them to the wall. They also knew that in their own case the extra wages wouldn't be a problem – their cost-plus business model meant that they could simply pass the extra expenditure on to their customers through their complex pricing structure. Furthermore, once independents started to fold, they would increasingly be able to force suppliers to lower prices as their market share grew.

Even better, once the independent sector finally capitulated – all those small grocers, newsagents, butchers and bakers going to the wall – they would be able to take serious steps in shedding labour themselves. New IT technologies, such as RF tagging, would ultimately allow the supermarkets to get rid of expensive human labour. Who the hell wants all those troublesome staff working for them, with increased holidays, maternity/paternity leave, paid sickness, etc? No, let's dump them and use automated systems instead. Hey, we can even ditch the HR department too.

No matter how good the intentions of minimum wage policy, it should always be recognised that there are inevitable side effects and disadvantages. Big business can and will use such legislation to achieve its own long-term aims. Believe me when I tell you that there are individuals at the very top of our society who despite their protestations to the contrary, have been delighted by the minimum wage policy of our present government and are laughing all the way to the bank at society's expense.

[Compounded]

No matter where one's sympathies lie on the minimum wage debate, one consequence of its introduction has been a huge shift in power towards the supermarkets at the expense of independent retailers. I don't say this as a matter of conjecture or observation, but because I have first hand knowledge of the game that is being played here (but I'm not going to supply any evidence, so by all means take what I say with a large pinch of salt).

During the 80's and 90's the independent retail sector was still vibrant despite the rise of the national supermarket chains. Tens of thousands of small shops were staffed by hundreds of thousands of part-time employees, primarily women. For many of these employees the wages weren't the be-all and end-all of the job – it was also a means to get out of the house for a few hours each day and to socialise with others in the community.

I'll leave it to the astute and rightly cynical members of this board to research and judge for themselves who exactly pushed most for the introduction of the National Minimum Wage. Would it surprise you though to learn that for the national supermarket chains it was a godsend? They knew that independent retailers largely worked on fixed margins, and any increased wage costs well above the rate of their sales growth would ultimately send them to the wall. They also knew that in their own case the extra wages wouldn't be a problem – their cost-plus business model meant that they could simply pass the extra expenditure on to their customers through their complex pricing structure. Furthermore, once independents started to fold, they would increasingly be able to force suppliers to lower prices as their market share grew.

Even better, once the independent sector finally capitulated – all those small grocers, newsagents, butchers and bakers going to the wall – they would be able to take serious steps in shedding labour themselves. New IT technologies, such as RF tagging, would ultimately allow the supermarkets to get rid of expensive human labour. Who the hell wants all those troublesome staff working for them, with increased holidays, maternity/paternity leave, paid sickness, etc? No, let's dump them and use automated systems instead. Hey, we can even ditch the HR department too.

No matter how good the intentions of minimum wage policy, it should always be recognised that there are inevitable side effects and disadvantages. Big business can and will use such legislation to achieve its own long-term aims. Believe me when I tell you that there are individuals at the very top of our society who despite their protestations to the contrary, have been delighted by the minimum wage policy of our present government and are laughing all the way to the bank at society's expense.

Good post, the VI always make a case that self serving legislation helps the masses.

[BoomBoom]

No matter where one's sympathies lie on the minimum wage debate, one consequence of its introduction has been a huge shift in power towards the supermarkets at the expense of independent retailers. I don't say this as a matter of conjecture or observation, but because I have first hand knowledge of the game that is being played here (but I'm not going to supply any evidence, so by all means take what I say with a large pinch of salt).

During the 80's and 90's the independent retail sector was still vibrant despite the rise of the national supermarket chains. Tens of thousands of small shops were staffed by hundreds of thousands of part-time employees, primarily women. For many of these employees the wages weren't the be-all and end-all of the job – it was also a means to get out of the house for a few hours each day and to socialise with others in the community.

I'll leave it to the astute and rightly cynical members of this board to research and judge for themselves who exactly pushed most for the introduction of the National Minimum Wage. Would it surprise you though to learn that for the national supermarket chains it was a godsend? They knew that independent retailers largely worked on fixed margins, and any increased wage costs well above the rate of their sales growth would ultimately send them to the wall. They also knew that in their own case the extra wages wouldn't be a problem – their cost-plus business model meant that they could simply pass the extra expenditure on to their customers through their complex pricing structure. Furthermore, once independents started to fold, they would increasingly be able to force suppliers to lower prices as their market share grew.

Even better, once the independent sector finally capitulated – all those small grocers, newsagents, butchers and bakers going to the wall – they would be able to take serious steps in shedding labour themselves. New IT technologies, such as RF tagging, would ultimately allow the supermarkets to get rid of expensive human labour. Who the hell wants all those troublesome staff working for them, with increased holidays, maternity/paternity leave, paid sickness, etc? No, let's dump them and use automated systems instead. Hey, we can even ditch the HR department too.

No matter how good the intentions of minimum wage policy, it should always be recognised that there are inevitable side effects and disadvantages. Big business can and will use such legislation to achieve its own long-term aims. Believe me when I tell you that there are individuals at the very top of our society who despite their protestations to the contrary, have been delighted by the minimum wage policy of our present government and are laughing all the way to the bank at society's expense.

Balls to the small shops. If a business cannot afford to pay its staff a living wage then it deserves to fall. What you are suggesting is that a minimum wage should not have been introduced as it denied small retailers de facto slave labour. I love seeing pokey little shops going out of business. I hope the idiots that open these unsustainable businesses end up broke and miserable, because that is all their staff would ever have to look forward to.

[Priced_Out_GenXer]

Balls to the small shops. If a business cannot afford to pay its staff a living wage then it deserves to fall. What you are suggesting is that a minimum wage should not have been introduced as it denied small retailers de facto slave labour. I love seeing pokey little shops going out of business. I hope the idiots that open these unsustainable businesses end up broke and miserable, because that is all their staff would ever have to look forward to.

A bit harsh, but I have to say I agree. If a business can't keep it's head above water and pay it's employees a living wage then it should go under.

I think there are other factors at work too. For instance, I have an independant butcher, fishmonger, greengrocer etc on my high street but I don't use them. Why? Because, like most people, I can't be arsed. I work 9-5, I visit sainsburys once a week in the evening after work. It's quick, I can park outside, it's cheaper and better quality and, more importantly, everything on the high street is closed at 7pm so unless I confine my grocery shopping to the weekend I have little choice. I'd imagine most people do the same. I'm not sure that the minimum wage will have made much difference. Besides there seem to be plenty of independant shops where I live in London, f*cking millions of them actually, all selling crap quality food, but they're still plentiful.

[MarkG]

I hope the idiots that open these unsustainable businesses end up broke and miserable, because that is all their staff would ever have to look forward to.

So you're saying that the people who work there are better off having no job than having a job that pays less than minimum wage?

[BoomBoom]

A bit harsh, but I have to say I agree. If a business can't keep it's head above water and pay it's employees a living wage then it should go under.

I think there are other factors at work too. For instance, I have an independant butcher, fishmonger, greengrocer etc on my high street but I don't use them. Why? Because, like most people, I can't be arsed. I work 9-5, I visit sainsburys once a week in the evening after work. It's quick, I can park outside, it's cheaper and better quality and, more importantly, everything on the high street is closed at 7pm so unless I confine my grocery shopping to the weekend I have little choice. I'd imagine most people do the same. I'm not sure that the minimum wage will have made much difference. Besides there seem to be plenty of independant shops where I live in London, f*cking millions of them actually, all selling crap quality food, but they're still plentiful.

Exactly, most independent butchers, grocers, etc, are 9-5:30 opening hours. Real useful for those in full time employment.

[laurejon]

So you're saying that the people who work there are better off having no job than having a job that pays less than minimum wage?

What I would suggest is that a business that cannot afford to pay its staff a living wage should not be subsidised by the Taxpayer by way of tax credits, and benefits for low earners.

If there is a task to undertake in the modern century that doesnt pay a living wage, then its a task that should be consigned to history.

Over the past few years many jobs that paid a living wage have been reduced to minimum wage, this is destroying the social fabric of this nation and its a race to the bottom as far as business is concerned.

[ScaredEitherWay]

If you work a full week on minimum wage you pay income tax.

Where is the ******* justice in that.

If you work a 40 hour week, 8.30-5.30, a normal single working person will start paying PAYE before lunch on Wednesdays.

[mightytharg]

Look at living costs in this country and the rate at which they are inflating. There are millions of full-time jobs in this country paying minimum wage, some even requiring real skills. The people forced into these jobs cannot make ends meet, and almost without exception have gone into debt simply to keep a roof over their heads. Millions of people kept in poverty so they can be offered up to unscrupulous money lenders like lamb to slaughter. It's a scandal.

Why does it never occur to you communists that the reason that minimum wage isn't enough to live on is because the socialists want it that way? They could make houses cheap just by abolishing shared ownership schemes, some taxes, and relaxing the planning system. They don't because they want to keep you poor. Nothing personal, it's just that the poor keep voting for them and they want the cash.

Lots of countries you can have a nice life for a pound a day, get rid of the socialists and you would have (at worst) 40 times that and a great life.

But you would probably rather just keep on whining...

[Mr Yogi]

Look at living costs in this country and the rate at which they are inflating. There are millions of full-time jobs in this country paying minimum wage, some even requiring real skills. The people forced into these jobs cannot make ends meet, and almost without exception have gone into debt simply to keep a roof over their heads. Millions of people kept in poverty so they can be offered up to unscrupulous money lenders like lamb to slaughter. It's a scandal.

Surely the problem isn't the minimum wage per se, but the fact that costs are now so high that it is almost impossible to survive on it and have any kind of life.

Tax thresholds should be raised so that anyone earning less than say £15k a year should pay no income tax at all. Rates above this level could be raised slightly so that the net result for the majority of people would be negligable but the poorest would be helped. There would be massive savings on benefits budgets and an incentive to work.

Rent controls should be re-introduced and short term tenancies abolished for all properties apart from certain categories such as student flats etc.

God, I'm sounding like a right old Labour socialist!!!

Maybe they weren't completely wrong after all...

[steve99]

Surely the problem isn't the minimum wage per se, but the fact that costs are now so high that it is almost impossible to survive on it and have any kind of life.

Tax thresholds should be raised so that anyone earning less than say £15k a year should pay no income tax at all. Rates above this level could be raised slightly so that the net result for the majority of people would be negligable but the poorest would be helped. There would be massive savings on benefits budgets and an incentive to work.

Rent controls should be re-introduced and short term tenancies abolished for all properties apart from certain categories such as student flats etc.

God, I'm sounding like a right old Labour socialist!!!

Maybe they weren't completely wrong after all...

This is the key to the problem, the UK has become one of the most expensive countries on earth to live, why? dont know, but my perception is that business has become more greedy over the years and the expectations of ever expanding profits and bonuses by the CEOs of medium to large businesses and the aggressive greed of small time buisness crooks (dentists, plumbers, hairdressers etc) all aided and abeted by the greed of commercial landlords in the high street has created an unrealistic pricing system for those on low wages. One of the ballances that used to work in the past was the power of unions, however private enterprise doesn't have to deal with this very much any more, and their profits for the top few have grown enormously over the last 20 years or so, in fact they have never had it so good. Plumbers and dentists for eg have leverage due to scarcity (which is their power base) and can charge what they like and it doesnt matter if not everyone can afford one any more, they dont care, they make their loot wheras the average worker has no barganing power and cannot keep up with the price inflation created by the buisness classes.

[yawnIHateSundays]

Exactly, most independent butchers, grocers, etc, are 9-5:30 opening hours. Real useful for those in full time employment.

That's because in the past women did the shopping and didn't go out to work. The small shops worked up until the 1970's, but failed to adapt to the change in lifestyles. The supermarkets however were quick to exploit the trend.

[StainlessSteelCat]

That's because in the past women did the shopping and didn't go out to work. The small shops worked up until the 1970's, but failed to adapt to the change in lifestyles. The supermarkets however were quick to exploit the trend.

True enough - there's a local general store near me which is a great position - located between a bus station and a further education college. Thousands of people must walk past it early in the morning - but it opens around 10 am.

[Mr Yogi]

That's because in the past women did the shopping and didn't go out to work. The small shops worked up until the 1970's, but failed to adapt to the change in lifestyles. The supermarkets however were quick to exploit the trend.

Next to where I work, on a busy road connecting our town with it's most affluant suburb, is an old-fashioned baker's. Their bread is wonderful, and they just about manage to stay in business.

They are in at 5.00 am every day baking bread which hits the shelves when the shop opens at 9. By the afternoon it's past it's best and the shop closes at 5. Between 5.30 and 7.00 the road is packed with commuters returning home. Oh, and they've got a parking bay right outside their front door.

I suggested to the owner one day that it might be be an idea to bake some bread in the afternoon and stay open an extra hour or so in the evening to catch this potential trade. I might as well have suggested he buggered his budgerigar!

I've no doubt he will close his shop down in the next few years and blame the 'bloody supermarkets'.

Ah, well.

Edited January 6, 2008 by Mr Yogi

[hellsbells]

I went and stayed with some friends in southern France last year. We noticed that all the bakeries seemed to close at lunchtime. Our friends explained that they opened 7am to 12 for morning bread, and then reopened at about 4pm until 7pm so that people could collect more fresh bread on the way home. How civilized.

Our village shop has just been taken over by an Indian family - it's gone from being open about 3 hours a day to 8am to 8pm, sells everything including a good line in home-made take away curries (until some local busybody grassed them up to environmental health or whoever). It's the only way small shops can work these days - as a family business with everybody helping out.

[frozen_out]

Our village shop has just been taken over by an Indian family - it's gone from being open about 3 hours a day to 8am to 8pm, sells everything including a good line in home-made take away curries

Couldn't agree more with this. My uncle bought a thriving newsagents (going back to the early 90s now), and thought because he was now a businessman he was too good to work 60 hours a week so paid staff £3.50 ph (before minimum wage) for 48 hrs. Result: He went to the wall in a big way (blaming deregulation, minimum wage and 'the bloody supermarkets'. Around the same time an Indian fella bought another newsagents nearby, he was working in the shop when I went to work at 8pm and was opening up when I finished my nightshift at 5am and was there all day inbetween, he even asked if there was any jobs going at our place on the nightshift to see him through the difficult early bit of owning his own business. Result: still there and still thriving despite been about 500m away from a huge morrisons.

[insidetrack]

Q. Why Should Anyone Work For Minimum Wage?

A. Because, if you have a couple of kids, 20 hrs a week in an undemanding job at minimum wage will get you an after tax income (taking into account tax credits, housing benefit and child benefit) that a person not claiming those benefits would get if they were earning around £30,000 pa.

The question should really be, why would anybody, in the private sector, pay someone with a couple of kids more than minimum wage when any increase in wages is hit with an effective marginal tax rate (ie after paying more tax,NI and losing benefits) of more than 80%? Employers are reacting to the governments crazy tax and benefits system by keeping more of their employees on minimum wage.

The government may have intended the system to help the low paid, but the system means that more and more people are going to be low paid and looking to the government for "tax credits". Of course the system is badly thought out, over complicated, riddled with fraud and incompetence and will fall apart as more and more people come to depend upon it. A bit like Nulabor itself.

Edited January 6, 2008 by insidetrack

[bugged bunny]

Couldn't agree more with this. My uncle bought a thriving newsagents (going back to the early 90s now), and thought because he was now a businessman he was too good to work 60 hours a week so paid staff £3.50 ph (before minimum wage) for 48 hrs. Result: He went to the wall in a big way (blaming deregulation, minimum wage and 'the bloody supermarkets'. Around the same time an Indian fella bought another newsagents nearby, he was working in the shop when I went to work at 8pm and was opening up when I finished my nightshift at 5am and was there all day inbetween, he even asked if there was any jobs going at our place on the nightshift to see him through the difficult early bit of owning his own business. Result: still there and still thriving despite been about 500m away from a huge morrisons.

Yes, the Indians running successful local shops seem to have much better business sense and the ability and will to adapt, cf complacent Anglo Saxons. It is a case of adapt or die I'm afraid.