News1 min ago
National Living Wage Comes Into Force
http://
I have issues with the concept of £7:20 being anything like a real "living wage"
but it means a pay rise, nevertheless.
Anybody on here that will benefit as from today ?
I have issues with the concept of £7:20 being anything like a real "living wage"
but it means a pay rise, nevertheless.
Anybody on here that will benefit as from today ?
Answers
In my opinion it was only a purloining of the phrase in order to raise the minimum wage level and fool the public into thinking it was more. And it seemed to work.
06:29 Fri 01st Apr 2016
Naomi....all that guff was said when the Labour Party first introduced the concept of a minimum wage in 1998, and there is very little evidence, if any, that businesses collapsed as a result of bringing about the much-needed change in the law. The Tory Party at the time voted against it.... indeed showed no enthusiasm to do anything similar from 1979 to 1997. They actually made things worse during that period, by doing away with various Wages Councils, that existed to make sure that minimum rates of pay were paid in certain industries. But they eventually did a u-turn and now think it was rather a jolly good idea after all, for which we must be grateful.
I support the concept of raising the minimum wage, which is what is being applied today, at least for the 25's and over, but I remain unconvinced about the use of the phrase "minimum wage"
Osborne was never able to to explain why he didn't just raise the Minimum Wage for everybody, instead of introducing this strange two-tier system that we now have. As from today, a 25 year old worker will be paid more than his neighbour next door, if that neighbour happens to be 24, and they may be doing the same job, for the same employer.
My original intention here was to ask if anybody on AB will benefit as from today.
I support the concept of raising the minimum wage, which is what is being applied today, at least for the 25's and over, but I remain unconvinced about the use of the phrase "minimum wage"
Osborne was never able to to explain why he didn't just raise the Minimum Wage for everybody, instead of introducing this strange two-tier system that we now have. As from today, a 25 year old worker will be paid more than his neighbour next door, if that neighbour happens to be 24, and they may be doing the same job, for the same employer.
My original intention here was to ask if anybody on AB will benefit as from today.
Naomi, your really do not think that words have power ? When one thinks about a subject something may be obvious to some or many, but if not then something goes into your subconscious and colours your attitude without you realising. Marketing do this sort of thing all the time. Of course the act of renaming the minimum wage to living wage, a phrase already in use for a separate wage level, was just that sort of manipulation. The government can now claim they introduced the living wage, but they haven't, except in name. It is cynical, and simply morally wrong.
I can consider the other side of the coin and the view you put forward is the same as was used when the minimum wage was first introduced. It was flawed then and still is. (In any case it is immoral to underpay those who need jobs in order to reduce costs and prices. One should not support immorality because there are challenges to meet as a result. Were that acceptable we would still have slavery approved of in society.) Small business are either viable when paying the correct costs or it is not and the owner should more into one that is. If there is a demand it will remain viable. Labour costs rise, the profit falls (probably temporarily), prices rise, those who are already over the new minimum wage have to pay the fair price for the service/item.
I can consider the other side of the coin and the view you put forward is the same as was used when the minimum wage was first introduced. It was flawed then and still is. (In any case it is immoral to underpay those who need jobs in order to reduce costs and prices. One should not support immorality because there are challenges to meet as a result. Were that acceptable we would still have slavery approved of in society.) Small business are either viable when paying the correct costs or it is not and the owner should more into one that is. If there is a demand it will remain viable. Labour costs rise, the profit falls (probably temporarily), prices rise, those who are already over the new minimum wage have to pay the fair price for the service/item.
OG, any minumum wage is ultimately pointless for the reasons I gave above.
Wages are all relative so if you falsey raise the one at the bottom all other push up too and proce inflation goes up to pay for it. Maybe no immedialtey but that is what has to happen eventually since money does not grow on trees.
Wages are all relative so if you falsey raise the one at the bottom all other push up too and proce inflation goes up to pay for it. Maybe no immedialtey but that is what has to happen eventually since money does not grow on trees.
It might be interesting to read what Churchill said about the living wage, in 1909 ! ::::
"It is a serious national evil that any class of His Majesty's subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions
https:/
"It is a serious national evil that any class of His Majesty's subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions
https:/
Business was either always unviable and the jobs move to a new viable enterprise or it remains viable and job losses need not occur.
Minimum wage is not pointless, it changes the balance between those underpaid for their labour and those with sufficient, or more than sufficient, income. If one chooses to ignore the big picture and concentrate on individual cases there may be some who are enjoying a service that if they paying the right price for it, they couldn't afford; but this will result in short term adjustments as they either give up something or find savings elsewhere to pay for it.
Minimum wage is not pointless, it changes the balance between those underpaid for their labour and those with sufficient, or more than sufficient, income. If one chooses to ignore the big picture and concentrate on individual cases there may be some who are enjoying a service that if they paying the right price for it, they couldn't afford; but this will result in short term adjustments as they either give up something or find savings elsewhere to pay for it.
But, but, the Tories are the party of business aren't they?
They wouldn't do anything to hurt their core support just to try and cling on to power such as foisting a con on the unwary whose main focus is on getting through the week, surely.
If a large percentage pay rise is 'bad' when given to, let's say, car workers at British Leyland back in the day, how can it now be 'good' to suddenly increase the wages af so many people?
Some might think that David the Slimy and Gideon the Useless were plotting some long term scheme to bribe unwary electors.
They don't CARE about them, that's for sure.
They wouldn't do anything to hurt their core support just to try and cling on to power such as foisting a con on the unwary whose main focus is on getting through the week, surely.
If a large percentage pay rise is 'bad' when given to, let's say, car workers at British Leyland back in the day, how can it now be 'good' to suddenly increase the wages af so many people?
Some might think that David the Slimy and Gideon the Useless were plotting some long term scheme to bribe unwary electors.
They don't CARE about them, that's for sure.
I somehow dont think a 'living' wage was quite the same as one today.
No mobiles, tv's motors and other things now considered "necessary".
The one good thing about a min wage is it does stop nafarious empyers from paying a pittance. Howver by forcing it up too much causes market distortion and the consequences described above.
It's a fine line, but that is why it cannot be too high.
No mobiles, tv's motors and other things now considered "necessary".
The one good thing about a min wage is it does stop nafarious empyers from paying a pittance. Howver by forcing it up too much causes market distortion and the consequences described above.
It's a fine line, but that is why it cannot be too high.
I see the argument that we must always have the same differentials is being made, albeit not in those words. Differentials change all the time. It's no secret that we are not all in this together, that the top push ahead whilst at the bottom folk are denied as raises being unaffordable. An increase at the lower wage level need not inevitable mean employers cave in over higher salaries.
The aim should be to match the salary ranges to the job position correctly and not pay silly rises in the misguided belief it means you employ the best and rivals are denied; for they are then encouraged to try the same thing too. Differentials should be set sensibly and then kept to. If paying a decent lower wage the argument seems to be that companies can not afford it so presumably don't have the budget for making the same increase across the board anyway.
The aim should be to match the salary ranges to the job position correctly and not pay silly rises in the misguided belief it means you employ the best and rivals are denied; for they are then encouraged to try the same thing too. Differentials should be set sensibly and then kept to. If paying a decent lower wage the argument seems to be that companies can not afford it so presumably don't have the budget for making the same increase across the board anyway.
