Milliband promises to increase minimum wage if elected

[Guy Fawkes]

Putting up the minimum wage puts up costs to companies, (everything from food to transport and everything in between which employs staff) which pass on these extra costs to customers meaning often those in reciept of an increase are in fact no better off than before but it makes good headlines.

Are the low earners that much better off every time there is an increase in the minimum wage? do they get a lot more spending power?

 

[sir albion]

Of course it does, but then why didn't happen when Labour were in power? As the article states:

"Cooper will also admit that "the last Labour government got things wrong on immigration. We should have had transitional controls in place for eastern Europe. The figures were wrong, and migration was far greater than we expected. As a result ,the pace and scale of immigration was too great and it is right to bring it down. And we should have recognised more quickly the impact on low skilled jobs, and the worries people had."

How many working class people in this country suffered because of this catastrophic incompetence?

We know they ignored the worries people had, because Gillian Duffy a long time labour member raised her concerns with the Prime Minister in 2010.

Labour probably hope the electorate has forgotten, but the fact is that immigration is a vote loser for Labour. They may want to lance the boil by announcing this minimum wage plan, but the damage has been done.............it was done when they said only 15,000 Poles would arrive.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice.........

Yep that's about the size of it...If the immigrants keep flocking in then there is little hope of wages increasing for the unskilled jobs.To be fair the poles are working their way up the ladder and hold many middle management jobs now.Here we have over 30,000 poles in reading and just about every company has them,the new tesco distribution centre here is 80% polish and it employes over 3000 people.

The tide needs to be stemmed as I would dread to think what will happen once the next reccession hits,could be 5 million unemployed.
There is very little hope of wages rising with so many applicants available

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Putting up the minimum wage puts up costs to companies, (everything from food to transport and everything in between which employs staff) which pass on these extra costs to customers meaning often those in reciept of an increase are in fact no better off than before but it makes good headlines.

Are the low earners that much better off every time there is an increase in the minimum wage? do they get a lot more spending power?

I'm pretty certain an extra 1.50 an hour gives you more spending power.

And I don't agree that costs necessarily have to be passed on to the consumer in total. This is a lazy argument. As I have previously posted the smarter more imaginative businesses will find ways to be more efficient. The less smart/dead wood will be removed from the economy which is a good thing.

 

[Colossal Squid]

I'm not ashamed to admit that until relatively recently I was on a wage too low to live comfortably off. It was considerably higher than minimum wage but it wasn't enough to pay for food and bills. I have no dependents, live in a tiny rented flat and am able to work full time unhindered.

I was entitled to, and claiming, several thousand pounds a year in tax credits because the money I was paid by my employer, over and above minimum wage, was not considered enough to live on.

IF the government recognises what is and isn't enough to live on, why should other tax payers be plugging this gap?

For one thing, these people shouldn't be paying tax, and then getting the majority of it back again. It's unnecessary administrative nonsense.

You know what people can and can't afford so stop taxing them beyond their means and forcing them to go through a laborious and costly to administer process enabling them to get most of it back again.

It's utterly ridiculous.

Tax thresholds need to be changed. Minimum wage needs to be raised.

Minimum wage NEEDS to be higher for the good of the economy as well as the welfare of British citizens. If that means that some businesses cannot survive as a result then those businesses need to rethink their operations.

All this farcical mid range red tape is just administrative insanity. It is accepted that the low waged cannot live off their earnings but instead of tackling this head on we've got a system that requires these people to jump through hoops in order to top up their income with benefits, relying on the fact that not everyone will make the effort, or even be aware they're entitled to the help.

How many people are employed by the DWP to service tax credit claims? That's a whole department you could do away with were the system not so pointlessly convoluted.

Increase the minimum threshold for income tax and that's millions of earners who'll be taken out of the tax system, releasing the burden on HMRC. Improve minimum wage so people can live off it and you eradicate the need for additional benefits. That's a burden lifted from the DWP.

The country saves money, people can afford to live, shops find people can spend money in them.

JOB DONE

 

[Worthingite]

We all live happily on what we earn and many people are motivated to work by things other than money. I suspect if you surveyed people many would prefer a job they enjoyed that paid less than a well paid job that they hated doing. We all spend a huge chunk of our life at work and job satisfaction can make a massive difference to a persons quality of life.

Why should there be a compulsory minimum wage for smaller businesses. If you had a minimum wage for larger corporates but not small business then I would happily take my chances in attracting staff by offering job satisfaction against less satisfying jobs paying a higher wage.

With respect, that is utter utter garbage. People who take on lower paid work (such as myself) do so, not because the job makes us warm and fuzzy at night, but because circumstance dictates that we do so, be it through qualification, career change, the hours involved etc. Put it this way- could YOU afford to live on barely more than minimum wage, and if, as is likely, the answer is no, would you not welcome an increase no matter how small? I find it astonishing that in the 21st century, the divide between the have and the have nots grows higher day by day. Minimum wage is NOT a liveable wage, and I personally feel that companies do a disservice to themselves by not paying a liveable wage, as staff retainment becomes harder, more would be spent on training new people, and that's before you get people calling in sick. My view is, you pay peanuts and you'll get chimps. Pay a competitive wage, and you will generate staff loyalty, a higher level of dedication and a better quality of staff

*puts soapbox back into the cupboard*

 

[Titanic]

Oh well... I shouldn't really be buying pies at the Albion anyway. Thanks Ed

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I'm pretty certain an extra 1.50 an hour gives you more spending power.

And I don't agree that costs necessarily have to be passed on to the consumer in total. This is a lazy argument. As I have previously posted the smarter more imaginative businesses will find ways to be more efficient. The less smart/dead wood will be removed from the economy which is a good thing.

So sack the inefficient workers? rather than pay them a little more? or seek solutions which use technology rather than staff (self service tills in supermarkets) - is that good for low income workers?

 

[Winker]

I'm pretty certain an extra 1.50 an hour gives you more spending power.

And I don't agree that costs necessarily have to be passed on to the consumer in total. This is a lazy argument. As I have previously posted the smarter more imaginative businesses will find ways to be more efficient. The less smart/dead wood will be removed from the economy which is a good thing.

Really? So if you had a viable company employing; lets say 100 people on the minimum wage, if they couldn't increase the wages by some randomly set figure, then everyone would be better off if the company shut down, including the 100 staff? Wow, that's a complacent attitude.

 

[beorhthelm]

cut staff, remove tax credits, streamline departments of state... this is music to the ears of the liberal economists and capitalists. seems the concept of the minimum wage is being soundly beaten up here, by those who want it increased. whats being ignored here is matter of the productivity of employees, and im afraid to say that those paid in the region of minimum wage are most likely the least productive, those in roles that are auxillary to the business, or in significant cost centres, or in the public sector. or they are easily replaced roles, by others willing/able to work for less, or technology.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

So sack the inefficient workers? rather than pay them a little more? or seek solutions which use technology rather than staff (self service tills in supermarkets) - is that good for low income workers?

The discussion is about how much humans should get. Inefficient workers and technology is a different issue.

 

[sir albion]

Scrapping the council tax would be nice and maybe focusing on lower rents would help,wishful thinking.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

[/B]

Really? So if you had a viable company employing; lets say 100 people on the minimum wage, if they couldn't increase the wages by some randomly set figure, then everyone would be better off if the company shut down, including the 100 staff? Wow, that's a complacent attitude.

As I have repeatedly said, if you cannot pay people to live your business is not viable. What's the point of the charade of employing people with tax payers propping up their wages so some boss profits? This is utter nonsense and [MENTION=28861]COL[/MENTION]losal Squid has posted a very eloquent piece on this. And I'm also a great believer that if a lot of the dead wood was removed from the economy younger and smarter businesses could flourish. It's not complacent; it's simple common sense.

 

[Winker]

As I have repeatedly said, if you cannot pay people to live your business is not viable. What's the point of the charade of employing people with tax payers propping up their wages so some boss profits? This is utter nonsense and [MENTION=28861]COL[/MENTION]losal Squid has posted a very eloquent piece on this. And I'm also a great believer that if a lot of the dead wood was removed from the economy younger and smarter businesses could flourish. It's not complacent; it's simple common sense.

Let's look at this another way, if you cannot live on the wages you are paid then you look for a better paid job. If you are not qualified for a better paid job then you look for training schemes to increase your value to another employer, it's simple common sense.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Let's look at this another way, if you cannot live on the wages you are paid then you look for a better paid job. If you are not qualified for a better paid job then you look for training schemes to increase your value to another employer, it's simple common sense.

Everyone cannot have everything. Someone has to do the low paid jobs which are vacated in your argument, and they deserve a living wage.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

The discussion is about how much humans should get. Inefficient workers and technology is a different issue.

It's relevent because if it costs more to employ staff (inefficient or not) than using technology instead, why would they continue to employ staff?

Reduce the amount of jobs available to the low earners because they are replaced by technology and what do they do for an income? live of benefits instead (paid for by tax payers / increasing state debt, meaning an increase in taxes to pay for it and therefore more cost to the lower earners either directly or indirectly)

It would be far better for them to have wages increases because of demand from employers and lack of suitable candidates (supply led) rather than an artificial increase due to Government policy

 

[Colossal Squid]

Let's look at this another way, if you cannot live on the wages you are paid then you look for a better paid job. If you are not qualified for a better paid job then you look for training schemes to increase your value to another employer, it's simple common sense.

Total horseshit.

You're assuming that those in low paid jobs are unskilled and unqualified when this is far from the case.

The BBC did an interesting survey last year on what the new supposed classes are. In this they came up with alternatives beyond working, middle and upper class, with categories such as emergent service workers. These people are usually skilled, intelligent and university educated. They just have no choice but to work in a massive industry in which nobody is paid fairly.

What's more the cost of training in a discipline that would potentially improve your earning potential is prohibitive to those who need it. It's also pure fantasy to suggest such training schemes are easy to come by, or even worthwhile. Often times these much advertised City & Guilds type schemes exist solely to fulfil government set quotas on opportunities. You ask a tradesman if he'll take on some youngster who has passed a three month training course in plastering and he'll tell you to go back to the drawing board because all too often these people know nothing of the practical side of the jobs they've supposedly been trained to work in.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

The flaw with the minimum wage is that many self employed people would be under it if the included all the hours they work.

It would be much better to set a higher fixed rate for the first 16 hours of work and then paying people according to ability for any hours after that.

That would stop tescos and sainsburys driving self employed grocery shops to the wall and level out the playing field in that type of sector. If they stopped that benefit trap and zero hour contracts we might get a few more people that should be working 35 hours instead of 16 and claiming benefits while people in small businesses have to work long hours without pay to pay all their bills.

 

[Soulman]

Another reason why Ed and Labour will hopefully be ignored.
Ed Miliband rejects plans to stop Scottish MPs voting on English laws
The Labour leader refuses to support David Cameron's plans to stop Scottish MPs voting on English laws despite seeming to accept it was not fair.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...stop-Scottish-MPs-voting-on-English-laws.html

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The flaw with the minimum wage is that many self employed people would be under it if the included all the hours they work.

It would be much better to set a higher fixed rate for the first 16 hours of work and then paying people according to ability for any hours after that.

That would stop tescos and sainsburys driving self employed grocery shops to the wall and level out the playing field in that type of sector. If they stopped that benefit trap and zero hour contracts we might get a few more people that should be working 35 hours instead of 16 and claiming benefits while people in small businesses have to work long hours without pay to pay all their bills.

But if self-employed people cannot pay themselves then they also have an unviable business. If they choose to prop it up by doing silly hours that's their choice I guess. We did away with child labour. Low paid work is next.

I'd also like to see a Fair Pay stamp. This would be similar to Fair Trade and enable me, the consumer, to determine which business pay their staff a decent wage.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Another reason why Ed and Labour will hopefully be ignored.
Ed Miliband rejects plans to stop Scottish MPs voting on English laws
The Labour leader refuses to support David Cameron's plans to stop Scottish MPs voting on English laws despite seeming to accept it was not fair.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...stop-Scottish-MPs-voting-on-English-laws.html

..... Or alternatively, while Cameron is looking to rush through something which would actually just benefit his party in perpetuity, Miliband is looking to deal with the issue properly, actually consulting people and taking all the issues in to account.

Ps - having now read the article, I thought the Telegraph was better than that. It has only reported half the story.