But it's a job though, there's nothing basic about it IMHO, that just appears on the surface of it to belittle people doing this job.
McDonalds workers due to strike for £10 an hour...
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
But it's a job though, there's nothing basic about it IMHO, that just appears on the surface of it to belittle people doing this job.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,834
Does anyone know why it changed it's name to the National Living Wage? considering it's anything but?
To differentiate it from the National Minimum Wage, which is still there but now applies to 21-24 y/o's and is a different rate to the NLW
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 2,332
The problem we have in this country is that there are approx 4 people for every job vacancy so we are always going to end up with someone in a job that is not ideally suited to their needs.
Sure burger flipping is an entry level job. It's great for students to build up their CV with some valuable work experience and it's not a highly skilled job so anybody in that business can expect to find themselves at the bottom of the pay scale.
But we can't all be brain surgeons, we need someone to empty our garbage and to clean our sewers. I'm sure none of us here begrudges any of them a respectable day's wage.
I don't turn my nose up at anyone who finds themselves in a low paying job. Well, unless of course they took a degree in Mickey Mouse Studies. Then I'm ruthless.
Bahahahahahahahaha!!!!
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,636
People are starting to get fed up with living on the breadline whilst doing an honest days work.
I mean it's a little crazy to me you can be doing full time work and still be in relative poverty in a first world country.
However I believe this won't do much, you think corporations are going to want to reduce their profit margins? fat chance. They'll just try to automate where they can and fire everyone. I'm not sure how we are going to fix this system we currently live under. Stagnating wages + soaring prices are becomming more and more of an issue.
I'm no economist and the issue is insanely complex and with the rise of automation even more complicated.
Zero hour contracts were also something that made the problem even worse. Now you haven't only got to deal with terrible wages, but also randomly having your hours cut.
I mean it's a little crazy to me you can be doing full time work and still be in relative poverty in a first world country.
However I believe this won't do much, you think corporations are going to want to reduce their profit margins? fat chance. They'll just try to automate where they can and fire everyone. I'm not sure how we are going to fix this system we currently live under. Stagnating wages + soaring prices are becomming more and more of an issue.
I'm no economist and the issue is insanely complex and with the rise of automation even more complicated.
Zero hour contracts were also something that made the problem even worse. Now you haven't only got to deal with terrible wages, but also randomly having your hours cut.
Agreed, it's totally nuts.
Absolutely
This is why we have to do some radical thinking, the Citizens Income that has been proposed at times and currently trialled in Denmark (?) is interesting
There's nothing wrong in zero hour contracts per se, we've always had them, they were called 'Bank Staff', so we shouldn't ban them outright, just tighten up on companies exploiting them
It's the over- and mis-use of them by companies exploiting what would have previously (and in many cases still are) full time employment.
It may be easy work, but it's stressful, they have to put up with stroppy customers, clean up after lazy people and get little thanks in return. I work as an inspector at an electronics company and I wouldn't want to swap with them, even for the same wage.
That was our governments intention when they pushed the NMW. This didn't happen by accident, it's all by design.
With money comes power, and the last thing those at the top want, is a powerful public.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
that would be complete madness.
you would then need to increase the cost of everything in London and then decrease the cost of everything up north too also.
for example petrol could now be cheaper in the north than it is in the south. as would supermarket prices and everything else. because aldi in london would now need to pay more per hour to their staff yet aldi in the north could now pay less per hour to their staff.
also by doing what you suggest it's just going to make the london bubble even bigger faster when what they really need is the london bubble to stop expanding at it's currently stupid high rate.
At the end of the day a job is worth what people will do it for. If whatever they are being paid isn't enough for them to want to do it then they should leave, the situation then sorts itself out as if they can't get staff then they will increase the rate.
The situation should be market lead, not government interfered with.
The situation should be market lead, not government interfered with.
Rubbish. Zero hour contracts are perfectly fine for people who want them (e.g. students). While I received regular shifts while at McDonalds and Cineworld, zero hours contracts gave me the flexibility to increase/reduce my hours. If people don't want zero hours contracts, specify that during the interview and you will get x hour contracts. If they don't offer it, look elsewhere.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
I will say that though the lower paid of society earn appallingly low considering the cost of living, the issue lies with the cost of living rather than the wages themselves. I am all for raising the minimum that people can be paid but we need to target the cost of living for the changes to be effective.
More restrictions on rent and housing markets would help massively in reducing one of the biggest costs of living.
The increase in wages need to happen so that companies are the ones paying the full amount of what their employees require to live, instead of having hugely successful companies using NLW to pay minimal amounts and relying on the government to fill in the gaps. Maybe subsidies for small private businesses to help them pay the employees a reasonable living wage, as some industries would struggle to do so without wiping out their profits completely (small pubs and such).
Ridiculous. While you are right if you get enough to employees quit, how many people do you know can just leave a job and wait for the market to sort it out?
You say it like it is all in the power of the employees but businesses can and often will wait out a shortage of employees because some simply crumble before others. Most low paid industries would just get remaining employees to make up for the shortage, rather than raise wages across the board. There is no shortage of people who require to work for whatever they can get, so they can live. By taking this 'let the market sort it out' view, you punish those who can afford to give up these minimal wage jobs the least, those living month to month on their meagre wage.
More restrictions on rent and housing markets would help massively in reducing one of the biggest costs of living.
The increase in wages need to happen so that companies are the ones paying the full amount of what their employees require to live, instead of having hugely successful companies using NLW to pay minimal amounts and relying on the government to fill in the gaps. Maybe subsidies for small private businesses to help them pay the employees a reasonable living wage, as some industries would struggle to do so without wiping out their profits completely (small pubs and such).
Ridiculous. While you are right if you get enough to employees quit, how many people do you know can just leave a job and wait for the market to sort it out?
You say it like it is all in the power of the employees but businesses can and often will wait out a shortage of employees because some simply crumble before others. Most low paid industries would just get remaining employees to make up for the shortage, rather than raise wages across the board. There is no shortage of people who require to work for whatever they can get, so they can live. By taking this 'let the market sort it out' view, you punish those who can afford to give up these minimal wage jobs the least, those living month to month on their meagre wage.
Last edited:
Minimum wage is a pointless distraction that literally does nothing other than move goal posts, it's more or less inflation by the back door.
Ultimately none of this will matter in 20 years as these burger flippers will be redundant in short order.
Ultimately none of this will matter in 20 years as these burger flippers will be redundant in short order.
That's an extremely simplistic viewpoint.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
the people that work in amazon warehouses on zero hour minimum wage contracts are either in between jobs or complete morons.
minimum wage is basically there for morons who cannot get a better job. if they don't like the job or wage they can go get another one. that is the way a free capitalist market works.
get a crap job. gain experience. cream rises to the top. use brains to apply for better roles, elswhere, etc. the people who just stay put are too thick to get anything better. so why should they be paid CEO wages when it's their fault they didn't learn anything whilst growing up?
How about the lack of any formal skills or qualifications required to do it? Basic.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
seems pretty fair to me so long as there are enough jobs to go about.
the only bad point is if you have the extremely wealthy controlling the market so those at the bottom can never progress. a bit like that movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Time
should there be a cap on wealth? to stop those at the very top from doing so? also how would you police that? to stop people in countries with no cap from buying everything up?
basically the only other solution to a free market is communism. where everyone gets paid say a set amount within a certain band. jobs would all be banded depending on their difficulty and work/life balance.
so if you do a bottom tier job you get paid say £18K a year (full time pro rata'd). then have say 5 levels in total with the top level being paid say a maximum of £100K a year. you would then have everyone earning substantially over £100K a year currently leave the country. you then lose your top specialists to other countries.
so open free market seems to be the best solution tbh. you get paid what you are worth. don't like your current wage then stop moaning and go put some effort into getting a better job. assuming there are enough jobs to go around. automation is going to be interesting in future when it wipes entire lines of employment out.
Which is why I said it's incredibly simplistic, you can't just have everyone in low paid jobs leaving if they don't like their salary... Sounds easy in principle but people can't just walk out of work with a family and other responsibilities to pay for.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
apply and get another job before walking out obviously. it's what i have done in the past.