Labour plans to lower minimum age of voting

[balky12]

well we shall see got final interview with the manager of the site id be working at, the security company want me its now weather the actual site manager likes me or not.

fun fact is its min wage. even after doing the sia course which is 6 exams in total so not as easy as most people think. the amount of people who see it as turn up and guaranteed pass is just nuts.

but gotta do what ya gotta do to get experience, a similar role i saw advertised this week for was £8.50 an hour with better working conditions just cant get it as i dont have that hard experience.

Good luck dude, all the best.

I know people in similar situations or that were in similar (over qualified for role but need experience). Once you start getting experience under your belt you will fly up the ranks.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

Why should people on the lower end of the spectrum have their wages bumped up so they can afford sky, holidays, etc. Work hard, get yourself an education, earn more. It's not difficult.

Then what happens when everyone is on great money in high powered jobs? Who cleans the toilets? Who serves you at the supermarket?

The fact is there will always be a need for menial, less exotic jobs. There will always be someone who has to do it. Is it fair that they should struggle because the government feel these roles are not worth paying a living wage for? Why is a person seen as somehow deficient if they do not have ambition? Many people are more than happy to do the same less exotic job for many different reasons. Perhaps because it is less stressful, perhaps because it fits in with their family life, perhaps because they have no real ambition. The country needs these people just as much as it needs the people at the other end of the spectrum.

It is not even about sky and holidays, though. It is the fact that inflation is increasing more than basic wages. Everyone is feeling the pinch as their income has become static and the cost of living has increased. This affects those at the bottom considerably more because they are already on the bread line and don't have any income contingency with which to play with (other than working even longer hours but then there are only so many hours in a day).

Raising the NMW is not really about luxuries, it is about being able to afford basic living on NMW when the cost of everything is going up more than wages are.

 

[anything I don't mind]

This is where you step further away from reality & start to post sentiments akin to the rubbish you read in "the secret".

I have never read the secret or those books. I just grabbed those quotes from google.

I am making a simple point that the defeatist attitude that the leftist like yourself love to propagate fuels this idea that people deserve not only something for nothing, but when they do finally get a job that they deserve to be paid more than the market rate.

 

[elmarko]

It's just a bit much for this kind of discussion. And that's like comparing extremes of the spectrum. Yes that may not be equal, but what is there stopping anyone from doing what they like?

Being abused as a child is far from the norm and hypothetical scenarios like that are just silly.

What he is trying to say is that no matter your race, beliefs, money situation, location or ambitions we have an education system that can set you up for a successful future.

It's not that extreme, at least 10% of the population at least are expected to suffer abuse as a child in some form (either physical or sexual) - the actual estimates are double that, but lets be conservative for the sake of this.

What percentage of the population have to experience something for it to be worthy of being used as an example for the kind of experience which may impact on later success in life?.

I agree, we have an education system which can set a number of us up for success. I'm simply stating the fact that it doesn't set-up everybody for success.

Many are likely to end up in unfulfilling jobs for a host of potential reasons, a number of which objectively may not be attributed to a lack of motivation alone. Based on this I see no reason why those on less incomes should have to live in poverty with no luxury's.

I have never read the secret or those books. I just grabbed those quotes from google.

I am making a simple point that the defeatist attitude that the leftist like yourself love to propagate fuels this idea that people deserve not only something for nothing, but when they do finally get a job that they deserve to be paid more than the market rate.

I'm sorry you can't differentiate between the recognition of reality & what you perceive to be a defeatist attitude.

I do agree with one thing, I do think people deserve something for nothing - as I don't personally want to live in a poverty infested society with massive increases in crime rates.

 

[balky12]

Then what happens when everyone is on great money in high powered jobs? Who cleans the toilets? Who serves you at the supermarket?

It’s a hypothetical scenario that won’t happen?

The fact is there will always be a need for menial, less exotic jobs. There will always be someone who has to do it. Is it fair that they should struggle because the government feel these roles are not worth paying a living wage for?

This is where we disagree, £6.31 an hour? 8 hours a day? 7 days a week? That’s over £18k a year. £15k net of tax. You can live off that.

Why is a person seen as somehow deficient if they do not have ambition? Many people are more than happy to do the same less exotic job for many different reasons. Perhaps because it is less stressful, perhaps because it fits in with their family life, perhaps because they have no real ambition. The country needs these people just as much as it needs the people at the other end of the spectrum.

Never said that. But you can’t be expecting to earn good money if you are happy to do a menial job.

It is not even about sky and holidays, though. It is the fact that inflation is increasing more than basic wages.

This can be a problem, I agree with you here. Raising MW by a fair chunk is different to keeping it in line with inflation though. I agree, minimum wage should be tied to inflation somehow.

 

[Amp34]

To be honest I'd rather we went the other way, keep the voting age at 18 and raise the age for the things you mentioned above.

Afterall is it, is it really a good thing that [with their parents' consent] 16 year olds can get married? I'd highly suspect higher divorce rates exist in that group compared to older people and if they are genuinely set for life then they'll still be together when they're 18 anyway.

Is anyone comfortable with 16 and 17 year olds on the front line? I'm not so would be happy to see full army recruitment raised to 18.

I'd also like to see the age at which you can play the lottery raised to 18 to bring it inline with all other forms of gambling. The only reason it is 16 now is not because of civil liberties but because the lottery is used as another form of taxation in practice (why fund our Olympians when the lottery can?).

In exchange I would also remove income tax for 16-17 year olds which would compensate for lower wages that businesses seem to think they can offer them.

Age has noting to do with income tax payments. If a 5 year old was making £20k a year they would have to pay tax as far as I'm aware.

16 year olds may enlist in the military but they are not allowed to fight/go to the front line until they are 18.

I do believe that if you are old enough to vote then you should be classed as a full adult and get everything that entails. If you can be trusted to vote then why can you not be trusted to smoke (18) or buy alcohol (18). If you can't be trusted to look after yourself (compulsory education/training to 18) then why can you be trusted to change the lives of not just you but others (voting)?

I've always made the same argument about drinking in the US where they an vote and die for their country, yet aren't trusted to drink alcohol... The same questions should be asked here.

 

[balky12]

It's not that extreme, at least 10% of the population at least are expected to suffer abuse as a child in some form (either physical or sexual) - the actual estimates are double that, but lets be conservative for the sake of this.

What percentage of the population have to experience something for it to be worthy of being used as an example for the kind of experience which may impact on later success in life?.

I agree, we have an education system which can set a number of us up for success. I'm simply stating the fact that it doesn't set-up everybody for success.

Many are likely to end up in unfulfilling jobs for a host of potential reasons, a number of which objectively may not be attributed to a lack of motivation alone. Based on this I see no reason why those on less incomes should have to live in poverty with no luxury's.

You are telling me that 1 in 5 people are abused as a kid. Think about that please. Simply can't be true. Even 1 in 10 is ludicrous. I have a close knit group of both girls and boys since school. 22 of us. So you are telling me between 2 and 4 of them have been abused? On average? C'mon think about it.

It doesn't set everyone up for success you're right. But I bet if you look into why it's to do with the individual either not having the motivation or messing around during their education, or simply, not being bright enough.

 

[elmarko]

You are telling me that 1 in 5 people are abused as a kid. Think about that please. Simply can't be true. Even 1 in 10 is ludicrous. I have a close knit group of both girls and boys since school. 22 of us. So you are telling me between 2 and 4 of them have been abused? On average? C'mon think about it.

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/rese...ence_of_child_abuse_and_neglect_wda48740.html

"One in four young adults (25.3%) were severely maltreated during childhood." - combination of physical & sexual abuse.

You are also aware that many who are abused, particularly young boys don't report it - neither is it a topic for dinner-parties in later life or playground conversation at school.

It doesn't set everyone up for success you're right. But I bet if you look into why it's to do with the individual either not having the motivation or messing around during their education, or simply, not being bright enough.

Ok, - regarding - motivation, messing around or not being bright.

Are you aware of the variables & know factors which underline a lack of motivation, the reasons behind a child messing around & what determines intelligence in children?.

Why do you draw a line above the causal factors which precede a given behaviour & pretend they don't have value or meaning?.

If a person isn't bright because they had absent parents trying to make ends meet - grew up in poverty resulting in parental arguments & instability at home, reducing attendance at school or stimulating conversation at home. Did they fail because they are not bright?, or because of the reasons which caused them this intelligence deficit?.

 

[balky12]

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/rese...ence_of_child_abuse_and_neglect_wda48740.html

"One in four young adults (25.3%) were severely maltreated during childhood." - combination of physical & sexual abuse.

25% of people 'abused' during childhood. C'mon. Its bull.

Unless their definition of abuse includes being smacked as a form of discipline...

Elmarko, out of curiosity more than anything, what is it you do for a living...

 

[GAC]

Good luck dude, all the best.

I know people in similar situations or that were in similar (over qualified for role but need experience). Once you start getting experience under your belt you will fly up the ranks.

aye thats the plan. if i get this one il move on in 2 years no doubt unless i move up in the company or the hourly rate jumps up.

 

[cheesyboy]

It doesn't set everyone up for success you're right. But I bet if you look into why it's to do with the individual either not having the motivation or messing around during their education, or simply, not being bright enough.

Mate, have you got your own children?

I do, and my eldest has recently started school. We live in a quite affluent set of villages, one of which has a small-ish council estate, all served by one primary school - a good one. It's horrifying how much of a contrast there is between the middle class children and the council estate kids even at age 4.

I genuinely feel sad at how limited the life options will be for those kids. One in particular who, unlike some of the others, is not a little **** but is just desperately sad - he loves being at school, but his mother is a complete moron ("known to social services"), and he's rather picked on by his older sisters.

Schools can help, but are limited in what they can do with one teacher and an assistant for almost 30 children. It's such a disadvantage having crap parents, and it's actually depressing how unwilling people are to recognise that.

 

[elmarko]

25% of people 'abused' during childhood. C'mon. Its bull.

Unless their definition of abuse includes being smacked as a form of discipline...

Elmarko, out of curiosity more than anything, what is it you do for a living...

I work in predictive modelling & statistical analysis (in the field of energy trading & consumption).

Building regression models (linear/logistic), CHAID & neural networks to predict a given outcome or behaviour based on the available data.

Mate, have you got your own children?

I do, and my eldest has recently started school. We live in a quite affluent set of villages, one of which has a small-ish council estate, all served by one primary school - a good one. It's horrifying how much of a contrast there is between the middle class children and the council estate kids even at age 4.

I genuinely feel sad at how limited the life options will be for those kids. One in particular who, unlike some of the others, is not a little **** but is just desperately sad - he loves being at school, but his mother is a complete moron ("known to social services"), and he's rather picked on by his older sisters.

Schools can help, but are limited in what they can do with one teacher and an assistant for almost 30 children. It's such a disadvantage having crap parents, and it's actually depressing how unwilling people are to recognise that.

Which is my point exactly.

In a rigged game, I fail to see why we should punish the losers of life in the way we do. (a greater point highlighted by the fact we collectively punish the children of these people also)

It amazes me the resistance some people have to giving people who work a reasonable take-home which enables them to at least enjoy life a little. I can almost understand the anger at those out of work from those struggling in work, but from people in a position to comfort to wish hardship on those less fortunate who also contribute.

I simply can't understand it.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

It’s a hypothetical scenario that won’t happen?



This is where we disagree, £6.31 an hour? 8 hours a day? 7 days a week? That’s over £18 a year. £15k net of tax. You can live off that.



Never said that. But you can’t be expecting to earn good money if you are happy to do a menial job.

It is not even about sky and holidays, though. It is the fact that inflation is increasing more than basic wages.

This can be a problem, I agree with you here. Raising MW by a fair chunk is different to keeping it in line with inflation though. I agree, minimum wage should be tied to inflation somehow.

Really? You think a person should have to work 7 days a week for 52 weeks in order to have a basic quality of life? I don't think that is reasonable. Your £15k quickly becomes only £10k based on a more reasonable 5 days a week. Given that in my area, to rent a basic flat is £500 per month that is over half your wages. Then bills £150 a month + £100 council tax. Then food, £200 a month. That is before you even think about travel expenses to work or any luxuries. This is a loose example based on what I know to be true in my area. Sure, there can be cut backs, house sharing and such but the bottom line is that on NMW you are going to work just as hard as anyone else for 5 days a week but not receive a living wage for what, in many cases, are essential roles.

Which is the point of raising NMW. They want to raise it to bring it in line with inflation or a little above. Inflation has been higher than NMW increases for the last 6 years.

I know the planned rise seems a bit high, but it isn't really when you consider how much the cost of living has increased in that time vs increases in NMW.

 

[balky12]

I work in predictive modelling & statistical analysis (in the field of energy trading & consumption).

Building regression models (linear/logistic), CHAID & neural networks to predict a given outcome or behaviour based on the available data.

Which is my point exactly.

In a rigged game, I fail to see why we should punish the losers of life in the way we do. (a greater point highlighted by the fact we collectively punish the children of these people also)

Sounds complex.

But ok, what is the solution. Bring in a wage multiplier determined by the level of abuse suffered as a kid?

1.0x being no abuse.

My argument is that you can live off minimum wage right now. Own your own house? Probably not. Eat out every week? Nope. Have kids? Extreme struggle. Live in a nice area? Probably not.

 

[balky12]

Really? You think a person should have to work 7 days a week for 52 weeks in order to have a basic quality of life? I don't think that is reasonable. Your £15k quickly becomes only £10k based on a more reasonable 5 days a week. Given that in my area, to rent a basic flat is £500 per month that is over half your wages. Then bills £150 a month + £100 council tax. Then food, £200 a month. That is before you even think about travel expenses to work or any luxuries. This is a loose example based on what I know to be true in my area. Sure, there can be cut backs, house sharing and such but the bottom line is that on NMW you are going to work just as hard as anyone else for 5 days a week but not receive a living wage for what, in many cases, are essential roles.

Which is the point of raising NMW. They want to raise it to bring it in line with inflation or a little above. Inflation has been higher than NMW increases for the last 6 years.

I know the planned rise seems a bit high, but it isn't really when you consider how much the cost of living has increased in that time vs increases in NMW.

£200 a month, how much do you eat?! It's not going to be a fantastic life, I admit that. But you are working for minimum wage here. In a job that requires no qualifications or skills. No one is going to value at £20k plus are they?

Ultimately companies pay what they think you are worth.

I do agree that NMW should be tied to inflation, so that those poorest do not become poorer, but to increase it by like 50% is absurd. (Sure £10 has been mentioned on here at some point)

 

[elmarko]

Sounds complex.

But ok, what is the solution. Bring in a wage multiplier determined by the level of abuse suffered as a kid?

1.0x being no abuse.

My argument is that you can live off minimum wage right now. Own your own house? Probably not. Eat out every week? Nope. Have kids? Extreme struggle. Live in a nice area? Probably not.

The solution?.

Put in place education polices which foster empathy, improve parental skills (sure-start was a great success from what I've read so expand those kind of schemes) but overall.

Ensure that as a society we appreciate the role chance has in determine how successful we are in life.

Instead of reprimanding those who end up in a low level position with the time with a life-time of poverty, ensure that all get to enjoy at least a few luxury's & have the ability to live without the constant stress of being able to pay for the necessities.

If we had a perfect meritocracy with true equality of opportunity I'd be far more receptive to punitive measures, but in reality we do not.

 

[atpbx]

as i said if a job needs to be done it should at least have a liveable wage otherwise its not worth doing and its that simple.

as for my thought process maybe its down to working jobs a lot on here would never do as they are below them, if your view is someone who works 40 hours a week as a cleaner for example isnt worth a liveable wage maybe you need to look at your thought process.

And that's the problem right there.

Its assigning every job equal importance and value when they simply don't have it.

As someone who has had jobs that pay £3 an hour and less for a 40 hr a week job in the 90s and still managed to pay a mortgage, run a car, put food on the table and not end up in a mountain of debt I can assure you I fully understand the situation.

And my thoughts were exactly the same as they are now, some jobs are not worth 5 or 6 pounds an hour to do, and artificially inflating the cost of them restricts people who could be working from doing so.

 

[D.P.]

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/rese...ence_of_child_abuse_and_neglect_wda48740.html

"One in four young adults (25.3%) were severely maltreated during childhood." - combination of physical & sexual abuse.

You are also aware that many who are abused, particularly young boys don't report it - neither is it a topic for dinner-parties in later life or playground conversation at school.

Ok, - regarding - motivation, messing around or not being bright.

Are you aware of the variables & know factors which underline a lack of motivation, the reasons behind a child messing around & what determines intelligence in children?.

Why do you draw a line above the causal factors which precede a given behaviour & pretend they don't have value or meaning?.

If a person isn't bright because they had absent parents trying to make ends meet - grew up in poverty resulting in parental arguments & instability at home, reducing attendance at school or stimulating conversation at home. Did they fail because they are not bright?, or because of the reasons which caused them this intelligence deficit?.

I am not saying the data is wrong but I think you need to be careful with what the data is showing. For starters, the data undoubtedly has a sample bias but I can't find out in detail if this was accounted for and how. The data was selected by asking several thousand people at random, only 56% of people responded. There is no evidence to believe this is a random subset and I would strong expect that those who have been abused are more likely to take part in a questionnaire about abuse.

Furthermore, it really is just an online questionnaire. There was no verification of results. People who didn't like their parents for whatever reason could lie without recourse. Furthermore, the definition of abuse ultimately fell to the respondents - someone who got grounded because they didn't do their homework and swore at their mum might label that as some kind of physical or mental abuse

Form reading the study I see no mention of lie detection and analysis. Normally for a good questionnaire you enter similar questions multiple times worded differently, both forwards- and reverse-keyed. The result must be highly correlated and consistent to be acceptable otherwise those results need to be thrown out.



Again, I really don't want to sound like I don't believe there is a wide spread issue - there is and these results go some way in supporting that. However, it isn't evidence and the numbers don't mean what you think. It is like the way that 30% of Americans think they were abducted by Aliens, therefore it is a wide spread serious issue and incontrovertible proof of alien existence.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

£200 a month, how much do you eat?! It's not going to be a fantastic life, I admit that. But you are working for minimum wage here. In a job that requires no qualifications or skills. No one is going to value at £20k plus are they?

Ultimately companies pay what they think you are worth.

We spend about £60 a week on food for two of us, so my mistake, it should be £100-120 a month for someone who is single (depending on their apetite! ).

No, employers will pay what the government tells them they have to pay, then increase the cost of their services / products to everyone - meaning a higher cost of living

The TUC want £10, Labour wants £8. The Conservatiuves think they have done everyone a favour with a 3% rise this time, but that is the first time in 6 years the NMW increase has been higher than inflation. Hence, everyone on NMW has been going backwards for 6 years.

The total rate of inflation from 2008-2014 is 21%
The total increase in NMW from 2008-2014 is 9%

Thats a huge difference.

 

[elmarko]

I am not saying the data is wrong but I think you need to be careful with what the data is showing. For starters, the data undoubtedly has a sample bias but I can't find out in detail if this was accounted for and how. The data was selected by asking several thousand people at random, only 56% of people responded. There is no evidence to believe this is a random subset and I would strong expect that those who have been abused are more likely to take part in a questionnaire about abuse.

Furthermore, it really is just an online questionnaire. There was no verification of results. People who didn't like their parents for whatever reason could lie without recourse. Furthermore, the definition of abuse ultimately fell to the respondents - someone who got grounded because they didn't do their homework and swore at their mum might label that as some kind of physical or mental abuse

Form reading the study I see no mention of lie detection and analysis. Normally for a good questionnaire you enter similar questions multiple times worded differently, both forwards- and reverse-keyed. The result must be highly correlated and consistent to be acceptable otherwise those results need to be thrown out.



Again, I really don't want to sound like I don't believe there is a wide spread issue - there is and these results go some way in supporting that. However, it isn't evidence and the numbers don't mean what you think. It is like the way that 30% of Americans think they were abducted by Aliens, therefore it is a wide spread serious issue and incontrovertible proof of alien existence.

I know what you are saying, but this is why I've picked the most conservative estimate based on a high number of studies (a number of which done verbally, on-line, phone based).

While it's not going to be perfect, it's unlikely to be completely wrong taking into account the amount of repeated studies & the variety of mediums used).

While the last point you made may sound compelling in theory, using an example which we have no evidence it's ever happened ever - to compare against something we certainly know is happening - then exaggerate the percentages by likely a factor of 100 or even 1000 isn't the best to use to make a point.