Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,479
I tend to agree. If a job is sufficient enough to warrant anyone working full time at it, they should be paid a fair wage.
Labour plans to lower minimum age of voting
- Thread starter Mynight
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 1,195
They have plenty.
- Abolish inheritance tax
- Cut corporation tax
- Flat tax of 31% (possibly being cut to 25%)
- Tax free allowance set at minimum wage
- Basically scrap the Dept of Health and elect County Health Boards to replace it at a local level
- Bring in a voucher system so you can get your NHS-funded treatment from private providers
- Repeal the Human Rights Act
- Withdraw from Eurpoean Convention on Refugees
- Withdraw from European Convention on Human Rights
- Repeal many employment protections
- Possibly overturn same-sex marriage
- Climate change is a hoax, stop investing in renewable energy
- Increase defence spending
- All unemployed to do workfare or similar
- Cut foreign aid
Lol.
Regarding the topic.
Increasing the minimum wage, can increase the cost of some goods & services - but not my an amount equal to the increase for the lowest earners.
Minimum wage staff costs do not account for 100% of the total cost to produce goods or provide a service (material, building, goods etc).
What happens is for the poorest they can see an increase of 10% in their final wage packet, but the costs of good & services increases on average between roughly 0% & 8% - with many products staffing costs being a small or non-existent percentage (when a company already pays above the minimum wage for example - which many do).
The slight increase in costs apply across the entire population, not just those on minimum wage - meaning it's not a 1 for 1 relationship (which people absurdly seem to think).
What's happening is the costs of the goods increases to reflect the actual cost. We should be paying more for low end goods instead of paying a slightly smaller amount & forcing the government to subsidise lower wages. I already when given the option shop & purchase goods from businesses who pay a living wage.
Last edited:
Many of them are quite out of date. Look up their current views.
This in spades.
COnvinced this is why the Scots did it too. Although it didn't work for them ha!
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
Labour is such a blackmail based party. They simply bribe the voting public to vote for them. I always laugh when labour pretends to be for the working class, millibend even said that he is fighting for the working class, it is a complete joke.
Whilst I do see where you are coming from, there are a lot of variables.
Lets stick with cleaner for example. Living wage? Feed yourself and put a roof over your head. That's it. Yes maybe you will have to rent and flatshare, shop at lower branded supermarkets.
If you want to own your own house, or live in a nice area, or have sky, eat out, etc. then being in one of these low paid, but necessary jobs will not provide you with that.
Minimum wage is what, £6.31 an hour?
8 hour days, 5 days a week? £~1000 take home a month. People can live off that in most places imo. Albeit without any luxaries. But the keyword is luxuries.
Why do you think cleaners are not worthy of having any luxuries?.
It's worth aiding those on lower wages as at the bottom a minor increase yields huge benefits for their well-being (as it increases their disposable income by significant amounts).
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
Labour is valued at the market rate, if cleaners want their labour to be more valuable then they need to improve their skills. Any monkey can clean, that is why their labour is valued how it is. If it wasn't for the minimum wage their labour would probably be valued even less and rightly so.
This living wage non sense is simply ridiculous. Sure it would be wonderful if everyone was paid well, but in the real world businesses are struggling as it is, the high street is already on its last legs and all these self righteous marxists think about is wage controls. It is ridiculous.
This living wage non sense is simply ridiculous. Sure it would be wonderful if everyone was paid well, but in the real world businesses are struggling as it is, the high street is already on its last legs and all these self righteous marxists think about is wage controls. It is ridiculous.
Labour is valued at the market rate indeed, but the government who is the one who covers the systemic risk of a given population has a hand in setting that market rate.
To use a less controversial example - (one less likely to provoke poorly thought out politically dogmatic rhetoric).
The market rate of waste disposal is set by the rules & regulations of the nation they reside in - varying massively depending on the legislation (ranging from zero, to huge costs of clean-up/processing). Wage is just another factor the government has to cover the fall-out (either as negative social behaviour or giving benefits to those in work) & has full authority to determine the market rate.
We need a fixed number of cleaners, this is a fact - saying "get more skills" ignores the fact that their is only a certain amount of jobs which fit into the 'skilled labour' category.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
When the government interferes then it is no longer the market rate. The government by definition can not set the market rate as then it is no longer the market rate. The market rate is set by the market not by the government.
Labour in the market is set by supply and demand. Generally low skilled labour is in high supply and this is why it has a low market rate. Labour that requires a high skill is generally in low supply and this is why it demands a higher market rate. If someone does a job that everyone can do and they can easily be replaced, then they are in no position to demand a higher salary.
Sure it would be great if everyone was paid a high pay but in reality that is just not how business works. As a business owner they are not being generous when they employ people, they are doing it for productivity reasons. If a business wants to be generous and pay their employees more than the market rate, then they are free to do that. However forcing businesses is a completely different situation.
Labour in the market is set by supply and demand. Generally low skilled labour is in high supply and this is why it has a low market rate. Labour that requires a high skill is generally in low supply and this is why it demands a higher market rate. If someone does a job that everyone can do and they can easily be replaced, then they are in no position to demand a higher salary.
Sure it would be great if everyone was paid a high pay but in reality that is just not how business works. As a business owner they are not being generous when they employ people, they are doing it for productivity reasons. If a business wants to be generous and pay their employees more than the market rate, then they are free to do that. However forcing businesses is a completely different situation.
Last edited:
Thankfully we don't have a free market anyway (it's a stupid idea to begin with) due to externalities.
In this context the term 'market rate' is used to define the total cost of the goods within the market (in this case 'controlled/regulated market rate' which includes additional costs such as wage regulation, pollution clean-up etc. But I'm sure you knew this already.
I don't really see the need to speak about the 'free market rate' as we don't live in one.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
There is no such thing as a "free market rate". There is only the market rate and a rate set by the government, there is no other alternative to that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Jun 2013
- Posts
- 2,632
Going in here late, but I think the problem is lack of education in politics / economics proeprly at school to vote effectively either.
I also think we should be forced to vote and fined if not. You can spoil your ballot but you need to turn up. Would that make a difference to political engagement / landscape?
I also think we should be forced to vote and fined if not. You can spoil your ballot but you need to turn up. Would that make a difference to political engagement / landscape?
Is this the part where you try to debate semantics because you have no valid arguments to justify your position?.
What is a rate set by a combination of market forces & additional costs by the government called then?, the government does't set the rate for entire good, but it does set part of the cost via wage laws & environmental clean-up costs.
I never said they are not worthy. It was the example being thrown around.
Not everyone can have luxuries otherwise they wouldn't be luxuries would they? The argument was about a living wage. If you can house and feed yourself that's a living wage.
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.
It's simple. Not everyone can be paid enough to own their own house. Go on holidays. Own a car. Have sky TV.
Last edited:
A luxury can still be a luxury if everybody has at least some. The difference being the wealthy have far more & the ones they posses are even grander.
Are you a multi-millionaire out of curiosity?. As if not could this same argument not be used against you?.
Where do these higher paid jobs come from?, if we had an infinite pot of high paid jobs to hand out to those who get an education then I'd be willing to take you seriously.
As this is not, or has ever been the case it's laughable.
Why are you adding stuff, before you said "not everybody can have luxury's" now it's SKY TV, owning a house, a car & holidays abroad.
Increasing the minimum wage a little isn't going to increase their wealth anywhere near to that extent. What you are doing is moving the goalposts & building a straw-man.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
This is what i call the "victim of their circumstances" argument. Leftists nearly always fall back on to this argument.
People have the same opportunities available, especially these days, there is literally no excuse. If all you can do to earn a wage is clean, then that is no ones fault but their own. The options are limitless, to think that someone is trapped in a cleaner job is realy a product of this leftish mentality. It is no one responsibility to tell someone else how they can learn new skills and earn more money. It is simply people not taking responsibility for their own lives.
Last edited: