Should minions be the instrument of rich people?

[cheesyboy]

Because they're protected by a union and shouldn't be able to down tools without being sacked. If you could sack and replace them, there wouldn't be a problem.

Yes, the point is that the work they do is important to society, but doesn't pay well enough to reflect that importance.

 

[Raikiri]

It depends what roles you're referring to. Not all low skilled jobs are poorly paid. Refuse collectors, train drivers, baggage handlers and post office workers are a few that spring to mind that aren't paid badly. These aren't highly skilled but have been represented collectively by unions doing their bidding. Basically a lot of these have held the country to ransom at some stage or more than once. Cleaners and careworkers to name but a few haven't had the same clout to negotiate.

Refuse collectors - average wage varies, but most places report it as being £9-13 per hour. Pretty poorly paid. - https://www.jobsite.co.uk/jobs/refuse-collector

Train drivers - Decently paid but it takes 12-24 months of training to become qualified, hardly low skilled.

Post Office workers - Posties get about £11 an hour, clerks are on £21k ish which works out at £10.78 based on a 37.5h work week.

I was thinking more of postal delivery operatives. As for a train driver, yes need to be trained but it's not like they can take a detour, it's start / stop along a determined route.

My flatmate is a postie, they aren't particularly well paid. He does get some shares but that works out at an extra £1500-2000 per year, so another £1 an hour.

Bin men well 20k to wheel bins around and connect to back of a lorry isn't worth any more than 20k.

Hard disagree.

It's a very important job and not a pretty one to do, just because it doesn't require a lot of skill doesn't mean it shouldn't be well paid.

I couldn't deal with trash and rats all day, get up at 4 AM etc. You should have seen the state of it here after they went on strike for a week.

 

[thenewoc]

Yes, the point is that the work they do is important to society, but doesn't pay well enough to reflect that importance.

It does pay well enough though, it's unskilled. If you needed a new employee then it ought to be relatively easy to find someone who will turn up and follow the direction given by their line manager.

 

[thenewoc]

Refuse collectors - average wage varies, but most places report it as being £9-13 per hour. Pretty poorly paid. - https://www.jobsite.co.uk/jobs/refuse-collector

Train drivers - Decently paid but it takes 12-24 months of training to become qualified, hardly low skilled.

Post Office workers - Posties get about £11 an hour, clerks are on £21k ish which works out at £10.78 based on a 37.5h work week.



My flatmate is a postie, they aren't particularly well paid. He does get some shares but that works out at an extra £1500-2000 per year, so another £1 an hour.



Hard disagree.

It's a very important job and not a pretty one to do, just because it doesn't require a lot of skill doesn't mean it shouldn't be well paid.

I couldn't deal with trash and rats all day, get up at 4 AM etc. You should have seen the state of it here after they went on strike for a week.

Haha stop electing green party idiots to run the city. You need to break the union's then hire and fire who doesn't want to do their jobs properly.

 

[Raikiri]

Haha stop electing green party idiots to run the city. You need to break the union's then hire and fire who doesn't want to do their jobs properly.

Or we could just pay more and make it a desirable job that will attract competent people...

 

[dowie]

Yes. But we were talking usefulness, not rarity.

I was talking about usefulness and why they're paid... you were also talking about their pay.

As an accountant, I know my job is useful and my employer would struggle to run without its finance department (though I would say that when I worked in practice that those accountants provide very little that would be missed). BUT I don't think my usefulness to society is worth 3 or 4 care workers, or whatever my salary could otherwise pay for, beyond the fact that I have rare enough skill to be able to negotiate a good price for my work.

A care worker can only deal with one person at a time - it's a useful basic service to provide to the small number of clients they can see in a day but their value is rather limited/doesn't scale. Perhaps some accountants working in practice could be automated away in the near future.

Do we look at childcare too as well as elderly? Imagine if nursery fees were to triple or quadruple they'd exceed the income of many individuals, some people (mostly women) would likely quit their jobs and stay off work to look after children. They're feasible currently because they free up others to do more valuable work, if they didn't then there wouldn't be a market for them beyond say nannies and au pairs for rich families.

 

[cheesyboy]

I was talking about usefulness and why they're paid... you were also talking about their pay.



A care worker can only deal with one person at a time - it's a useful basic service to provide to the small number of clients they can see in a day but their value is rather limited/doesn't scale. Perhaps some accountants working in practice could be automated away in the near future.

Do we look at childcare too as well as elderly? Imagine if nursery fees were to triple or quadruple they'd exceed the income of many individuals, some people (mostly women) would likely quit their jobs and stay off work to look after children. They're feasible currently because they free up others to do more valuable work, if they didn't then there wouldn't be a market for them beyond say nannies and au pairs for rich families.

In the system we operate in, we can explain why people are paid what they're paid, but we can't argue that the most useful jobs are paid the least.

(although you can make very long, boring, and never ending posts to distract from it)

 

[dowie]

In the system we operate in, we can explain why people are paid what they're paid, but we can't argue that the most useful jobs are paid the least.

(although you can make very long, boring, and never ending posts to distract from it)

No, I'd agree, you can't argue that the most useful jobs are paid the least!

 

[chrcoluk]

The reason your job is paid the least is because it is easy to do, for someone with common sense, however as i oversee a lot of entry level jobs, the "average" amount of work done per person, over the last several years, is around a third of what i can do, or, the other good staff i have.

Now, ideally what i would do, is talk to my boss, and demand i am paid the entire budget for my department/ responsibility.

Then i would personally hire people, and pay them, as self employed, in which case the rate of hourly pay would double.

So while others above give the very simple explanation, personally i believe all work is complex and there is a huge amount of experience required even for simple jobs.

I mean cutting onions is easy right, everyone can do it, but can you cut them like professional chefs, super quickly? without cutting your fingers off?

I have done some low paid jobs that were horrific, far from been called easy. Just because it has a lower barrier of entry and there is a higher supply of workers (which is what ultimately sets the salary) it doesnt mean its easier. This is the kind of drivel which leads to the "I worked hard" justification. My current work is probably the easiest I have ever had and I get 3x the money of some hard jobs I have done, I work from my own home, choose my working hours, very little physical effort required. Its hard to call that easier than having to work at a specific pace, especially when you have a physical ailment and having to break the pain barrier as well, working as a waitress, dealing with abuse, customer facing, care worker, if anyone calls that easy I have something to say about it as someone who has needed carers in the past.

There seems to be a thing where people link the amount of qualifications, or rarity of skill down to how hard a job is.

I agree with cheesy to a degree, an accountant could be replaced with doing your own accounts, my dad did his own accounts. There seems to be a massive lack of respect for people who do the physical labour in this country. I remember the first factory I worked at, was a lazy machine tech who worked there who used to take the mickey out of operatives, and for three days our manager was off work, so a manager of another shift took over, this manager worked very different to our normal manager and she thought nothing of making non operatives doing physical work, I was put on some warehouse work stacking boxes on palettes, and this tech had to cover me for my break, by the time I got back from a 30 minute break he looked like he was about to collapse as if he climbed mount everest or something, he certainly went quiet for a few weeks after that.

 

[FoxEye]

I'm not against it at all, but nice attempt at a straw man.

I do have a problem with people who don't value the system they have though, or think there is some bottomless well of resource to fulfil their demands.

There isn't a bottomless well of land or housing stock, and that's precisely why it needs to be regulated and restricted and not entirely dependent on market forces.

It's also something that everybody must have, to live. Much like the NHS we can't just say, "The market will take care of everything, let market forces decide." I mean, the government has intervened many times already to prop up the housing bubble, so it's not like it's purely market-driven, anyhow.

Also houses make money just by sitting on them, which is fairly unusual. It's not like people have to build new houses to make money from houses. They just have to sit there and watch the price go up. Or sit there and watch the rental income come in.

And the current situation encourages people to buy as much property as they can, just for its $$$ value and the returns they can get on it. Given the demand for housing is already well above supply, we can't let people just go around buying it all up for its potential returns. It shouldn't just be an "investment" for people who already have (lot of) money to get amazing returns just through acquiring more and more of it.

You talk of communism this and communism that, and insist that the public sector can't do anything better than building 60s tower blocks. But really the current situation is FUBAR beyond belief, and getting worse by the day, and the solution is not to just sit there and admire the returns on your next rental investment.

Well, the solution for the plebs, anyhow. Again, if you want to funnel all wealth up the pyramid to the top, then we're currently doing a pretty grand job of that. I stupidly sometimes assume that that isn't want people want. But it would seem a decent chunk want exactly that. Milk the plebs for the enrichment of their "betters".

 

[dowie]

It's also something that everybody must have, to live. Much like the NHS we can't just say, "The market will take care of everything, let market forces decide."

We don't, everyone can be housed - some people (mostly people with drug addiction issues or mental health issues) are resistant to it, some people at any one point in time will be technically "homeless" too for a short period of time in that they don't yet have long term accomdation.

Aside from that, we have housing benefits and social housing for that very reason. Just as we have other benefits and food banks etc...

It's a market that is heavily restricted, supply is, in part, artificially constrained by planning laws etc..

Also houses make money just by sitting on them, which is fairly unusual.

That isn't unusual at all.

And the current situation encourages people to buy as much property as they can, just for its $$$ value and the returns they can get on it.

No, it doesn't, the returns are mediocre now - yields are low in London at least (and in areas where they're high they'll come with plenty of risk/potential problems) and a previous chancellor (George Osborne) has put in a few disincentives for new would be landlords - extra stamp duty on second homes, capping mortgage interest relief at 20% (high earners can no longer get 40%), additional stamp duty if buying via a Ltd company.

Given the demand for housing is already well above supply, we can't let people just go around buying it all up for its potential returns. It shouldn't just be an "investment" for people who already have (lot of) money to get amazing returns just through acquiring more and more of it.

It isn't just an investment for people who already have a lot of money though, it doesn't give amazing returns right now - you're just throwing in false premises here. there is a need for rental accommodation too and so there is room in the market for private landlords.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/buytolet/article-9725329/Are-heading-buy-let-exodus.html

Almost a million landlords, more than a third of the total, will review their property portfolios in the next year, according to the Nottingham Building Society, and the number planning to sell homes outnumbers those planning to buy new ones.

A fifth plan to sell some or all of their portfolio, it said, while 16 per cent plan to buy more.

While those homes going to first-time buyers or families would help more people climb onto or up the property ladder, it could also lead to a shortage of property to rent. In some popular parts of the country a lack of rental homes has recently led to bidding wars.

It isn't necessarily a good thing to squeeze the rental market too much as that will lead to obvious disadvantages for people on benefits/less desirable tenants as competition for rental accommodation increases.

The main issue again is supply, not some silly grudge re: people making money from renting out property.

 

[cheesyboy]

The main issue again is supply, not some silly grudge re: people making money from renting out property.

The supply of rental properties has doubled in a bit over a decade, and yet prices are rising far ahead of inflation.

The price of buying houses has been rising far ahead of inflation over the past decade, despite the lowest rate of first time buyers (I.e. new demand) in about 40 years.

Both of those link to buy-to-let demand rising, not owner occupation.

 

[dowie]

The supply of rental properties has doubled in a bit over a decade, and yet prices are rising far ahead of inflation.

The price of buying houses has been rising far ahead of inflation over the past decade, despite the lowest rate of first time buyers (I.e. new demand) in about 40 years.

Both of those link to buy-to-let demand rising, not owner occupation.

Nope, it’s going in the opposite direction, a few years ago BTL purchases were like nearly 20% of transactions, last year that dropped to 8% nationwide and circa 4% in London.

More landlords are planning to sell than buy at the mo too as I’ve literally already pointed out in the post you partially quoted, you ignore that fact though.

Yet there is still a need for rental accommodation.

 

[chrcoluk]

Good to see some good Samaritans doing what they can.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-leeds-59393704

 

[FoxEye]

The supply of rental properties has doubled in a bit over a decade, and yet prices are rising far ahead of inflation.

The price of buying houses has been rising far ahead of inflation over the past decade, despite the lowest rate of first time buyers (I.e. new demand) in about 40 years.

Both of those link to buy-to-let demand rising, not owner occupation.

dowie inhabits his own little world, where house price inflation isn't beating many other asset classes, despite being virtually zero risk.

UK House Price Index - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk)

13.2% inflation in the last year alone.

Which other asset class performs that well, with no risk?

 

[platinum87]

I have done some low paid jobs that were horrific, far from been called easy. Just because it has a lower barrier of entry and there is a higher supply of workers (which is what ultimately sets the salary) it doesnt mean its easier. This is the kind of drivel which leads to the "I worked hard" justification. My current work is probably the easiest I have ever had and I get 3x the money of some hard jobs I have done, I work from my own home, choose my working hours, very little physical effort required. Its hard to call that easier than having to work at a specific pace, especially when you have a physical ailment and having to break the pain barrier as well, working as a waitress, dealing with abuse, customer facing, care worker, if anyone calls that easy I have something to say about it as someone who has needed carers in the past.

There seems to be a thing where people link the amount of qualifications, or rarity of skill down to how hard a job is.

I agree with cheesy to a degree, an accountant could be replaced with doing your own accounts, my dad did his own accounts. There seems to be a massive lack of respect for people who do the physical labour in this country. I remember the first factory I worked at, was a lazy machine tech who worked there who used to take the mickey out of operatives, and for three days our manager was off work, so a manager of another shift took over, this manager worked very different to our normal manager and she thought nothing of making non operatives doing physical work, I was put on some warehouse work stacking boxes on palettes, and this tech had to cover me for my break, by the time I got back from a 30 minute break he looked like he was about to collapse as if he climbed mount everest or something, he certainly went quiet for a few weeks after that.

The job is not hard, what level of performance someone does is hard. One job can be harder than your other job, but it is not hard.

 

[dowie]

dowie inhabits his own little world, where house price inflation isn't beating many other asset classes, despite being virtually zero risk.

UK House Price Index - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk)

13.2% inflation in the last year alone.

Which other asset class performs that well, with no risk?

You think I'm inhabiting my own little world when you're coming out with the sort of nonsense that caused the last financial crisis... maybe you should go work at one of those rating agencies that classified subprime debt as AAA. No risk? WTF have you been smoking.