2017 UK General Election RESULTS Thread

originally posted by: TheShippingForecast
£10 per hour is not excessive.

Any forced income bracket is excessive. It's not just £10, it's the piles of other costs involved - a list which keeps on growing under successive government.

£10 p/h works out to an average salary of £19,500. In order to pay you that £10, the employer can easily be paying £16 p/h or more. £30k a year costs, just to give you £19.5k.

a reply to: EvillerBob

I understand and agree. By definition age will be an aditional factor in experience. The litter picker role was just an example where experience isn't a factor after doing it for a day. Positions such as that are examples of age discrimination in pay for 18 year olds. But we agree that age discrimination in principle is wrong.

originally posted by: EvillerBob
Any forced income bracket is excessive. It's not just £10, it's the piles of other costs involved - a list which keeps on growing under successive government.

£10 p/h works out to an average salary of £19,500. In order to pay you that £10, the employer can easily be paying £16 p/h or more. £30k a year costs, just to give you £19.5k.

What other costs does the employer have which would increase the hourly rate to £16 ph or £30g ?

originally posted by: TheShippingForecast

£10 per hour is not excessive. Corbyn's right.

Increasing the minimum wage removes financial incentives to train for skilled work.

A registered nurse starts at roughly £21'000 per year. For that they have to do a 3 year degree and take on significant professional responsibility. If the minimum wage was £19'500 where is the incentive for someone to do nursing? You could be a healthcare assistant on minimum wage with no qualifications or responsibility and still deliver patient care.

High minimum wages force employers to push up wages of skilled trades as incentive. This drives up consumer costs as the company needs to make a profit. The material value of currency decreases and you are back to square 1.Your £10 per hour workers are back to the same standard of living as before as the cost of living has gone up in line with wages.

a reply to: PaddyInf

I share your opinion. It is basic economics. I agree with JC about discrimination of pay by age alone. 18-25 year olds. Jobs which take a day to learn. It is wrong.

#JC4PM

originally posted by: PaddyInf

originally posted by: TheShippingForecast

£10 per hour is not excessive. Corbyn's right.

Increasing the minimum wage removes financial incentives to train for skilled work.

A registered nurse starts at roughly £21'000 per year. For that they have to do a 3 year degree and take on significant professional responsibility. If the minimum wage was £19'500 where is the incentive for someone to do nursing? You could be a healthcare assistant on minimum wage with no qualifications or responsibility and still deliver patient care.

High minimum wages force employers to push up wages of skilled trades as incentive. This drives up consumer costs as the company needs to make a profit. The material value of currency decreases and you are back to square 1.Your £10 per hour workers are back to the same standard of living as before as the cost of living has gone up in line with wages.

The historical evidence seems to be that minimum wages are not inflationary. There was a huge amount of scare stories when minimum wage was introduced in the 90s none of which actually came true.

The evidence from the US where minimum wage has been around a lot longer also suggests that the relationship between minimum wage increases and inflation is virtually non existent.

Minimum wages help prevent exploitation at the lower end of the wage spectrum. Personally I don't think it is the best way if doing so but is a hell of a lot better than not having one. I am old enough to remember some of the hourly rates that used to be offered to take advantage of people's desperation.

originally posted by: TheShippingForecast

originally posted by: EvillerBob
Any forced income bracket is excessive. It's not just £10, it's the piles of other costs involved - a list which keeps on growing under successive government.

£10 p/h works out to an average salary of £19,500. In order to pay you that £10, the employer can easily be paying £16 p/h or more. £30k a year costs, just to give you £19.5k.

What other costs does the employer have which would increase the hourly rate to £16 ph or £30g ?

Depends on how you count it. Some will pay more than that, most will probably pay less. Employees attract additional costs, from NICs to pensions, training, equipment, insurance, certifications, other incentives, etc. Depending on the role, allowances for cover (overtime, bringing in temps) need to be considered. The fact that you are bringing in employees tacks on a range of costs that wouldn't be needed otherwise.

Edit: don't forget, things like the cost of payroll management are considered part of the employee cost - because you wouldn't need to pay it if you didn't have employees!

originally posted by: EnlightenedSheep
a reply to: SprocketUK

I lived independently from age 18. How about care leavers who lose support aged 18? Kicked out by social services then work hard as a litter picker. Work just as hard as the 25 yr old. Paid less for being 18. It is wrong. Jeremy Corbyn is right.

I didn't say everyone, but in general, that's how it is and why min wage is set that way.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: McGinty

originally posted by: EvillerBob
...Minimum wage is actually £7.50. If it went to £10 then I'd be paying less people.

And that justifies paying people so little?

If it's that simple then perhaps we should introduce a maximum wage so you wouldn't have to pay fewer people.

How about we introduce a system were people can be paid at a level that reflects their value to the company.

That value would have to be decided by the company and therefore would always favour the company. In terms of wages across the board it leads to a race to the bottom, which is currently the case.

The Execs build their rates, while diminishing those of the workers on the floor.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Understood. I feel sad for the young independent people the discrimination hurts most. The care leavers. The 18 year olds kicked out of home. 18-25 is a long time. Long time to be paid less for being the wrong age.

originally posted by: EnlightenedSheep
a reply to: SprocketUK

Understood. I feel sad for the young independent people the discrimination hurts most. The care leavers. The 18 year olds kicked out of home. 18-25 is a long time. Long time to be paid less for being the wrong age.

That, right there is an issue all of its own.

Our care system for kids is a mess and, to be brutally honest, any party that proposed sorting thst out, really sorting it out, would be guaranteed of my vote and a hell of a lot more, besides.

originally posted by: McGinty

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: McGinty

originally posted by: EvillerBob
...Minimum wage is actually £7.50. If it went to £10 then I'd be paying less people.

And that justifies paying people so little?

If it's that simple then perhaps we should introduce a maximum wage so you wouldn't have to pay fewer people.

How about we introduce a system were people can be paid at a level that reflects their value to the company.

That value would have to be decided by the company and therefore would always favour the company. In terms of wages across the board it leads to a race to the bottom, which is currently the case.

The Execs build their rates, while diminishing those of the workers on the floor.

Maybe the pay ought to be graded as a percentage of what thst person's labour earns for the company? It kind of is, but skewed towards the really big earners at the expense of those who labour.

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: McGinty

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: McGinty

originally posted by: EvillerBob
...Minimum wage is actually £7.50. If it went to £10 then I'd be paying less people.

And that justifies paying people so little?

If it's that simple then perhaps we should introduce a maximum wage so you wouldn't have to pay fewer people.

How about we introduce a system were people can be paid at a level that reflects their value to the company.

That value would have to be decided by the company and therefore would always favour the company. In terms of wages across the board it leads to a race to the bottom, which is currently the case.

The Execs build their rates, while diminishing those of the workers on the floor.

Maybe the pay ought to be graded as a percentage of what thst person's labour earns for the company? It kind of is, but skewed towards the really big earners at the expense of those who labour.

Exactly! Which brings me back to the notion of a maximum wage limit.

Imagine if every job paid the same - whatever you do. Everyone's aspirations - everything they value and want for themselves would change overnight.

Many think it's great to work in the stock market - it's exciting, it gets you rich. The trading floors would empty.

Who wants to work in an office all day when you get paid the same as a road sweep. Hey, road sweep might not seem so bad - out in the fresh air!! Jobs we don't value would become valuable and jobs we 'value' would become toxic. I'd work in a park, but then so would everyone else, probably.

a reply to: EvillerBob

Mm. I appreciate businesses have costs. But much of what you quote the business would have to pay anyway, simply by virtue of hiring employees. Doesn't really matter what their hourly rate of pay is.

And it's a bit ripe to say to an employee that we trained you, heated and lit the building, provided you with tap water, a kettle, a PC and machinery to do your job and a room where you can eat your sandwiches ... so your hourly rate when thats factored in is really 16 quid an hour, rather than the £7.50 which is shown on the top line of your payslip. I doubt that'd get by an Employment Tribunal lol. But I get what you say.

Listen, employers, the government, TU side need to make work pay. Because for many on benefits, especially householders, there's little point in moving from social security to a minimum wage job when you factor in work related travel expenses, the loss of rent/council tax assistance and such like. Often you end up worse off than had you sat on your arse.

I think an increase in the minimum wage could help people move on. But I get what you're saying about career progression after that.j

And back to topic.

The Conservative Party and the political wing of the loyalist terrorists have announced a confidence and supply agreement, meaning Mrs May can get her Queens Speech through.

Good point. I love driving a van, loved working in a micro lab too.
Both jobs psy peanuts.

Best money I earned was as a signalman but I came to despise it.

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: EnlightenedSheep
a reply to: SprocketUK

Understood. I feel sad for the young independent people the discrimination hurts most. The care leavers. The 18 year olds kicked out of home. 18-25 is a long time. Long time to be paid less for being the wrong age.

That, right there is an issue all of its own.

Our care system for kids is a mess and, to be brutally honest, any party that proposed sorting thst out, really sorting it out, would be guaranteed of my vote and a hell of a lot more, besides.

I feel the same. I feel Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon do as well. I feel Theresa May does not. The 18 year old care leaver getting dumped in a private rented flat by their council when they turn 18 probably think the same. The 18 year old council litter picker working as hard as the 25 year old litter picker. Paid less for being 18. It is age discrimination. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I'm confused....have the Cons got the DUP support or not????

Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: angelchemuel

We thought they did last night, when Downing Street issued a statement saying a "confidence and supply" deal had been reached with the DUP. However, they're now saying that statement was issued in error and that negotiations are ongoing ...

Shambles.

a reply to: TheShippingForecast

Ahhh.....so 'error' is the new word for lying?
That's OK then.......carry on!