Time to scrap the minimum wage

[Bonzo77]

You misunderstand. Scrapping the minimum wage would not mean everyone would have to work for low wages - those with skills that are both in demand and scarce (such as me!) would receive higher wages. The scarcity of the skills would decide the rate of pay, as it does in other countries.

 

The point is that if you're unskilled, if you haven't bothered to work hard to gain decent qualifications and therefore are not very much in demand, why should companies be forced to pay you an artificially-inflated wage which puts their own survival at risk?

 

Another sweeping statement from GordonBennet! Ha Ha Ha!!

 

The minimum wage is £5.80 for god sake! You make it sound like it's a lot of money!

 

I would love to know why you think you are in demand, does your employer know that you spend all day on this forum? I doubt it! You will be glad of the minimum wage once you get fired & start looking for a new job!....... It doesn't matter what you are skilled in at the moment, every job going is in demand & most people applying are over qualified.

[1ofTheseDays]

A race to the bottom, brilliant.

 

No, the minimum wage is fit for purpose, let the low paid jobs move overseas, the minimum wage didn't cause unemployment, which means that those jobs were replaced with higher paid ones.

 

No they weren't

[Organgrinder]

You misunderstand. Scrapping the minimum wage would not mean everyone would have to work for low wages - those with skills that are both in demand and scarce (such as me!) would receive higher wages. The scarcity of the skills would decide the rate of pay, as it does in other countries.

 

The point is that if you're unskilled, if you haven't bothered to work hard to gain decent qualifications and therefore are not very much in demand, why should companies be forced to pay you an artificially-inflated wage which puts their own survival at risk?

 

A typical "I'm all right Jack - bugger you" reply!

 

Just remember " You can't control what happens to you" (your words)

The quicker, the better.

[epiphany]

The point is though that you are free to sign or not sign that contract. If you agree to it then what basis do you have for complaining that it's not fair.

 

What business does government have in interfering in the labour market to force people and businesses into altering their private contracts?

And, since some companies do offer profit related bonuses, is there any evidence to suggest that these contribute in some 'better' way to the economy?

 

I don't want the state to force these conditions, I want them to encourage them, i.e. through tax breaks. I understand that employees appear to sign contracts at their own free will, but in reality there is little option, since most business leaders (the capitalists, if you will) are brought up to understand that to obtain the most profit possible, labour should not be considered a legitimate form of capital to be rewarded in direct proportion to the growth of the company's wealth and assets. Therefore, that ideology becomes the dominant template for employment contracts.

 

There have been some small studies that suggest profit-sharing plans for employees are associated with higher company productivity, but I would like to see more comprehensive studies. On a mass scale, with the appropriate education, it may be very beneficial in the long term for both employers and employees.

 

Companies generally sell the produce of their employee's labour, it's only a temporary asset. But I never said that they don't produce something, I said that they don't build up something, which strikes me as a phrase that is very different to building something.

 

It's not temporary because the fruits of that product become part of the future capital and assets of the company. There's no way around it. If you contribute labour or cash towards a company, you become part of its very existence, and that contribution gets compounded into the determination of the operation as a whole. A holistic employer can see this.

 

So the employee has a safety net (although not that safe if they have to pay back to the company in times of a loss), but the people who actually invest money instead of just exchanging labour for it, where's their safety net.

 

The employer is a citizen is s/he not? Well then s/he would receive the citizen's dividend like everyone else.

 

Maybe every employee should have to buy into a company, I don't doubt that people would then be shouting about how unfair it was though to have to find the necessary amount. Investing in the company somehow is the only way they gain a right to a share in the profit beyond what they choose to negotiate for in their contract.

 

I thought this whole debate was about whether labour is considered a form of capital contribution in itself, so obviously I disagree that cash investment is the only way to gain legitimate stakeholdership.

[carly83]

 

The point is that if you're unskilled, if you haven't bothered to work hard to gain decent qualifications and therefore are not very much in demand, why should companies be forced to pay you an artificially-inflated wage which puts their own survival at risk?

 

people join the forces with no skills, get paid minimum wage to project jokers like you, so you think its right that they risk there own life for pittence why earn a fortune doing what sitting at a desk? and you want to impliment something that means new recruits could be paid even less than the current one!

[supersonic]

It is possible to live on 160 pounds per week - but it depends on how you live and who you are. It was a few years ago, but I used to do exactly that. Took home about 600 per month. I rented a room in a house for 200. Bills were about 100. That left 300 for food and everything else. I had no car, no other outgoings, no family, but for some it can be done. And I was quite happy too.

[dell12]

I'm struggling to follow the logic of this!

 

There needs to be a certain limits defined (financial or otherwise) to ensure that those at the bottom do not suffer. Assuming a person was working 9-5 for five days a week as a cleaner, earning £3 and hour, they would still be unable to prove for their family through no fault of their own. Assuming they were not clever enough to learn new skills why should they be forced to live in poverty when a hedge fund manager earns £1m+ for the same hours, doing a job which can be described as socially useless?

[andyofborg]

I have wondered about this too.

As a small business myself to afford to pay someone for a 40 hour week at nearly £6 an hour would be nearly £240 and all the admin costs associated with that.I would have to raise the prices of the services that I offer and that( many of my customers are in statutory sector) would mean that their costs to train staff would go up. This would mean that if they didnt have the increase in their budget then they would not take up the training. If they just had enough then savings would have to be made elsewhere.

However, if I could undertake someone to do a piece of work for me and pay them a set fee then I would be able to keep the costs down.

It is all swings and roundabouts I suppose, but that begs the question how would the employee that I took on to do the work be able to afford to live on an adhocbasis?

I guess it would be just like being self employed really:huh:

 

what you are really looking for is either a person who is willing to work part time for whatever reason, possibly someone who is retired, or find somone who is self employed who would see you as a customer rather than an employer and would have other customers to make up their income

[espadrille]

what you are really looking for is either a person who is willing to work part time for whatever reason, possibly someone who is retired, or find somone who is self employed who would see you as a customer rather than an employer and would have other customers to make up their income

 

yes, what I would like to be able to do eventually is pay a part time employee who also has Asperger Syndrome to come along with me to the sessions to share their experiences of their life with Asperger Syndrome. This would make for a more interesting slant than getting just one persons perspective. However to do that there is no mistaking that I would have to put up the cost of the course and at the moment the market would not allow that.

I did do that at a conference last year and it worked as I had a lot of attendees but the market wouldn't require that on a regular basis.

So as a small business we do have to look at demand and market conditions before we decide to take on an employee and whether we could afford to pay them.This should of course apply in all sectors but this hasn't applied over the last decade.

[Cyclone]

So it is ok for you to complain that having a minimum wage is unfair

It would be. But I never said that, nor do I believe it.

(something you agree to by employing people) but if an employee dares say it is not fair there is something wrong?

No, anyones free to say anything, except for a few hate speech related things.

 

Oh and btw, it is the same safety net - if your business goes under and you have no money you are entitled to claim exactly the same as anyone else.

If the business goes under you've actually lost something though, unlike the employee's who loose nothing. They have their contracts terminated, they go and find another job, they're none the worse off. You however, saved for years, invested it and have lost your lifes savings.

But then no good businessman would invest all their money into a single company anyway, it would be a limited company and you wouldn't put all your money in, leaving yourself nothing.

Probably not, but if it's a small business then it probably will be a large portion of the founders wealth.

 

Besides which, if you go into business, you are choosing to take that risk, whereas an employee is not choosing to take a risk with their job, they are taking a job.

Spot on. They are not choosing to take that risk, and so they are not rewarded for it. Instead they choose to exchange a fixed amount of labour for a fixed reward. All perfectly equitable.