Government now considering cutting or freezing the minimum wage.

(42 Posts)
Darkesteyes Tue 02-Apr-13 01:43:55

I remember DH saying the bastards would do this at some point when they got into power 3 years ago.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9965039/Minimum-wage-could-be-frozen-or-cut-if-it-starts-to-cost-jobs-or-damage-economy-Government-suggests.html

ttosca Fri 12-Apr-13 15:24:50

Profits Just Hit Another All-Time High, Wages Just Hit Another All-Time Low

In case you need more confirmation that the US economy is out of balance, here are three charts for you.

1) Corporate profit margins just hit another all-time high. Companies are making more per dollar of sales than they ever have before. (And some people are still saying that companies are suffering from "too much regulation" and "too many taxes." Maybe little companies are, but big ones certainly aren't. What they're suffering from is a myopic obsession with short-term profits at the expense of long-term value creation).

www.businessinsider.com/profits-at-high-wages-at-low-2013-4

---

Don't think the UK economy is much different. The UK tends to ape whatever the US does in any case.

manicinsomniac Brazil Fri 12-Apr-13 03:21:32

I don't agree with it being cut (obviously!) but I would argue that it isn't a livable wage. In comparison to benefits anyway, I know it can't be easy to live on minimum wage.

But someone upthread asked how their son's gf was supposed to live on £3.68 an hour. Well, assuming that her job is fulltime she'll be earning £147 a week and, presumably, getting WTC as well?

One of my best friends gets JSA and that is it. She's on £70 a week. No CTC as no kids, no HB as she bought a house before she was made redundant, no savings as she's been redundant too long, no support from a partner or parents, no nothing. That is all she has and she is desperate beyond belief.

£70 is not a livable amount of money. £150ish or more, even after tax, I would argue is actually livable, though not easy.

applecrumbleandcream Fri 12-Apr-13 02:22:29

The recent statistic which absolutely horrifies and disgusts me is that 6.1 million people are in working households in poverty. Excluding pensioners, this is higher than the 5.1 million people in workless households in poverty.

And this lot are planning even more cuts to make even more families worse off. .... this government and all its supporters should hang their heads in shame angryangry

ttosca Tue 09-Apr-13 16:12:47

This list of 42 benefit changes, compiled by the the charity Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), gives a clear sense of the vast scale and complexity of the Coalition's welfare reform programme, which is aimed at saving £18bn a year from the social security budget by 2015.

The government's reform of welfare started in 2010. But the six come into effect on or after 1 April include some of the biggest and most high profile cuts, such as the Bedroom Tax, the household welfare cap, and the abolition of council tax benefit.

These new reforms will take £2.3bn a year out of the pockets of some of Britain's poorest households in 2013-14 alone. According to CPAG:

The £2.3 billion figure represents how much is cut from support for how income households compared to last year (2012/13). However, households have already faced significant cuts since 2010/11. So in 2013/14 the government will be spending £16.5bn less on social security and tax credits than it was in 2010/11. The majority of these cuts impact on the finances of low income families.

www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/apr/01/every-welfare-cut-listed

ttosca Mon 08-Apr-13 21:54:13

'nice'guy-

> Please clarify. Was it right-winger 'like myself' who were arguing that it would cause job losses or are you implying that employers, the CBI and the BoE are right wing?

lol. What do you think? Do you think the CBI and BoE are left-wing? Have you ever heard the CBI argue for workers rights? For union rights?
You both share the same free-market ideology, and are therefore both right wing.

> It's not irrelevant at all. Most families will be worse off this year not as a result of the NMW being too low (which is what we're talking about here) but as a result of the economic problems brought about by decades of debt. No doubt you will now do what you usually do and refute that by linking selective graphs and left leaning articles saying it's all a conspiracy by the rich.

No, most families will be worse off, not because the NMW is too low, but because of the deliberate economic policies of this government which has chosen to exploit the financial crisis to implement their ideology and dismantle the welfare state.

Whether you choose to remain ignorant is your problem. You're still arguing for bloodletting after Osborne's policies have taken us into a double-dip and nearly triple-dip recession, and one of the worst performing economies (in terms of growth) in europe.

niceguy2 Mon 08-Apr-13 20:09:37

>>In other words, it was set low to begin with, because right-wingers like yourself argued (without evidence) that it would cause job loses. It didn't.<<

>>Employers and their lobbying organisation, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), were very
concerned about job losses, and the Bank of England was worried about the potential effect on inflation<<

Please clarify. Was it right-winger 'like myself' who were arguing that it would cause job losses or are you implying that employers, the CBI and the BoE are right wing?

>>Irrelevant if you give with one hand and take more with the other. Most families will be worse off this tax year, regardless of the raise in personal allowance.<<

It's not irrelevant at all. Most families will be worse off this year not as a result of the NMW being too low (which is what we're talking about here) but as a result of the economic problems brought about by decades of debt. No doubt you will now do what you usually do and refute that by linking selective graphs and left leaning articles saying it's all a conspiracy by the rich.

DisorganisednotDysfunctional Mon 08-Apr-13 19:28:17

Once again, you're wrong about everything you post and on the wrong side of history

Oh, I do enjoy a properly referenced, well-researched rebutal, ttosca! Answer that and stay fashionable. "nice" guy.

ttosca Mon 08-Apr-13 18:47:05

'nice'guy-

> I disagree with the idea that you can wave a legislative magic wand and solve our problems by the introduction of a 'living wage'

What is it with you and 'magic wands'?

> The exact same arguments were used to justify the minimum wage and now that apparently isn't enough.

This is not true for the US:

"Even if the minimum wage kept up with inflation since it peaked in real value in the late 1960s, low-wage workers should be earning a minimum of $10.52 an hour, according to the study."

As for the UK:

"The initial rate was set at a modest level of £3.60 per hour, reflecting a feeling that it was best to start low and evaluate its effects rather than run the risk of setting it too high. Employers and their lobbying organisation, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), were very
concerned about job losses, and the Bank of England was worried about the potential effect on inflation.

From the beginning, the Low Pay Commission took an evidence-based
approach, commissioning research on the impact on employment and other outcomes. All the initial studies failed to find any adverse effect of the minimum wage on employment. As a result, in subsequent years, the rate was raised faster than average earnings, and coverage was extended to younger workers. Metcalf (2008) and Brown (2009) provide excellent overviews of the research."

cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/cp290.pdf

---
In other words, it was set low to begin with, because right-wingers like yourself argued (without evidence) that it would cause job loses. It didn't.

> As I posted in another thread, the NMW has been raised far in excess of inflation since it was introduced. The personal tax free allowance has been raised to £10k.

Irrelevant if you give with one hand and take more with the other. Most families will be worse off this tax year, regardless of the raise in personal allowance.

> I don't see a single shred of evidence that a 'living wage' will make any difference whatsoever to people's living conditions in the long term

You mean apart from paying them enough to pay for living costs, as determined by the CPI or RPI?

> but it will definitely put employers off from employing more people. Which is something we desperately need.

Evidence-free assertion - just like those who argued against the minimum wage, health and safety laws, anti-descrimination laws:

https://lh3.ggpht.com/-t1QS1wLpdAg/To2iquzUC2I/AAAAAAAACJg/gTt5aOr-VqU/s1600/Brief+History+of+Corporate+Whining.jpg

Once again, you're wrong about everything you post and on the wrong side of history.

Darkesteyes Mon 08-Apr-13 18:39:31

A friend's daughter works in a dress shop. She has to buy current (non-sale) clothes for work at full price: £90 spent before she can take a penny home. I won't use that chain any more

Disorganised can you PM me who this is please so i can do the same.

Darkesteyes Mon 08-Apr-13 18:38:02

niceguy Homebase have 21 people on workfare. Many employers arent providing paid jobs NOW because they can get them for free.

niceguy2 Mon 08-Apr-13 16:39:30

I disagree with the idea that you can wave a legislative magic wand and solve our problems by the introduction of a 'living wage'

The exact same arguments were used to justify the minimum wage and now that apparently isn't enough.

As I posted in another thread, the NMW has been raised far in excess of inflation since it was introduced. The personal tax free allowance has been raised to £10k.

I don't see a single shred of evidence that a 'living wage' will make any difference whatsoever to people's living conditions in the long term but it will definitely put employers off from employing more people. Which is something we desperately need.

DisorganisednotDysfunctional Mon 08-Apr-13 16:19:40

This is just wrong. It's already been demonstrated that the minimum wage is not enough on which to support a single adult. Hence the campaign for a living wage.

I have a friend who's a carer. She's so practical, kind and cheerful I'd be thrilled if someone I loved was being cared for by her. She drives from home to home, giving half an hour here, 15 minutes there: toiletting, tablets, company. Her job is important, she's in people's houses, caring for the vulnerable. We need to know that a person in that role is honest, hygienic, observant of changes in her clients: this is surely not minimum wage stuff?

She not only gets just the minimum wage, but she is only paid for the time she's with her clients. She may have 6 calls in a day, but the time when she's driving isn't paid at all. She may do 2 hours unpaid a shift.

A friend's daughter works in a dress shop. She has to buy current (non-sale) clothes for work at full price: £90 spent before she can take a penny home. I won't use that chain any more.

My son's 17 y.o. gf starts a job this week at £3.68 an hour. How can anyone hope to live on that? It makes me want to cry.

This is no way to boost the economy. This government's objectives are not pro-business, or pro-UK -- they're ideological and I don't trust them an inch. We're being pushed into a 3rd world economy. Polarised between poor unskilled, and the super rich, with an ever smaller middle class desperately hanging on.

I think I'm going to join a political party: Labour or Lib Dem -- and fight like fuck to make a difference.

cammpax Sat 06-Apr-13 00:51:04

hi

it is tru the country going to pot, the rich will be richer and poor poorer, its true all these cutbacks, no one will have any money to buy anything and more businneses will go as no profit. but that's conservative for you.
the one thing labour did was make the nhs and schools better I think and now there all down hill argh its so hard at mo, also charities and the churches have been complaining about things how ther is and will be more child poverty.

dotnet Thu 04-Apr-13 16:55:48

Callous, shabby, I'm all right Jack philosophy. The minimum wage is just about enough, I suppose, for someone to scrape by on in the short term. Any problems, like repairs needing doing, school outings needing to be paid for, and you're miserable because it's all just so bloody hard. Minimum wage is already NOT a living wage - that's what the Living Wage Campaign is all about.
The firm I work for made a big song and dance a couple of years ago, about our cleaner's pay increase (' We are pleased to tell you that your hourly rate has increased...') What they didn't mention was that they were taking credit for paying her a little more when they'd have been breaking the law if they didn't do so. They'd been obliged to comply with the uprating of minimum wage!
A few nasty Tory employers did a fair bit of bleating before the min. wage was introduced, I seem to remember. As an earlier poster said, the reality is, the Tories DON'T want to make work 'pay' in any real sense. They would love to go back to the victorian values of rickets, private medicine (survival of the fittest and luckiest), and tugging the forelock to one's superiors. Bastards.

Iggly Tue 02-Apr-13 21:17:44

Anyone who thinks this a good idea is living in a lala land.

Lets continue to sacrifice the poor shall we?

What exactly are people supposed to do if they don't earn enough to live? Ridiculous, really ridiculous.

NiceTabard Tue 02-Apr-13 21:13:15

torygraph also says min wage already frozen for under 21s (they slipped that one past people it seems, first I heard of it anyway)

NiceTabard Tue 02-Apr-13 21:11:53

No 10 have not ruled out a freeze according to torygraph

Freeze is a cut over time (quite a short time) due to inflation

Anifrangapani Tue 02-Apr-13 11:09:30

You don't understand civil service speak. That means that we are giving ourselves a reason to ignore the rpi increases that were previously used to calculate the min wage increases.

niceguy2 Tue 02-Apr-13 10:15:25

Has anyone actually read the details of what the 'change' has been?

"It has told the Low Pay Commission, which sets the minimum wage, that it must formally consider its impact on “employment and the economy”, before agreeing future increases."

So now it's terms of reference include:

"the understood and accepted goal to raise the wages of the lowest paid without damaging employment or the economy"

I'd have thought that is sensible and I am surprised that it wasn't part of the original remit. You can't help the lowest paid by raising the minimum wage to the point that it damages the economy. That helps noone. So having that as a goal seems eminently sensible to me.

The implication that this may lead to a freeze in the minimum wage is stupid. Every day they do not raise the minimum wage can be interpreted as a 'freeze'.

A cut is merely theoretical and about as likely to happen as them finding Lord Lucan.

Forgive me ...

I don't really understand. The article was just saying that the commission (who sets the minimum wage) has been asked to have their frame of reference changed to include the impact that an increas in wages has on the economy.

This COULD lead to a freeze in the recommended minimum wage.

ParsingFancy Tue 02-Apr-13 10:00:06

you will need even more benefits to survive

See, that's the misunderstanding. I don't think people surviving particularly bothers them.

Eg, the changes to Incapacity Benefit/ESA actually designed a group of people to be destitute - too well for ESA, too ill for JSA or a meaningful amount of work. What's the plan for them? Er...

They really don't care.

And "they" includes Labour, who set all this in motion.

headlesslambrini Italy Tue 02-Apr-13 09:53:34

I agree that Labour doesn't seem to be interested in doing anything, makes me wonder if they are taking a longer term view - forget getting in this time round, as it seems like too much hard work, we will put more effort in for 2020 as there should be more money around.

I vote at every election and drag DH and DC's along as well. DC's are only 14 and 11 but it's important that they understand that they need to vote when they are old enough. DH isn't really bothered about voting but I remind him that his father fought for this as well as others and we go to make sure that it wasn't done in vain. DH always asks who is he voting for when he walks through the door and I am always more than happy to tell advise him.

ThePathanKhansAmnesiac Tue 02-Apr-13 09:51:26

If they get in again, work houses will be back, " Community enterprise settlements" where the poor can take patenting classes (run by a nice tory backed private co.), learn to give back to the community by doing manual jobs council were once responsible for.

Our kids can learn basic literacy and maths, but beyond that they,ve no need for education, the community settlements will help them break the cycle of 68 generations of "fecklessness".

Shrode if Scotland go, we are fucked.
If Scotland go, I,m going with them.

AmberLeaf Tue 02-Apr-13 09:45:44

That's reassuring notdavidtennant.

usualsuspect Tue 02-Apr-13 09:40:30

This government needs to make its mind up.

They bang on about how work pays, get off benefits and find a job.

Then this? where work clearly won't pay and you will need even more benefits to survive.

What the fuck?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now