Page 3 | Why the Tories are bastards

breadandbutterfly · 2011-10-02T12:06:54+00:00

Came across this today whilst researching something else - may explain a lot why George Osborne just doesn't 'get' the problems with his ideas - may also explain some of the attitudes of some of our fellow posters. :) [[http://www.economist.com/node/16690659]]

PeachyWhoCannotType · 03/10/2011 14:27

Mr Pants I cannot see that someone who can do a job is not worth £3.68; if they cannot do that they should be supported into education (bye bye EMA) or to deal with the issues affecting their ability to cope.

Many (I know not all) of the people in the groups who find it hardest to find work or hold down a job are those who have been declared by ESA / ATOS as able to do SOME form of work, but what employer in this climate will give a job to someone likely to need time off / medical support / adaptations when another 359 people applied for the same work? Forcing those who do not have any real saleable abilities into work by removing their right to state help (and as a professional in the field I am seeing people with quite marked ASD. LD, long term health issues in this category) floods the job market whilst causing stress and insecurity to the vulnerable.

OTOH I don't support doubling NMW either; I know it would work against my own boys who happen to have SN. Living wage yes, otherwise the state just pays top ups and if wages drop resulting in lower tax yields that becomes a ridiculous circle, but that has to be balanced with the many small businesses such as the one owned by DH that would like to take on people and accept that people deserve a living wage (otherwise what are we saying... they don't deserve a roof or food? that the state has to pay people to work? what?) but simply can't afford massive wage rises.

Sensible, people focussed but sustainable growth is the key. A reasonable NMW plays a part in that.

MrPants · 03/10/2011 14:00

Adamschic

You are quite right about the different tiers of NMW. I don't see how this changes the argument though.

For clarification, there are some aged 16-17 who aren't 'worth' £3.68 p/h. There are some 18-20 year olds not 'worth' £4.98p/h and there are plenty of people aged 21 or over that aren't 'worth' £6.08p/h.

I'm sure I don't need to say it, but the numbers above don't take into account the employers contribution to National Insurance, company insurance, H&S compliance etc, so they are hardly the full picture.

It will be even worse should the government enact the EU legislation making it more difficult for a company to get rid of (i.e. sack) unproductive workers. If that legislation goes through you can look forward to a total collapse in unskilled school leavers ever finding work.

CogitoErgoSometimes · 03/10/2011 12:33

B&B... I think expecting benefits to be London Weighted is never going to happen. If income doesn't support living in a particular area or a particular size home then it will force people to move to a different area or a smaller home. If the job can only be done in one location, that should prompt employees to either insist on higher wages or find a job that is more location-flexible.

If that process was applied and there was a gradual exodus away from the overcrowded, overpriced SE, many employers would have difficulty attracting employees and would either relocate their operation to somewhere cheaper or be forced to raise their wages. The BBC is a good example. Gradually moving out to cities like Cardiff and Salford and selling off their London base. I'm not sure if there is a deliberate 'population relocation' policy in government, but, if not, it may be a very welcome unforeseen consequence

adamschic · 03/10/2011 12:06

MrPants, err 16-21 year olds have a lower minimum wage rate already.

adamschic · 03/10/2011 12:00

B&B, no house prices here are higher than average but wages lower, cost of living a bit less than London but higher than other major cities. Surely with only one wage earner there wouldnt be childcare? I think the whole C B debate will only adversley affect a few borderline cases. Many will be earning alot over the limit and know that they don't really need it. I think they will be looking at a transitional year if they even introduce it, which I doubt they will. Anyway that's a different thread.

MrPants · 03/10/2011 11:23

Funnily enough, there are some people out there whose labour just isn't worth £6.08 per hour. They are usually the young and poorly educated urban types who have considerable literacy and numeracy problems, no track record of being able to get out of bed in the morning and no 'marketable skills' worthy of the name. In short they are in the market, alongside millions of others just like themselves, with half of Eastern Europe and those that already currently do our minimum wage jobs.

If these people could make themselves more attractive to potential employees by being competitive on price (through their wages) they might actually have a chance of getting a job in the first place. Once in a job, they can establish a track record and apply for better jobs. (I suspect most people who entered the workplace before 1998 did exactly this - my first job paid £1.80 an hour back in 1993, the second paid £3.90 and before long I was earning decent money).

Of course, if this theory is right, we could expect to see higher levels of unemployment amongst the young and the inexperienced. Anyone want to wager which demographic group pays the price for the minimum wage? Bingo - the 16 - 24 year old age group make up 40% of all those claiming unemployment benefits despite many of that demographic group still being in FE or HE.

So it isn't the Tories being bastards by cutting allowing the minimum wage to fall by the wayside, the minimum wage is just another example of the road to hell being paved with good intentions. It was a nice idea, it's just a shame it doesn't work in practice.

How the minimum wage prices the young and inexperienced out of the market

DamselWithADulcimer · 03/10/2011 11:15

Did I mention the Wail, crazynanna? No, I thought not. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Original poster

breadandbutterfly · 03/10/2011 10:58

adamschic - I don't know where you live, so quite possibly you live in a part of the country where wages are lower but the cost of living is correspondingly lower too.

Your theory that those who are HRT payers are all comfortably off just doesn't apply to those who live - by necessity - down south, in commuting distance to London. For example - my OH's job is London dependent - it could not be done anywhere outside of commuting distance to London. And he's hardly unusual in that. If you look at the cost of housing a family in the south, and transport to work, that eats up a huge amount of salary for all those in that situation; ignoring the obvious fact that AS IT'S TAXED AT A HIGHER RATE, THEY GET LESS OF THE (SMALL) BIT OVER THE HRT THRESHOLD ANYWAY.

According to the tax calculator, someone on 43K takes home £2629/month. OK so far. Start by taking off at least about £1250 of that ie almost 50% on rent and transport to work (I'm assuming on that salary you couldn't afford to buy a family home anywhee near London, unless you were lucky enough to have bought years ago). That wouldn't get you a palace in a posh area or indeed in London itself at all - we're talking a long commute. So nearly 50% gone on housing and essential transport costs already. Add in bills, food - let's hope you don't have any childcare costs because that could eat up the majority of your left-over pay. Obviously, you don';t want holidays or own a car, or ever have any major repairs/replacement costs eg let's say your PC you need for work breaks down. Or someone gets sick.

According to recent figures:

"Rising prices left the average UK family with just £162 of weekly disposable income ? 7.9% less than this time last year."

www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/sep/27/households-record-fall-disposable-income?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

So these figures make clear that the average family has around £650/month left after paying for accomodation, transport, bills and food. (And that that amount is itself exceptionally low by recent standards.)

But on the figures quoted above, I'd be very surprised if the example family budget quoted above will allow for this. Certainly not if they have any childcare costs, debts or any other unexpected expenditure. DESPITE being supposedly in the top 10%, according to you. Certainly, £600 a month to cover all bills, childcare, and food for a family of 4+ doesn't seem overly generous to me; maybe you succesfully feed your family on beans 7 days a week, I don't know.

So maybe living costs are lower in your area, adamschic. But I would be careful of extrapolating from that to the conclusion that as a result, everyone else in the UK is just ticketyboo, or lying.

OP posts:

crazynanna · 03/10/2011 10:33

Why not the Mirror Damsel? Or do you think the Wail is more "intelligent"?

adamschic · 03/10/2011 10:31

B&B, because where I live, only a very small % of people earn over the HRT allowance. Isn't it about top 10% of UK earners? which seems wrong judging by the amount of people complaining about CB on the other thread so mumsnet must be disproportionate to 'everyday families'. It's not affecting everyday families but a very small % of well off families.

Ttosca, don't let them take the p--s out of your fire and passion, someone has to have it.

Blueberties · 03/10/2011 10:29

"because my experience has been that people who have dragged themselves up by their boot-straps are more likely to expect others to do the same rather than less."

yes there is truth in this I think

DamselWithADulcimer · 03/10/2011 10:29

Am I having a funny turn, or is someone seriously referring us to the Daily Mirror website for intelligent political comment?

DamselWithADulcimer · 03/10/2011 10:28

Oh God, not again. Yet more MN Tory-bashing. Yawn.

crazynanna · 03/10/2011 10:28

Doh...my link thingy's not working...sorry will have to C&P

www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/10/05/david-cameron-would-allow-minimum-wage-to-die-out-115875-20775693/

crazynanna · 03/10/2011 10:26

David Cameron would allow minimum wage to die out - mirror.co.uk

crazynanna · 03/10/2011 10:26

Adamschic...re your comments on Minimum wage
Check this out....

David Cameron would allow minimum wage to die out - mirror.co.uk

Original poster

breadandbutterfly · 03/10/2011 10:22

@adamschic :

"CB affects everyday families does it? ROFL. "

Eh? Why are you ROFL at families who won't be able to afford essentials if the cuts are introduced? Why is that amusing?

OP posts:

CogitoErgoSometimes · 03/10/2011 06:34

Pay Commisssion Report April 2011 is cautiously positive about the minimum wage and compliments the coalition on keeping the LPC in place, but this paragraph about its negative impact on the employment prospects of young people is interesting

^The research we commissioned for this report continued to show
that, in general, the minimum wage has affected earnings but has had no robust or statistically significantly adverse effects on employment.^ However, it did find some evidence to suggest that young people may have been adversely affected by the minimum wage.

ttosca · 03/10/2011 00:42

crazynanna · 03/10/2011 00:36

You frigging tell 'em mate! The fuckers'

claig · 03/10/2011 00:34

That's one way of putting it.

ttosca · 03/10/2011 00:34

lol. I'm maddddd... and I'm not gonna take it anymore!

crazynanna · 03/10/2011 00:33

What can I say...the man's a bag of passion.

claig · 03/10/2011 00:31

'No Claig...he sounds real pissed off to me tonight.'

Exactly, so no change there.

DioneTheDiabolist · 03/10/2011 00:29

One of my worries about the current government is: How many of them attended Boarding School from primary age? Is it proportionate to the population of the country at large?

If not, then they are deficient in knowing what matters to citizens and representing the needs of the populace.