Why are wages so fucking bad in 2017? They're the same as the 80's/ 90's?

[BaydreamDeliever]

My mum moved to London in the 80's and worked for a high end shop. I've just had a look at the position they are advertising for at the moment, and it's a touch above min wage. My mum was able to afford to live on her wage back then, even though it wasn't big bucks, there is no way I could live on what they are offering today.

Wages are basically the same as years ago if you are in a lot of jobs. And the culture of 'internships' has further fucked everything. I see loads of these paying nothing or paying maybe £50 a day, demanding quite specific software skills. Entry level doesn't seem to mean entry level anymore.

I get that there always must be winners and losers in society as it's structured now, but seriously how can things churn on with workers being paid such shit money? If they do away with tax credits or housing benefit - what then? What will happen? I don't get it and I'm scared thinking of it. I'm educated, have a bit of experience in certain fields but not in any that pay reasonably. There must be millions like me in that same boat.

Yes I started on £40k as a graduate in 2001, and 17 years later it's £48k - and what's happened to houe prices in the SE over 17 years?

I think buying power is an important concept:

What could the £15,000 buy in 1995. How much 'spare ' income would people have?

Tax credits were a good idea, copied from Clintons American system, initially. They were ramped up massively by Brown, circa 2005/6, the hours to qualify were reduced and the monies available were increased so even people earning 48k Gbp could claim.
This bought him the 2007 election.
It will take take a generation to unwind. Lifes and children have been planned around tax credits.
The rest is indeed history.

Same here mscynical

2001 £25,000
2003 £28,000
2006 £28,000
2008 £30,000
2010 £31,000
2016 £30,000

Struggling to find a PA job that is paying more than £30k.

Whilst business offers low wages and employees don't challenge employers and refuse to work, banks will suck up the spare cash. They used to lend it to employees so that they wouldn't challenge their employers, but that's resulted in employers not paying more as time goes on,so banks can't get their loans repaid, so they put more money into the economy but employers just took the spare cash and reported it as profits, because employees carried on working for nothing. Banks are fighting hard to get their loans repaid, retailers are fighting hard to sell their stuff, and noone lowish paid has any spare money to do either to any great effect, but still the businesses bank cash and report profits, then bleat they have no money to pay wages.. it would actually benefit the whole system if more of the 'necessary,' profits were forced to be paid to employees..as this would mean debts could be safer, people could buy stuff and the system would accelerate, so I support employee challenge to employers and/or regulation to either take from profits and feed back into spending via handouts OR the simpler forcing employers to pay appropriately.

Because companies can get away with it.

I researched my career based on medium term future proofing (i.e. can I easily be replaced by AI or a low skilled person, are there enough barriers to entry to make it harder for hordes to easily do what I do?) and I ensure I regularly take professional qualifications. This way I'm more valuable and more protected than a Costa Coffee Barista for example. I have no illusion that my company would pay me less if they could get away it (and it's generally a nice company to work for) but they can't.

Allowing half the world in , at lower wages , fucked it all up

No doubt some will call me a xenophobe or a racist but you know what ? I do not care . Its a fact . They work for peanuts so fuck British born trying to work and improve THEIR Lot .

No doubt some will call me a xenophobe or a racist

Are you?

The demonisation of the unions and society buying into the unions =bad rhetoric really hasnt helped. Successive governments have reduced the powers of unions through legislations that breach international law (there is no real repercussion for this so they get away with it). Employers refusing to recognise unions means that many private sector employees have no one to protect their rights and the laws surrounding striking so complex that collective action is extremely difficult. The government were recently trying to make that even harder for unions. So those in the private sector are turned against those who may have some union protection in the public sector. And so many people have bought into the media rhetoric that unions are there to hurt them that they just don't join you. They're too busy pointing fingers are neighbour's to point the fingers at their employers who don't have the same problems with income that those at the bottom of the wage ladder do.

Shareholders have more power than employees yet it's the employees working hard with little to no job security and absolutely no power in the employer employee dynamic, that makes them their profits and still we blame immigrants or poor people or low educated or anyone but those at the top who have the power to make changes.

No doubt some will call me a xenophobe or a racist but you know what ? I do not care . Its a fact

A fact that you're xenophobic and racist?

When it comes to looking at how things have changed it isn't just wages that are a problem, again talking about retail ( it's the sector I know about) when I first started work shops didn't open on Sundays, when they started to do Sunday trading you got time & a half, you got double time for bank holidays, triple time for Boxing Day and you got a choice. Now it's single time everyday and work or you're out the door. pwople are treated like crap and told they should be grateful for it

No it was NOT copied from Clinton's administration!

"Family Income Supplement was a means-tested benefit for working people with children introduced in Britain in 1970 by the Conservative government of Edward Heath"

FIS was replaced in the 80s with Family Credit.
Working Family Tax Credit replaced FC in 1999, then WFTC and other child-related benefits were amalgamated into a single Tax Credit system in 2003.

I have no idea why the Conservatives don't wish to own the beginnings of this policy: possibly because it was introduced by a 70s Conservative government and they've been busy claiming that the 70s were all Labour's fault.

Saying it's about immigrants is far from the full picture. Jobs are being made redundant by technology and being exported globally. Tech innovations mean companies can operate across multiple sites around the world. They will also have the means to employ people all over the world.

And yes some jobs are replaced by low skilled immigrants but quite frankly if you're competing for jobs with someone who has just rocked up and can barely speak English then you need to have a think about the choices you've made in life as you've had every advantage over them to ensure you're not competing for low or unskilled work (exluding disabilities). If you really can't upskill then focus on quality of work that will always set you apart. For example I know an English builder who's moved to doing more high end jobs were customers are willing to pay extra for exceptional work. He won't have to worry about any Romanians sitting in car parks taking cash in hand for cheap painting jobs.

The other option which many people have had to do for a very long time is to move for work. For example when the Irish economy is flat, the Irish youth will just get up and go where the work is on mass. There is a big reluctance for people to move abroad for work in this country.

The shitty thing is you can battle for 25 years and end up in the same place as if you'd done nothing. It's doing my head in...

Before Family Income Supplement there was nothing for those in work. Low paid people then were properly poor. I never want to return to those days for anyone.

I have told thousands of people I can work at high level..they won't let me.

Where is the magical unicorn land we can move to to be wealthy?

What should 'work' pay?

We all have different needs - a person living in a shared house with no children has different expenditures to a family with children - but if there are a lot of people who can get by on a lower income than others because they have less expenditure, what effect does that have on wages?

And if you supplement the pay of people who have a lower income but have higher expenditures (because of children), what effect does that have on pay?

Massive questions

Many many countries have higher standards of living than ours and many others whilst not having higher standards overall at least still have normal jobs that can pay enough for someone to buy a house.

If prospects are deteriorating here I'd encourage my DC to move to one of them. You wouldn't see me on Wanted Down Under crying about how I'm being abandoned. I'd be helping them pack!

I do think that 2 people with children should be able to buy a house anywhere in the country without needing Government support for income or to get on the housing ladder.

But what about 1 person with a child?
1 person by themselves?

"In the 1990's you would only be on a wage that low if you were on a Youth Training Scheme, or you were an apprentice (like a hairdresser.) Most actual adult jobs (outside London) paid around four to five pounds an hour in the 1990's. Many people I knew at the time (who lived outside London, and were in ordinary jobs, not professional careers,) were on 8 to 12 grand in the 1990's. Admin AND manual labour jobs"

In the mid 90s i was having to apply for £1.50 an hour jobs at the Job Centre. There were full time admin roles that were paying £50 a week. I was forced to apply for it. My rent was £48 a week and no tax credits then for those without kids.

There was sexism too. I was pulled to one side at a signing and made to sign a piece of paper saying i would consider part time work. The men i knew who were signing on at the same time had to do no such thing.

And im not the only one Ive discussed this on other threads before and another MNer posted her wage was £220 a MONTH.

And i kept asking the blokes for a couple of months afterwards i knew who were signing on and they definately had to sign no such thing.

Before i went to Uni (about 97/8 before min wage was brought in) i worked in pubs for £3.50 an hour or as a temp receptionist for £8.50/9 per hour. Now a temp receptionist usually earns NMW as do bar staff.

I'm earning less than I was 4 years ago :( same profession but salaries have stagnated or even gone down. The last job I applied for they told me they received 220 applications for that one position.

In 2009 i was on 38k, now the same job is advertised, with more responsibility, that i am not qualified for anymore for 24k.