Aibu to not want a £15 minimum wage?

[Israisingwagesworthit]

This morning I saw a post saying there are calls for a £15 per hour minimum wage.

I understand fully that the current minimum wage doesn't give people enough to survive on and something needs to change to ensure everyone gets a comfortable living wage, and I support this.

However by pushing up the minimum wage doesn't that just add additional costs for businesses, therefore increase costs to consumers removing any benefit of an increased minimum wage in addition to reducing the disposable income and pay gap of anyone above minimum wage.

Surely this only benefits the government with additional income tax?

Is this the best option in a time of potential 18% inflation, would this not increase it further?

Capitalism is the issue, rather than sharing the profit wealth, CEO's (of all levels of business, small and large) keep the profits for themselves and just raise prices when costs go up.

Am i being unreasonable to assume that in order for the £15ph wage to be successful, companies must accept lower profits rather than increasing prices in line with the wage increase otherwise its just pointless and daminging to all wage earners not just the minimum wage.

Won't the government have to threaten windfall taxes to those who increase prices to maintain profits to make it work and to actually benefit minimum wage earners?

I'll admit I'm a middle earner (£40k) civil servant (so no chance of a payrise anytime soon) so would be financially damaged by a raise in minimum wage if nothing is done to stop the subsequently price increases of products after a minimum pay rise. As a result my view may be biased, but am I wrong?

Midwifery has been proven to be safer with degree educated midwives.

yet there is a shortage of midwives, surely it’s better to have a midwife than not? And if we recruit from overseas di those midwives have the same qualifications? We are seeing mass recruitment from overseas as we don’t have enough of our own nurses. Somehow the new system isn’t working and we will be left without- that can’t be safer

If people spend more money, prices go up.

so with people spending less money atm - why then are prices going up? Can you explain ?

This is more a supply issue so a supply shortage drives global energy prices up and that impacts all parts of the economy

Wage prices going up cause more inflation because businesses put up prices to deal with it

It’s not so much people having more money as they don’t

Although I have wondered why tax cuts are said to cause inflation as same applies - people don’t have more money overall due to energy price rise

Because the job is far more technical and difficult with much more responsibility.

My mum was an SRN, she trained primarily on the wards, her role was patient care, making beds, administering drugs,,, by her own admission, she was the equivalent of an HCA.

Ambulance drivers, picked you off the road and took you to A&E, my best friend died because they had little medical knowledge & didn't realising she had a massive internal bleed.

Modern paramedics are highly trained.

There is also the "chicken and egg" situation that there is simply not enough spare staff to train 1000s of students running around our hospitals.

Why do you think being a AHP is a vocation but training as an accountant or a lawyer etc isn't?

Its this sort of thinking that has got AHPs such low pay rises.

Yes, it would take time before the taxpayer would see any benefits, but I believe we need longer term thinking and more investment in order to address the issues in the NHS.

In the shorter term, I think it would help prospective medical students from less wealthy backgrounds who might be deterred from the field by the prospect of so much debt and concerns about funding for the fifth year etc. I know a couple of outstanding students who abandoned the idea of going into medicine when they realised that they would be in so much more debt afterwards than they would from another degree. Limiting the debt to that of a standard degree for those who choose to stay within the NHS would help to address those fears. And yes, medicine is already competitive enough as it is, but if we want the best doctors, I think we need to make it accessible for people from all backgrounds, which it isn't right now.

As for cost, I assume that you're referring to the university of Buckingham as that's the only private medical school that I'm aware of in the UK? Apologies if there are others that I don't know about. At Buckingham, the fees of £173k do not include living costs, which were included in the original calculation of £200k plus, and also in the £64k contributed by the student. Once you add the living costs in, the figure of £200k+ seems about right. The University of Buckingham is not for profit.

There are always different ways of calculating these figures, and the full fact estimate is just one attempt. My point was not so much about an exact figure but rather about the basic fact that the substantial tuition fees paid by students are not sufficient to cover the total cost of training a doctor. On that point, I think we can agree?

As for the "why medics" question, I don't think it should only be medics, and I would apply the same principle to others who do expensive professional training at the taxpayer's expense. So, for example, I would like to see teachers who choose to work in private schools paying back the costs of their teacher training. Why should the state subsidise the professional qualifications of people who want to work in the private sector?

Most companies are not quoted, so the "share holders" are the directors.

Putins Russia is not socialist by any stretch of the imagination, Oligarchs didn't exist pre 1991.

Sure very wealthy Soviet party members existed but it was our greed in the capitalist west that enabled the extremely rich Russian criminals to invest & live all over the World, esp in London.

Poor teachers on minium wage? At least they have a pension and good holidsys. My minium wage doesn't have any benefits.

I am on minium wage. Those in jobs moaning about it please be mindful that some of you in public sector jobs. nurses, teachers do have good pensions, holiday allowance. I have NONE of these. Yoi are not equal to all minium wage employees

If you don't get holidays they are breaking the law.

The good news is that there's a huge shortage across the country in many public sector roles. As its so peachy I trust you'll be coming to join us in the land of honey?

There wouldn't be any long term benefits for the NHS as most doctors in private practice work for the NHS anyway. It would probably result in many fewer if any people wanting to do medicine as who would want to sign a contract which means they can never change their job for the rest of their life even if they hated it?

You must be joking if you think students from a less wealthy backgrounds would be more likely to sign up if it meant that they could end up paying hundreds of thousands back if they find they hate the job and want to do something else. Only someone from a very wealthy background would want to sign up to that.

Not too sure about your cost calculations. Yes, University of Buckingham charge £173k but they will be making a profit so actual cost must be less. Why would you add living costs? The students pay for that themselves so why would they owe it to the tax payer?

I doubt teacher training is particularly expensive and given that teachers work in schools during their training year, I suspect they think the government owes them, not the other way around. They don't usually earn more in the private sector by the public sector by the way.

So you think that anyone who does a degree or professional qualification has to work in the public sector for the rest of their lives or pay back the full cost of their degree or qualification (if it is more than tuition fees) regardless of their wage in the private sector?

@Branleuse has hit the nail on the head.

“Am i being unreasonable to assume that in order for the £15ph wage to be successful, companies must accept lower profits rather than increasing prices in line with the wage increase otherwise its just pointless and daminging to all wage earners not just the minimum wage.”

@Israisingwagesworthit
what you say above is spot on.

No offence, but your thread is a bit long-winded, perhaps confusing.

I accidentally voted Yabu until I saw the above paragraph and then got your point.

YADNBU !!

Why do you think the university of Buckingham is making a profit? It clearly states on its website that it is not-for-profit. Are you suggesting that this is a lie? And I'd so, who do you think those hidden profits are going to?

Re living costs...I don't know why they were originally included in the government estimate and the full fact one. It doesn't make much difference either way, though, because the living costs are covered by the students. Consequently, if you take them out, it makes no difference to the contribution from the taxpayer, it merely reduces the proportion that is covered by the student.

Having worked with talented teenagers from less privileged backgrounds for many years, I am absolutely not joking when I say that many would avoid going into medicine because of fears about the huge amount of debt, and that these fears would be substially allayed if the amount of debt would be substantially reduced for doctors who stayed within the NHS. Not all medical students aspire to go into private practice in any case. If they find that they hate medicine and want to do something else, then I'm not suggesting that they should have to pay back the fees. Everyone should be able to change career if they so wish, and sometimes they might have no choice. However, if they wish to use their tax-payer funded qualifications to work in the private sector, then I think it's perfectly reasonable for them to pay it back. The private sector can presumably account for these costs in the salaries that they pay, and the cost can be passed on to private patients.

Re teachers...of course, it doesn't cost as much and so there would be less to repay overall. As we are so short of teachers at present, I would waive the cost of teacher training entirely for those who want to work in the state sector, and only make them pay back if they subsequently move to a private school. It doesn't make any difference to me how much they are paid tbh. It's about the principle of publicly funded professional qualifications being used to benefit the public sector, and letting the private sector cover the costs of training its own staff.

If the minimum wage was only for totally unqualified unskilled jobs that might be fair enough, but the vast majority of MW work requires some skill, qualification or training. What if every employer requirement made the hourly wage higher?
Eg. no qualifications or skills = NLW,
DBS =NLW + 50p/hr
Good interpersonal skills +50p/hr
Database skills +50p/hr
GCSE English +50p/hr
GCSE maths +50p/hr
Food safety cert +50p/hr
Till/equipment training +50p/hr
H&S at work training +50p/hr
Software training +50p/hr
Each year of relevant experience required +50p/hr
Flexibility of shifts =10% pay for standby hours not worked.

It would quickly add up, and employers who currently have job requirements for minimum wage roles would have to decide what standard they're willing to drop to pay the least possible. You can't ask for more than minimum skill for minimum wage.

Not-for-profit means that they are not paying owners or shareholders the profits and the money they make will be invested back in the business. It doesn't mean that they are only charging exact costs.

Regarding teenagers from less privileged backgrounds, I am not suggesting that you were joking about the fact that “many would avoid going into medicine because of fears about the huge amount of debt” Quite the opposite as you are the one suggesting that they would want to risk debt by signing up to pay the costs back should they change their minds and not want to be doctors. That will put off everybody (apart from the very wealthy) let alone the underprivileged. That is why I asked if you were joking.

When you say “if they wish to use their tax-payer funded qualifications to work in the private sector”, you do realise that you're talking about any business that is not public sector? This would include higher education, pharmaceutical industry, journalism, research.

I don't think that there would be anything to repay for teachers. Given that their professional training involves them working in schools, they would probably argue that it was the other way around and they are owed money. Regardless, why should only teachers and doctors pay back for their education if they don’t work in the public sector for the rest of their lives? What about other professionals? Most don't work in the public sector. In fact public sector jobs don't even exist for many professionals so presumably you think they should have to pay the full cost of their qualifications in the first place.

So, for example, I would like to see teachers who choose to work in private schools paying back the costs of their teacher training. Why should the state subsidise the professional qualifications of people who want to work in the private sector

But it doesn't. All those people pay taxes and pay back the costs of their education manifold during their careers, wherever they work. That's why I've never understood the whole tuition fee thing. We need teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants, marketers, business people to keep life and the economy going. All those people earn well and pay tax as well as contributing practically.

What I would like to see is the taxpayer contributing to more of the cost of training up doctors, with the proviso that those doctors will remain in the NHS

The majority do stay in the NHS. The fact that they do private work on the side is irrelevant, except insofar as they earn extra money on which they pay tax. Win win (they wouldn't be working in the NHS at the times they do the private work, it's extra).

Dentistry is different of course as they do leave the NHS altogether.

Yabu
Working people should not be in poverty.
There needs to be a rethink about the whole working culture. Working for possibly 50 of your best years with a few weeks off and then have bad health or drop dead is not exactly tempting anymore. Add a minimum wage job and you are unlikely to have any significant assets to show for all that effort.
It should be made much easier to work part time with decent income, three/ four day week, flexible and more holidays, everyone should be able to eat well and heat their homes minimum. No one should have to be sacrificing time with family, well being, lifestyle etc for a job anymore.
The problem is too much greed at the top, I'm not a socialist by any stretch of the imagination but the ridiculous pay and bonuses are getting out of hand.

@badhappening you're right, I'm very bad at articulating myself 😂

Yes, and I specifically mentioned dentists at the outset. For those doctors who remain in the NHS - the majority, based on what you have said - there would be no impact, other than the fact that they would repay a smaller proportion of their student debt. For those who choose to leave the NHS, there would be a penalty.

And yes, I understand where you are coming from with regards to university tuition fees, and if we could get rid of them altogether, with appropriate taxation (of both corporations and individuals) to pay for it, then I would welcome that. I don't think the government will ever row back on that one now though.

What I am specifically talking about is the professional training over and above the standard degree costs that enables people to work in certain professions. And yes, teachers pay the same amount of tax in the private sector, so on an individual level, they are contributing. However, private schools are benefitting from the heavy lifting that is done by the state sector in training these new teachers up. And yes, they work in schools while they are training, but it is my understanding from the school where I am a governor that working with trainees and ECTs requires a huge amount of time and input from their more experienced teachers which private schools are not having to contribute.

@dianthus101 , I'm not sure if you are wilfully misrepresenting what I'm saying or just misreading. I have not said anywhere that people should have to repay thousands should they change their minds and no longer be doctors. In fact, I have explicitly stated that this is not what I am saying.

I am saying that, should they choose to continue working as doctors but in the private sector rather than the NHS, it is reasonable to expect them to repay a proportionate amount of their training costs. In reality, I would anticipate the burden of this extra cost falling on the private health care providers rather than on individuals, as they would need to factor the additional costs into what they pay their staff in order to make it attractive for them to work in the private sector. I see no reason why the private sector shouldn't contribute towards the cost of training doctors that it is going to employ.

I am not willfully misrepresenting what you were saying at all. You have effectively said that people should have to repay thousands should they change their minds and no longer be doctors because you said that they would have to pay it back if they “used their qualifications”. Medical qualifications are not just useful for treating patients so you are saying that they can't do a wide variety of jobs unless they pay back the costs of their education. You aren't saying any other professional has to do that if they don't work in the public sector apart from teachers.

Why do you think being a AHP is a vocation but training as an accountant or a lawyer etc isn't?

where did I write that those were my thoughts? That’s an assumption you made

so your mum as a nurse thinks her job is now done by others without qualifications- so lower pay

this has deliberately been manoeuvred so that those on lower pay are doing the job of a nurse - it’s a con

what would have happened to your mate in the road if no ambulance turned up?

@dianthus101 I don't have any issue with anyone who does both- my biggest concern is the number who do dentistry but never work in NHS practices

Maybe there's better ways of doing this- cover off all costs or rent/rates for those that do at least 60% NHS practice maybe?? There does have to be some action on this though as people are genuinely not going to dentist when they need too once over 18 and it's causing big issues