To think talk of people having to find better paid jobs unrealistic?

[vinoinveritas]

I have heard a lot of politicians and people generally in the media etc talk about how people need to find better paid jobs to cope with the rising cost of living. Am I alone in finding this frankly unreasonable and unrealistic ? Some of us have got limited means to retrain! Training costs time and money. I am currently working full time in a public sector role where there has been a pay freeze for 7 years!! My family commitments mean I can’t just get any job with evening hours etc as I wouldn’t be able to pay the childcare.

I look at Job ads and just do not see many highly paid roles advertised, particularly in my area (rural midlands). My father told me I chose the wrong sector and should find a job in finance. He knows I’m rubbish with numbers (just passed GCSE maths with a grade C) and moving job sector in your 40’s-50’s isn’t straightforward. I’d probably have to take a pay cut initially which would put me back at square one!

Yep.

Blaming people for being poor has been going on for thousands of years. Is particularly ironic/insulting given public sector pay freezes.

Yanbu.
Someone has to do the essential low paid jobs. So what the government is essentially saying is that they are happy for the people doing these jobs to live in poverty.

And who will they be supervising? You know, because people who do the work aren’t worthy of a proper wage and everyone should just work their way up to be a supervisor. So, when everyone who works in fast food has worked their way up to be a manager of McDonald’s so they can afford to live (as if that even increases your wage dramatically) who will they be managing?

So... who will stack supermarket shelves, clean hospital floors, work in childcare & nursing homes, pull pints, deliver takeaways and online shopping orders, serve lattes in coffee shops and pick vegetables from the fields if all those people leave their jobs for a better-paid one?

And where are all these magic well-paid jobs coming from?

Honestly, some of these politicians really are fuckwits.

The 'go and find a better paid job' argument simply can't work if everyone acts on it. If every carer/supermarket shelf stacker/factory worker/teaching assistant/road sweeper etc either retrained or moved in to management who exactly would do their jobs? I think society would function with a fewer bankers etc far more easily than with fewer carers etc. I think this also shows how pay and value to society are not aligned. Not to mention the fact that there simply are not enough vacancies for higher paid jobs for everyone who is currently low paid to get one- even if they did retrain. All we would get is a higher expected skill/education level for each job (in the same way that loads of jobs now ask for graduates when a few generations ago it would have just been school leavers with loads of on the job training). I suppose that would work for the wealthy few though- they'd be able to get even better skilled staff for the same low pay

But where do you think that “deserve” factors into this, and who gets to set what any one person “deserves”?

Wages are not set by some sort of “Deserve Ombudsman.”

But you know that it’s not the case that everyone will work their way up. Very few seem to want to bother, so for the few who do it’s generally not so hard.

Arguing from implausible hypotheticals like this is foolish.

We all probably have different ideas of what remuneration different jobs “deserve “ . I suppose the salary a job attracts is related to the value the government of the day and the majority in a society attach to it. There isn’t a formal deserve ombudsman of course but we have somehow determined that some jobs don’t deserve to fund a basic standard of living. This government seem to feel that all public service jobs aren’t worth much.

But the government don’t set wages for most jobs in the country.

They set a minimum wage, and that’s probably as far as they should ever get involved.

It is non-sensical because we need people to do lower paid jobs.

Cleaners, carers, cooks, hospital porters, classroom assistants, retails staff, delivery drivers and so on do essential jobs and society can't function without them.

If everyone buggers off to find a ''better paid job'' who exactly is going to perform all these roles?

We certainly don't need more bankers, lawyers or hedge funds managers...

These Tory governments are truly pathetic.

Im probably going to be yelled at by some for waving my 'universal basic income' flag again but.. it would solve these problems.

With a UBI, we'd all have enough to live on without working.

Therefore, to attract workers, employers would need to pay enough to make the job worth doing. They would need to provide benefits above and beyond 'you get to survive', people would need to WANT to work for them.

This would mean that the balance shifts dramatically, those shitty jobs that pay bugger all, but we absolutely depend on, would HAVE to offer higher pay, they would only attract those who really WANT to do them - it doesn't matter what the job is, employees who WANT to be there and are choosing to be there rather than forced to be there, do a better job!

No one would be starving or in debt whilst working, employers would streamline their employees there'd be no more set ups with loads of people faffing about doing bugger all in reality (yep they exist, jobs for the sake of jobs, horribly organised companies with 10 people doing the work of 3 etc)..

We would also have many more people available to volunteer for traditional volunteer roles.

If everyone buggers off to find a ''better paid job'' who exactly is going to perform all these roles?

The wages will have to rise then.

But you said that’s what everyone should do. They should just work their way up to be supervisors - and by the way managers and supervisors in retail are hardly brilliantly paid. So when they all work their way up so they can afford a basic standard of living, who will they manage? Who will do the shit work for shit money?

but the government don’t set wages for jobs Well, not directly but they have a hand in funding and in wage levels for public sector jobs. For some jobs it’s supply and demand but government legislates for minimum/ living wage.

I believe if you are working full time (whatever the job) you should earn enough to live, meaning you can pay all of the your bills and have something spare after that for savings/treats. Not everyone in lower paid job would be capable of getting a higher paid job, be able to afford to pay for training or the drop in pay (a junior role in what will eventually be a high paying career can pay horribly) or actually want to do something else. And if everyone gets a higher paid job, who is looking after our loved ones in care homes, serving us in the supermarket and cleaning our toilets? These roles are essential to keep the nation running.

I think you are being a bit unreasonable, it's not always about retraining. Sometimes people get a bit stuck - then when something forces a change (threat of redundancy/ getting passed over for promotion/ getting pissed off with a coworker) they do quite often find a similar role in a company that pays better.

This isn't true. They subsidise wages with benefits.

Yes, but that’s not them setting wages.

I agree with you that we probably shouldn’t subsidise healthy working people’s wages with benefits, but that’s a different issue.

It's just the new get on yer bike isn't it?

"Yes, but that’s not them setting wages."

Not directly, but it allows companies to get away with paying very little.

"But you know that it’s not the case that everyone will work their way up. Very few seem to want to bother, so for the few who do it’s generally not so hard."

What's it got to do with being 'bothered'.
In those sorts of jobs it's usually a pyramid so there are always more people at the bottom so by definition, most of them cannot move up. When I did shop/cafe work becoming a supervisor had nothing to do with being 'bothered' anyway if by that you mean working hard or something. Those jobs went to people who were naturally very good at what they did (not through any particular effort) and to very confident people with leader-type personalities. It wasn't anything you could work hard to achieve. The jobs don't go to those who do extra hours or particular courses. They go to those the bosses like or who have a certain aptitude.

Also, as others have mentioned a checkout supervisor still doesn't earn that much and it's not a sure way out of poverty.

"when something forces a change (threat of redundancy/ getting passed over for promotion/ getting pissed off with a coworker) they do quite often find a similar role in a company that pays better."

Interesting because one of the reasons older people are sometimes made redundant is that they are often paid more than they are really worth to the organisation eg in organisations where you get pay rises for length of services they can often be replaced by younger workers who are just as competent, or at least whom the management think are just as competent.
An older person starting from scratch elsewhere might have a hard time just finding a job let alone being paid more in a place where their experience is not as relevant.
Many older workers were traditionally put on long term sickness benefits ater redundance for this reason.

It's a ridiculous notion.
Most people can't afford to leave their employment to retrain, and most don't have the time or the finances to retrain due to working, a catch 22 scenario.
Plus, if we didn't have people doing the donkey work, then there would be no one earning the money to line their company owners / directors pockets.
Instead of telling people to retrain for better jobs, or get on their bikes for work ( Norman Tebbit ) they should be looking at paying people a wage that they can actually live on without having to claim top up benefits, which not all who are working can claim anyway.
It must be lovely to live in a world with such simplistic views.

It's often a MN answer
Can you get a better paid job?
Can you maximise your earnings?

It's on a par with
Move to a cheaper area

Like they are quick fixes. Most people have jobs that fit their lives and skill set. To improve your skill set often involves time or money or both. If you're working ft around a family there isn't always spare money or time to train for something else .

People always say there are jobs there that people aren't willing to do. Ive seen several warehouse jobs with shift patterns starting at eg 2am. Warehouses generally aren't in residential areas and often not near public transport. So before you even think about how the shifts will work with your family or other commitments you need own transport....so will exclude a lot of people looking for work.

This.

These jobs aren't created just to keep people busy, they are absolutely essential.

Not much point having surgeons if no one will clean the hospital / operating room and instruments.