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!

If all those people move into better paid jobs, who is going to do the badly paid jobs, that very often are those necessary to keep society running (or keep those in better paid jobs comfortable)?

I think some of the rhetoric, eg Jake Berry, was meant as 'We want to make it possible for people to get better jobs' as their answer to the cost of living crisis but it isn't received that way. Hardly surprising when you think about the last 20 years' underfunding of education and the fact that vital jobs such as carers are woefully underpaid.

I hate that view. Not everyone can be an astronaut or a surgeon. Simply put many of us have a ceiling limit of our income prospects because of our IQ, life experiences/trauma or coping abilities. We can't all just try harder or be more positive and end up in a well paid job. Some can, many do but there are millions of people who are doing the best they can with the resources they have available.

Couldn't agree more.

The low age economy we have now is a direct result of the austerity imposed since 2010. The tories have done nothing to promote growth in the last decade, they should have been booted out long ago.

i hate how disrespectful people are towards lower paid roles: many of these are crucial to our society ; carers, cleaners, supermarket workers, hospital porters and nursing assistants. I also know many people of NMW who actually enjoy their jobs and dont find them "soul destroying"...

if everyone just found a better paid job, our society would have real issues

YANBU, always thought that was such a stupid ''solution'' offered up to posters struggling.

In my case, perhaps I could find a better paid job but I'd be relinquishing the very valuable job security I have now.

No way will I do that, that would make my life a lot worse, if I lost my job in a few years I'd be in my mid 50s. Every time before when I lost my job I eventually eventually managed to get another one. I don't know if just determination on my part would be enough to overcome the ageism in the workplace and recruitment fields.

Haven't read the whole thread but I think a village or ten is missing their idiots with a strategy like this because even if it were possible, we all woke up tomorrow morning in 150k per month jobs, who will then do the lower paid ones? Who teaches our kids? Collects our rubbish? What the hell do I do without my care assistants who've saved my nursing registration more than once?!

The idea that Universal credit subsidises wages is wrong. Employers pay exactly the same amount for the same work regardless of whether or not the workers are claiming Universal Credit. They pay what they have to pay to get workers, and (minimum wage considerations aside) what they have to pay is enough to make them more attractive than other employers.

If a worker can't get more from a different employer than their own is paying them, they aren't being underpaid.

If anything, government intervention causes wages to be higher than they should be, in that without the minimum wage, some people would be paid less.

The problem is not that employers are paying less than people are worth, the problem is that what people are worth isn't enough for them to live on. Universal Credit is supposed to make up the difference.

"If a worker can't get more from a different employer than their own is paying them, they aren't being underpaid."

If a worker cannot live independently on a full time wage, then they are underpaid. Everyone who works full time should be able to pay their housing costs, bills and food and have a little left over.

Are most of us not in the best paid job we can be? I know to a certain extent you choose your career path and that determines your earning potential. But in terms of the qualifications and experience we hold, I would say most of the people I know are as advanced in their careers as they can be. I mean, it’s not like we have spent our careers turning down opportunities for development and saying no to promotions!
It seems only those in very privileged positions could easily “get a job that pays more”, by taking time out of work to study or retrain.

It is entirely possible to retrain out of a low wage job into a senior well paid post if you want to do it, especially if you're in the public sector. I've done it myself as a single parent. It wasn't easy by any stretch but it was the only way I could change my situation so I gritted my teeth and got on with it.

I appreciate its not something everyone can do though. But there are ways out if you're prepared to make sacrifices.

If a worker cannot live independently on a full time wage, then they are underpaid. Everyone who works full time should be able to pay their housing costs, bills and food and have a little left over.

No, there should not be a right to have your labour valued at what you need to live a decent life. Overriding market prices damages the economy. The less damaging way to make make sure people have enough money, without destroying some of the price information that allows maximum economic efficiency, is through top-up benefits.

The idea that governments rather than markets should set prices for things is what made the Soviet Union the success it is today!

If a worker cannot live independently on a full time wage, then they are underpaid. Everyone who works full time should be able to pay their housing costs, bills and food and have a little left over.

No, there should not be a right to have your labour valued at what you need to live a decent life. Overriding market prices damages the economy. The less damaging way to make make sure people have enough money, without destroying some of the price information that allows maximum economic efficiency, is through top-up benefits.

The idea that governments rather than markets should set prices for things is what made the Soviet Union the success it is today!

If a worker cannot live independently on a full time wage, then they are underpaid. Everyone who works full time should be able to pay their housing costs, bills and food and have a little left over.

No, there should not be a right to have your labour valued at what you need to live a decent life. Overriding market prices damages the economy. The less damaging way to make make sure people have enough money, without destroying some of the price information that allows maximum economic efficiency, is through top-up benefits.

The idea that governments rather than markets should set prices for things is what made the Soviet Union the success it is today!

If a worker cannot live independently on a full time wage, then they are underpaid. Everyone who works full time should be able to pay their housing costs, bills and food and have a little left over.

No, there should not be a right to have your labour valued at what you need to live a decent life. Overriding market prices damages the economy. The less damaging way to make make sure people have enough money, without destroying some of the price information that allows maximum economic efficiency, is through top-up benefits.

The idea that governments rather than markets should set prices for things is what made the Soviet Union the success it is today!

Now I've read more of the thread I couldn't agree more with the general sentiment that we need these lower paid posts and that these workers need the pay, the respect and support to carry out their jobs. We'd collapse as a society without them!

If a worker cannot live independently on a full time wage, then they are underpaid. Everyone who works full time should be able to pay their housing costs, bills and food and have a little left over.

No, there should not be a right to have your labour valued at what you need to live a decent life. Overriding market prices damages the economy. The less damaging way to make make sure people have enough money, without destroying some of the price information that allows maximum economic efficiency, is through top-up benefits.

The idea that governments rather than markets should set prices for things is what made the Soviet Union the success it is today!

The multiple posts weren't my fault, that was Mumsnet crashing every time I pressed post, and not telling me I had actually posted.

Which it's still doing!

In answer to the person saying it’s not the government who set wages. They indirectly set public sector wages via their pay review boards and by setting the budget from which wages are paid. With regards to the comments about workers in the private sector being worth less than a wage they can live on and therefore government subsidising them. Does restricting trade union activity affect this- no collective bargaining power? Are we going back into history when owners of businesses paid as little as they could, conditions were poor and workers had no rights?

Yanbu. I'm lone parent and haven't dared change my job for over a decade as I'll put myself the first in the queue for job losses and lose parental leave rights for a while.
Had to drop out of OU as I had a non sleeping child for a few years.
I will hopefully be able to look at different roles or more hours when both kids have finished school.

Well done. And I mean that sincerely.
But my issue with this kind of anecdote is that whilst you were able to “grit your teeth and get on with it”, I assume you didn’t achieve it overnight. The getting a better paid job is being offered as the solution to the cost of living crisis people are experiencing now. No amount of gritting your teeth and getting on with retraining out of a low paid job is going to help people with their rent/mortgage, utility and food bills this winter.

Usually free market types oppose working tax credit?

But it sounds like you advocate expanding WTC to bridge the increasing gap between wages and living costs.

I'm a team leader in a supermarket. I get 30p an hour more than the rest of my team and have a hell of a lot of responsibility. Only reason I accepted the job was to up my contract hours from 10 to 28. No other reason.

I could train up as a manager. But tbh I'm 53 and can't be arsed. I like my department and colleagues. They make coming to work worth it. Managers spend most of their time chasing shoplifters and running around making the store look unrealistically good when the regional manager visits. I don't want to do it.

I live near the coast in the south west. Looking at jobs they are either care or hospitality or retail. Don't fancy the first two and not a lot of point swopping supermarkets so I'll stay where I am.

You're absolutely right and I think the people who parrot about finding better jobs know this too but because they don't have a solution they reflect the issue as a personal failure rather than a systemic one.