I believe that the minimum wage should be enough to enable a working couple to feed and clothe a family of four and keep a roof over their heads.

[Mamarsupial]

I don’t think I am BU for a moment, interested to see how many agree with me.

I don't see how you can calculate it like that?

If my googling is accurate (!), the average house prince in 1960 was about 2.5k, so about three and a bit years' wages at £750 p/a. Today the average house prince is just under 300k. People who could earn that in 3 and a bit years are wealthy.

Completely agree. An employee gives their labour in return for money. That money should be sufficient for them to live a regular adult life to a reasonable standard ie to house, clothe and feed themselves and have sufficient to fund modest leisure activities. Otherwise there is no real point in working.

I think you should just work out how much money that would take, and advocate the government printing that amount and giving it to everyone

Lol. That's what we've been doing since 2008. That's why our productivity is through the floor. What we need now is for people to be earning more money. Not have it handed to them but earn it. And then spend it. Which then generates higher wages. Etc. We're currently in a low wage low productivity spiral and what little people do have is worth less every day now that we've entered hyper inflation.

That's the big picture. The detail is that an employee working full time should expect to be able to support themselves on the wage they bring in.

One issue we have is wages seen to have been kept artificially low. Which is a mix of benefits top ups and an abundance of people without many qualifications.

The economy supply and demand needs to adjust to fix that.

People need incentives to look for better paying jobs, what's the point in looking for a job with more hours, better rates, if all that means your more stressed and your top up benefits are cut?

Then from employers view what's the point in offering better rates if its not really going to attract more people?

The supermarkets seem to be upping their rates and attracting people from other sectors. Even although supermarkets can be antisocial hours. That in turn means other sectors will need to up their rates to attract staff back.

The more people earning full-time wages and contributions in to the system the better. Rather than people earning full-time but still receiving top-up benefits.

I actually think this is a really key point. I think an unintended consequence of minimum wage is that a lot of jobs end up stuck there. I dont have an answer, but i am sure when i just started work that there were more differentials in pay for experience gained within the same role.

Yes, agree. And a single person should also be able to afford to live on min wage. It shouldn’t take two wages to pay the basics. I’m talking housing, utilities, food and transport. When my children leave home and I no longer get tax credits to supplement my income I’m going to struggle to pay basics as a single
person and I earn a little above min wage. I work full time already.

I totally agree with you. The other day my kids saw a sign advertising jobs at a supermarket with the hourly rate, and said ‘wow that’s loads, I’d be rich!’ (They’re young and get £2 a week pocket money). I pointed out that the shopping we’d just bought - and we’re being pretty frugal and careful at the moment - would take them about 6 hours’ work to pay for. And that’s just food - how the heck do you pay for rent/mortgage, council tax, energy bills, other bills, insurance, transport, clothing, replacing the washing machine when it breaks down etc etc? It’s so wrong that people who work really hard in challenging jobs - carers for the elderly and ill, TAs (who often are expected to teach whole classes these days), cleaners dealing with stuff no-one else would get near - are valued so little in what they’re paid. Where‘s the incentive to work hard when you work til you’re exhausted but still can’t pay the bills? How can you enjoy your job and excel at it when you can’t afford to heat your house or ever go on holiday? The wage gap is disgusting - executives paid obscene wages while others in the company are paid a pittance. There’s so much inequality everywhere. Not everyone can work up to the top, or should, because at the end of the day we need skilled carers, shop floor staff etc etc. Of course a family should be able to support themselves if they’re working.

There may be less room for progression, but that’s not due to minimum wage. If there’s less progression I think that is because of company trends to have flatter structures and because of the trend to regard management positions as being for graduates, rather than roles people progressed into from the shop floor. The latter in particular has trapped many of those who enter work from school in lower paid roles.
People have always got trapped in low roles though prior to minimum wage. In the early 90s I had a temporary factory job whilst at uni and one the middle aged women on the factory line told me to get that education as she was earning exactly the same as she was ten years ago ( was £3 an hour I think). No minimum wage = very low paid jobs and often no annual increase in that wage.

It's still up to, not very many people get the full %

Absolutely this, totally agree.

I think you're agreeing with her, someone on minimum wage as he was, could not afford the equivalent lifestyle he had. They could not afford to buy the same house (or any house) or go on holiday or down the pub on one low wage.

The thing about house prices back in the '60s only professionals, people who were salaried, could get a mortgage.

Tradesmen earning good money weren't entertained, as hourly paid or bonus money wasn't guaranteed income. My parents had saved 50% deposit having lived with family after they married but were shown the door, in the late '60s. Sorry your not salaried, your income isn't guaranteed, we can't give you a mortgage. They were eventually able to buy their council house the same as many of their generation, but not before spending 20 odd years renting.

What was the average income in 1960? I don't think it was anything like £750.

Um no. I was alive in the 70s ( which was 50 years ago. The 1950s you reference were 70 years ago).
The programme of council house building cleared the slums and created decent housing for people on low incomes. Cleaners, factory workers, shop workers, those no working.

I'm not agreeing; I'm doubting he was on minimum wage and also pointing out that it's not a meaningful comparison. There's no point in saying 'we all lived well of minimum wage back then' when costs of things were so different.

@Nevermorethis there were tenements in Glasgow still sharing toilets in mid 90s. 🤢 most had been upgraded but those ones hadn't.

Why are you doubting he was on minimum wage? Translated into today's money he was on less than minimum wage. It is comparable - you're missing the point. It's literally the point she's making. A min wage job could cover a family and buy a nice house then. It can't now. It should. Literally the point.

Exactly this^. So, so many jobs are minimum wage. In some large industries eg care, retail, hospitality etc it is the default wage unless in management ( with very few management jobs available). Even some supervisor roles in retail are paid at very little over minimum wage and are not plentiful.

I follow the point she's making. I am saying that I don't think you can simply plug numbers in to a converter and say 'well that must have been less than minimum wage then'.

I agree that a minimum wage job should support a family. Should it buy 'a nice house'? I am not sure about that. I would rather see decent, secure social housing brought back, and decent, ordinary houses to buy (rather than the absurdly tiny newbuilds I've seen, or the newbuild-mansions that are clearly designed for snob value).

Totally agree. High housing costs are a big problem. If these were lower it would be much more realistic for people to live a good life on MW. I think not replacing social housing sold off through right to buy was a huge mistake ( or possibly right to buy in itself)

Have you said what your financial position is OP? I can't see you have.

YANBU

I've just googled and 40 hours a week on NMW is about £19,760 a year.

So nearly £40k really should be enough to sustain an average family.

Sadly though not the case at all. Certainly down here in the south.

And if your role doesn't produce anything you can measure easily?

Except studies show this isn't true

Even the highrs6of earners are not solely motivated by money

They're motivated by the passion for what they do.

At £15 a week (presumably take home) in 1960, he most definitely wasn’t on minimum wage. If we take it as the minimum someone was likely to have been paid by a normal employer for the sort of job that would currently pays minimum wage as obviously there was no official minimum wage.

By way of contrast, as a minimum wage type job, I worked in a bar in 1974 and earned the princely sum of 40p per hour, which mounts up to £16 gross for a 40 hour week. And there was a colossal amount of inflation between 1960 and 1974!

So I’m pretty sure £15 was a good wage in 1960.