Do the Greens actually have a clue? Policy announcements

[Imdunfer]

How many jobs do these idiots want to lose? Do they even know that Whitbread laid off 3,800 hospitality workers this week?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdjp338ydlgo

Maybe the open borders policy that would see an influx of 4.4 million new immigrants, and the disastrous effect that would have on our groaning health care system and housing stock?

They aren’t the Green Party of old.

You're such a try hard aren't you.

The issue isn't the minimum wage jobs. There will be far fewer just above minimum wage jobs, so where you can go up a pay grade, have higher pay and more responsibility. Businesses will not be able to afford to increase everyone's wages by that much so they will concertina into minimum wage. Why employ a young person and train them up, spending time and effort you don't have because you are short staffed ( can't afford to hire staff) rather than employing an older/retired person topping up their pension? Not to mention that businesses that pay minimum wage run on very tight margins. If the minimum wage goes up, prices go up, so the minimum wage doesn't go as far, they have to get government top ups. Which is exactly what has happened.

As opposed to the similar amount Boris and Sunak let in, which regular Tory posters on here certainly never criticised.....

But yes, the Greens immigration policy, atm, is nuts.

I strongly expect it will change.

No, you're right. It was a disastrous policy that has had huge effects on our infrastructure. I'm not a dyed in the wool Tory, they are the least worst option at the moment - right now, for me. If there were a better option, they'd have my vote

Gross profit figures are utterly meaningless without taking into account turnover and investment.

Tesco make 4.5% net profit. In many industries that wouldn't be considered enough to warrant keeping the business running.

I wasn't on here at the time.

I'd just like to state that I was, and remain, fucking furious at the levels of immigration under the Tories since Boris took over.

It was an utter betrayal of Tory voters, who voted for control over numbers.

Well, Tesco profit margin pre Covid used to be around 2%, its now more than doubled, forecourt petrol margins have also doubled.

4.5 on their turn-over is massive, hence the 15% increase in dividend.

My point however, is not a commentary on the retail food sector but to show that across many businesses, its the tax payer supporting these profits via working benefits.

Its unsustainable & also means people are working hard to stay poor.

Fair enough but plenty stayed v quiet.

Yes and why they shouldn't be back in Govt again, it proves once and for all that what they say leading up to an election, is not what they will do or even try to do.

Remember that whilst Badenoch likes to pretend she leads a new party and previous Tory Govt's were nothing to do with her, she held ministerial posts for over 5 years, under Boris, Truss and Sunak, during the time immigration reached levels of insanity.

Alexandra companies don't run that way. 4.5% is not a lot of profit. It only sounds big in money terms because their turnover is so absolutely enormous. They employ 340,000 staff. They turn over 73 thousand million pounds, £73,000,000,000.

In many business sectors, a part of the business generating only 4.5% profit would be sold off or shut down so that the business can concentrate its effort and its money into activities of higher value. Just like a Whitbread has done with Fayre and Square and Beefeater.

Forecourt petrol profits have doubled? Over a few years yes they have doubled from a percentage that most business would consider too low, to normal 8-9%. Most petrol forecourt are kept in profit by their shop.

Profits are only a problem if you think that the public sector can continue to generate the same profit or sell at a lower cost as a not for profit if they take that business over. Repeated experience shows that it can't. The UKs biggest provider of hip replacements makes a profit on them even though they give the patients a lot better service and are paid exactly the same money to do one as an NHS trust is. They can do that because they have better control of costs.

And that's before you start to consider what else profit achieves as an allocator of resources and a driver of both efficiency and innovation.

But your posts make it clear that you are ideally opposed to profit and won't even educate yourself to its purpose and benefits. It's just a dirty word to people like you.

Tesco profit margin pre Covid used to be around 2%,

Tesco profit margin in the second half of 2019, the year before Covid erupted, was 4%. It had a short period of lean years before that which it worked to recover from as a 2% margin was simply unsustainable.

Housing is the main issue as wages are topped up to afford housing.

spot on.

What this and many other poster don't understand is that they want these companies to be profitable - their pensions are effectively shares of Tescos and the likes. They think it's some mysterious ultra rich who profiteer. Yes, some are, but majority of large listed companies shares are held by pension funds.

Yep, better put them on the dole. For life

Businesses will not be able to support it

@Plummagic

There are three options:

• you force higher NMW, means you force extra cost on businesses, and simultaneously you reduce taxes. Both on businesses and individuals. With higher NMW you stop UC apart from those truly really badly disabled.
• you don't increase costs on businesses and continue topping up

you do state housebuilding to reduce housing costs to ensure that NMW workers can have a decent standard of living. And reduce UC

What you propose is to keep high taxes and increase business costs via NMW, no reduction of welfare bill - that's pretty much what's happening now and it's killing economy completely

I'm not even sure how that is meant to be an insult, tbh. Perhaps you could explain that for me...trying hard to what? Make an informed decision about the Greens and forming an opinion on that basis? Trying hard to.. talk on a chat forum? 🤷🏼‍♀️

I'm not sure if they have a clue, and as others said, this is more marketing than anything which - even if they did know better - is how political parties operate. Personally, I'd rather they focus on reducing cost of living so wages don't need to keep going up. They can't go up forever.

However, I wouldn't use Whitbread as any indicator of the hospitality industry as a whole at the moment. They had a shift a few years ago and little about them has to do with trying to remain in hospitality for the long term.

Their profits being down has little to do with the staff wages, and more to do with poor choices focused on wringing as much money out of the business with as little input as possible. They've continued to to raise prices well above value while there are other options, selling off some restaurants that haven't been maintained and so don't get a good price even if they were big names and changed some restaurants to hotel guests only which has kicked out local regulars in some areas, and now they're speeding up selling off many of their hotels to then rent them back.

They're making poor choice after poor choice, and the poorly paid staff are taking the hit - they've cut hours for cleaning staff to the bone and having their receptionists cover the difference alongside also being part of the restaurant side, which people have noticed in the decline in standards. That's why they're losing business, including reports that some long-term business contracts which made them a lot are being cancelled as businesses find other options - they're no longer value for money, in some places they're the most expensive option. They're also losing staff almost as quickly as Travelodge after the recent scandal and they've nosedived from an employer who regularly got accolades for being a great employer to one people tell others to avoid. Those at the top have been running things into the ground, and it seems fairly intentional at this point.

Why do people insist that every job should pay a living wage? What is wrong with young people living with their parents having a job that pays less than what's needed to move out and live independently?

Many jobs on or very close to minimum wage are jobs you want people with experience. As others mentioned, carers of the vulnerable are often on minimum wage. Teaching Assistants - often on or near minimum wage. Many of the staff in our court buildings - on or near minimum wage. There are so many others.

These and many like them have been at the bottom of pay longer than we've had minimum wage, and many of them - like Whitbread's hotel receptionists - are pushed to do more, often well out of their remit, because it's cheaper to squeeze the lowest paid staff to do as much as possible and give them BS 'appreciation' or 'Reward and Recognition' now and then. I've seen job adverts for primary Level 3 TAs at minimum wage that had them teaching classes and leading on an area of the curriculum, even the young adults who are Level 3 qualified and desperate for work know that's BS. And as others have said, this attitude affects most of the people up the chain until we get to the one's making these choices for their own benefit.

Also, minimum wage does not equal young people living a home, and those under 21 already have a lower minimum wage. There is also the issue that not all young people have parents to live with. As a pp mentioned, we can choose to support them through government benefits to live instead, but a lot of people loudly say that's wrong. The other option is businesses pay more. The option that lowers the cost of living is great long-term thinking, fully support that, but we'll need to cover the gap one of the two ways while we get there. This government - as have previous ones - can try both government support relying on increasing taxes and businesses paying more, and it's not working because as I said, we can't have these things go up forever, but like Whitbread execs, many politicians act in the short term based on the benefits to themselves and those that back them, rather than voters or those working for them.

Many jobs on or very close to minimum wage are jobs you want people with experience. As others mentioned, carers of the vulnerable are often on minimum wage. Teaching Assistants - often on or near minimum wage. Many of the staff in our court buildings - on or near minimum wage. There are so many others.

Those aren't the jobs I was talking about.

The hospitality sector alone has lost 80,000 jobs in the last year.

sectors with hourly paid workers (retail, hospitality, leisure) have the same or lower payroll budget, it just buys fewer hours so workers are no better off.

this would be a disaster

This is my generation’s song.

If you’re old enough to know it then you should be old enough to have seen how the economy has changed. Starting with the 400% increase in housing over 2 years while wages did not move at the turn of the millennium, because of buy to let and globalised capital aka foreign investment. Because of the growth of corruption.

It is not the wages, it’s not the hierarchy. It’s the cost of living and the housing particularly.

Its the greed of the super rich.

All you will achieve by continuously raising minimum wage and telescoping more and more skilled work into it is to further increase - further increase because it’s started already, it started back then - a two tier division of society: the poor who have to work and the rich who inherit the earth.

New Labour betrayed us and now the Greens are doing so too. In the case of the Greens they are betraying all women too.

And if you’re not old enough to know it when it first came out then start listening. You seem to be unaware of how much has already been folded into minimum wage. Yet mentioning NHS wages, they start on band 2 now. No band 1. Can you guess why that is?