The British Politics Thread - The Bear and Badger

poprock

Yossarian wrote:

Why are the harms caused by low wages not treated the same way?

Because they don’t directly and personally affect the boomer buying themselves a Mercedes.

Yossarian

Fair. I suppose the question should have started “why should…”

LivDiv

I see we are into the shit car analogies section of the debate.

1.
Car £20,000.
Car Battery £100.
Car battery as percentage of cost of car 0.5%, 50% increase adds 0.25% to cost of car.

Labour averages 20-35% of operating costs.
50% increase is 10%-17.5% increase in costs.

Its not a perfect sum but thats is because the original analogy is apples and oranges to begin with.

2.
Car companies are massive and generate huge profits that could absorb the cost of a battery.
Car companies have competition but are for the most large enough to dictate the market to set prices within a range.

Small businesses do not return as much profit in relation to turn over for the most part.
Small businesses cannot dictate markets and prices, they are already under pressure from larger companies who can.

Bye bye small business. Hello even more power to big business.
That is not going to lead to a more equal society.

RedDave2

Yossarian wrote:

This thing about not every business can afford higher wages, let’s rephrase that as not every manufacturer can afford to build a car braking system that doesn’t fail 50% of the time, or a battery that doesn’t explode after a gentle knock, or to properly dispose of its toxic waste. In that situation, do we say “ah well, what’s to be done?” or do we say “tough shit, sort it out or find another line of work”?

Why are the harms caused by low wages not treated the same way?

Its a very good way to look at it. I think its about the ability to past the cost down to the end user. Generally consumers accept certain things at certain prices. The more safety regulations on a product or service, generally the higher the price should go.

The biggest difference id guess is that additional safety procedures are usually very scalable. Take putting a metal detector into a prodcution line. Large initial outlay but thats the main part of it done and its an investment that wont walk away. You own it, its capital. Thats not the same with an employee. As i said, wage costs are the most constant cost to a business. Every week or month etc. In this regard they arent the same thing. But its a good way to look at it.

Yossarian

LivDiv wrote:

I see we are into the shit car analogies section of the debate.

The post wasn’t about car manufacturing, I used a brake system as one potential example in three unrelated examples about times when we don’t allow “it’s too expensive” as an excuse.

RedDave2

Ultimately I feel the problem is coming down to making things affordable for the masses. If we want everyone to have a solid wage, we have to expect just about everything to go up in price accordingly. Yes, savings can defo be made at the top for some business but for the smaller business owners, they wont have the same wiggle room.

For shits and giggles, I just adjusted my companies payrole for last week to see the impact if we increased everyone up to €15 per hour. Anyone who was that or above I left as is, in reality I think you would need to bump them up by some amount. It added 60% to the cost of doing business. My only options to make this work would be to increase the price of what we sell and back of napkin calculations indicate an increase of 50% would be just about workable (our average Spend per Head is €30 so we would now need €45 roughly)

However, if everyone else follows suit, I can expect all my costs to increase similarly including the price of ingredients. This I imagine is where the real trap is for all of us. Most of my suppliers are small artisan scale. There's one or two big boys who could keep their costs a bit lower but I use 4 butchers and I dont think any of them could keep their prices down if wages scaled up.

Other items would also increase - its been estimated that an American produced Iphone would hit a price tag of $2000 and thats not taking into account a wage increase.

LivDiv

So basically a total collapse of the economy.

RedDave2

LivDiv wrote:

So basically a total collapse of the economy.

I really couldnt say, I'm going off a quick bit of addition. But it might not put everyone where they want to be. Sure, they might have a higher rate of pay but it might not lead to a better quality of life. Or it might level things up by bringing more Boomers down rather than helping those who need it up.

But it could be a short term pain but long term gain. I've often wondered what would happen if you reset the house price level in Ireland. Yes, people like me would in theory lose a fortune if our house price was reset lower... but I'm not planning on moving and it would really help others get into home ownership. But that could also cause an economic collapse as all those loans would be linked to massive negative equity.

Phew... I can see why Boris needs a holiday. This economic stuff is hard.

EvilRedEye

RedDave2 wrote:

Or it might level things up by bringing more Boomers down rather than helping those who need it up.

Let's do it, revenge-based economy is fine by me.

JonB

I doubt anyone wants a £15 minimum wage as an isolated policy. Like just do that then sit back and watch. Yes, it would require other changes as well. That's a good thing.

poprock

I tried negative equity. It was shit.

LivDiv

JonB wrote:

I doubt anyone wants a £15 minimum wage as an isolated policy. Like just do that then sit back and watch. Yes, it would require other changes as well. That's a good thing.

Then they need to put them forward alongside it.

davyK

We like our cheap food, cheap clothes, free Amazon Prime postage etc. That all affects wages.

monkey

LivDiv wrote:

JonB wrote:

I doubt anyone wants a £15 minimum wage as an isolated policy. Like just do that then sit back and watch. Yes, it would require other changes as well. That's a good thing.

Then they need to put them forward alongside it.

Yes they do. And their modelling. If it exists. Which, let's face it, it probably doesn't.

monkey

You're not going to get £15 min wage. Voters will see that and think you're economically incompetent. Labour need to be a credible party of government.

Wait...shit.

A new poll has revealed that 65 percent of the British public supports raising the minimum wage to £15 per hour in the coming years.
The research, undertaken by Survation on behalf of think tank Autonomy, asked 1,001 individuals across the country whether they supported the prospect of the current £8.91 minimum hourly rate rising gradually to a £15 level ‘over the next few years.’ More than a third—37%—answered that they ‘strongly supported’ the rise, and a further 28% answered with ‘somewhat support’. Only 14% either strongly or somewhat opposed the measure.
Support for the policy unites people from across the political spectrum, including Tory voters (59% support, 23% against) as well as both Leave (64%) and Remain (69%) voters. Support is also spread throughout all age groups—from 18-34 (66%) to 65+ (59%)—and earnings brackets, and is high in ‘Red Wall’ regions, including the Midlands (65%) and the North of England (62%).

https://tribunemag.co.uk/2021/09/poll-65-of-british-public-supports-15-minimum-wage

monkey

Honestly British public. Make your minds up. Are you cunts or not?

JonB

I mean, if the argument against a decent living wage for all is that it would break the economy, the conclusion from that surely isn't, well, fuck poor people then. Surely it's that the economy as it stands isn't fit for purpose.

If so, what would it take to make a decent living wage work? The point of any policy like this is that it comes with a different kind of thinking and an overall (progressive) change of direction.

RedDave2

https://www.bigissue.com/news/social-justice/uk-poverty-the-facts-figures-and-effects/

I think its near impossible to find a solution that will cover the global economy (thats not to say it cant be done) but i think its fair to take a countries economy. The question on the movement of a minimum wage could be simple. According to the linked report 1 in 4 is in poverty. If you change the minimum wage does that number change for the better. If it doesnt or make things worse by raising the cost of living then theres a far argument that the minimum wage isnt the main problem

LivDiv

@Jon
No.
I said at the start of this that there are other ways to raise people up without using blunt instruments that will fick small business and probably the economy.

Tax thresholds can be moved, UBI introduced, bottom salaries tied to top salaries. Banning 0 hours contracts.

£15 ph is ill thought out and would be catastrophic.
The whole thing was a lazy stunt.

Diluted Dante

LivDiv wrote:

JonB wrote:

I doubt anyone wants a £15 minimum wage as an isolated policy. Like just do that then sit back and watch. Yes, it would require other changes as well. That's a good thing.

Then they need to put them forward alongside it.

I mean, do they? It was a motion from Unite. I don't think that unions need to have a full plan for the entire economy when they put forward wage demands. Regardless, here is the full text of the motion:

Composite four – end fire and rehire and workers’ rights

Conference notes the Conservatives and employers are determined to use the pandemic as an opportunity to advance their agenda of driving down workers’ pay, terms and conditions.

The Conservatives always act to cut people’s rights, protections and the obligations employers have towards the people that create their profits, while always increasing the restrictions on trade unions.

A quarter of workers have experienced a worsening of their terms and conditions “including a cut in their pay – since the pandemic began.

The escalating number of employers across all sectors using weak employment protections to ‘fire and rehire’, with devastating consequences for workers & their families. This is affecting workers who previously had secure, regular work and incomes.

Go Northwest threatened bus drivers with longer working days and weeks for less pay. Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL) threatened to fire & rehire 4,000 of its workers.

The pandemic has amplified the need for workers to be in unions to guarantee health and safety and other important working conditions.

Before the pandemic, one in nine workers “3.8 million people” were already ‘insecure’, they did not have access to basic rights at work and could be dismissed at will: including those on zero-hour contracts and agency workers.

We have some of the worst public and statutory holiday entitlements in Europe. Full-time workers have among the longest hours of any country. In-work stress is at record levels. Job insecurity is rising. False self-employment is increasingly used by employers to dodge their obligations. Technology is being used for surveillance. Average pay is lower than before the financial crash.

Conference denounces the Tories’ plan to impose new restrictions on transport workers through a minimum service requirement that may well be extended to other groups of workers.

Conference believes mechanisms such as ‘fire and rehire’ and other ways in which workers are effectively blackmailed with unemployment into accepting intensified work, cuts to pay and pensions and increases in their hours have no place in our society. People are entitled to secure work and earnings. The power imbalance between workers and employers must change.

Conference reaffirms its support for Labour’s policies of stronger individual employment rights, the repeal of all anti Trade Union laws sectoral collective bargaining and the creation of new collective rights and freedoms, including banning ‘fire and rehire’, and a full package of measures that will end insecurity and instead win pay increases and better working lives. The labour movement must fight in workplaces, local communities and nationally to ensure all jobs are good jobs and people receive fair rewards for the profits and wealth they create.

Conference resolves to support working people in dispute fighting employers using ‘fire and rehire’ and similar mechanisms, to stand with those campaigning and fighting to improve their pay and conditions, supporting their demands and defending the right of all of us to resist attacks on our pay, terms and conditions and to protest.

£15 per hour statutory minimum wage.

Increasing statutory sick pay to a living wage, to be paid from day one of absence; and for the lower earnings limit that means low paid workers are not entitled to SSP to be abolished.

Ban zero-hours contracts

End outsourcing in public services – better work-life balance, a legal right to flexible working by default, a ‘right to switch off’ so that homes don’t become 24/7 offices, and reductions in working hours without loss of pay.

Stronger protections from day one.

Conference notes TUC Congress 2020 agreed to organise a special conference on opposing the antiunion laws and a national demonstration. The party will encourage CLPs to support and get involved in these when they become possible.

Unite
Macclesfield CLP

RedDave2

Surely a union should at least think of how its idea will work, at least on a base level. Couldnt they take a few businesses whose workers they represent and show how 15 pound can be done without dmaaging the employing company?

Otherwise livdiv is right, its just a lazy stunt.

LivDiv

So there is no plan for it.
Cheers.

That settles that then.

In a post brexit nation I think we should be asking for plans.

LivDiv

Worth looking up Rayner's opinion on the guy as well.

JonB

LivDiv wrote:

@Jon No. I said at the start of this that there are other ways to raise people up without using blunt instruments that will fick small business and probably the economy. Tax thresholds can be moved, UBI introduced, bottom salaries tied to top salaries. Banning 0 hours contracts. £15 ph is ill thought out and would be catastrophic. The whole thing was a lazy stunt.

It wasn't a lazy stunt. It's something that's been widely discussed for some time. Something that Starmer was backing not long ago, too.

But regardless, the problem is with the economy if we accept that £15 is a reasonable living wage these days. The economy should be able to support a living wage. To make it work, sure, there would need to be other changes, including the things you mention, but the point is a functioning economy should be able to make it work.

LivDiv

So well planned out old resigner couldn't be fucked to put it on the table at policy meetings.

RedDave2

JonB wrote:

LivDiv wrote:

@Jon No. I said at the start of this that there are other ways to raise people up without using blunt instruments that will fick small business and probably the economy. Tax thresholds can be moved, UBI introduced, bottom salaries tied to top salaries. Banning 0 hours contracts. £15 ph is ill thought out and would be catastrophic. The whole thing was a lazy stunt.

It wasn't a lazy stunt. It's something that's been widely discussed for some time. Something that Starmer was backing not long ago, too.

But regardless, the problem is with the economy if we accept that £15 is a reasonable living wage these days. The economy should be able to support a living wage. To make it work, sure, there would need to be other changes, including the things you mention, but the point is a functioning economy should be able to make it work.

Maybe it cant and its a case of finding the best balance? Id kinda argue a more succesful lever might be a maximum wage vs a minimum wage.

Ireland has a minimum wage of 10.20 and this is considered slave labour. I thibk if we raised it to 15 within about a year, prices would have in general gone up enough to mitigate the increase and 15 euro would be the new slave labour.

Actually a better angle could be get rid of hourly rates altogether. A person gets an agreed weekly amount for 40 hours that must equal minimum 480 or if its below 25 hours it must be a minimum 320. Contracts must be a minimum year contract *on both parties sides. This would maybe create at least stable employment when someone takes on a roll. Overtime provisions must be in the contract

Diluted Dante

The guy who resigned did so because he was told to actively argue against it, which isn't something he should be required to do. Conference could debate the motion, it didn't need the party apperatus to specifically argue against it. And even if it passes, which it did, conference motions aren't binding. There was absolutely no benefit to telling him to do that.

What it resulted in was him resigning, and the very same union Starmer campaigned with in 2019 for a £15 wage for McDonalds workers disaffiliating.

LivDiv

So he wouldn't argue for it behind closed doors and wpuldnt argue against it in public.
What is the point in this man?

LivDiv

If Starmer backed it in 2019 he was wrong then as well.

Diluted Dante

Do you think that a £15 minimum wage would come in on the first day of a Labour government, and with no other changes or something?

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories