Yossarian wrote:I was debating with Cocko about the minimum wage a while back and took a look at inflation levels in the UK after it was introduced here and inflation seemed about the same before, during and after the minimum wage came in. I strongly suspect that the countries with the highest minimum wages have the highest minimum wages because they have the highest cost of living, not the other way around.
Diluted Dante wrote:If you can't afford to live off the wage of your job, what is the point of your job?
RedDave2 wrote:Thats up to each individual person Dante. Not everyone's job is their sole form of income. Not every job can justify a full living wage. Lots of people work part time jobs because their spouse or parents provide enough to cover that aspect, or maybe they have hit retirement in their regular career and just want to keep their hand in. Maybe you are a student and 4-5 hours busing tables on a Friday gives you an extra bit of pocket money. Every person gets to decide what their time is worth and if they take the money being offered. If an employer cant get anyone taking up a role because the pay is too low, they need to either increase pay or find another way to get the work done. But the job doesnt exist so someone can make a living - it exisits because something needs doing.Diluted Dante wrote:If you can't afford to live off the wage of your job, what is the point of your job?
b0r1s wrote:I read this and can’t stop seeing Shortround from Indy
https://news.sky.com/story/short-bus-driver-5ft-tracey-scholes-to-keep-working-after-she-risked-losing-her-job-in-manchester-in-height-dispute-12518950
Paul the sparky wrote:Did they give her a booster seat?I read this and can’t stop seeing Shortround from Indy https://news.sky.com/story/short-bus-driver-5ft-tracey-scholes-to-keep-working-after-she-risked-losing-her-job-in-manchester-in-height-dispute-12518950
RedDave2 wrote:@cos You've mis-understood my point about the part-time aspect. I was raising the issue that not everyone needs a full time job. Both my folks have had a part time job in their retirement to earn a little extra cash on top of their pension (and to keep busy to be honest) There's also people who dont need a full-time job (or wage) because their spouse earns enough and again they just want to supplement that income. What I am saying is I don't believe every job needs to be paid to a living wage standard. The living wage standard is based (at least the Irish version) on it being enough to sustain a Single Adult with Food, Clothing, Education, Transport, Housing (which I'll make a separate point on) and some Social/ recreation. Using this as the baseline I would put forward that not every employee has those needs for a variety of reasons which are unique to each individual. I dont believe every job has the same value, some are clearly entry level and are great training jobs but they are not meant to be roles that a person would stay on. I would say that instead of focusing on making companies of all shapes and sizes pay a living wage, governments and their populace would be far, far better served reducing the cost of living accommodation be it rental or ownership. Nearly everyone I know who has to pay for their living space would site this as by far their biggest expense. If we take Dublin as a place, even the living wage would not sustain the rents here. Its the biggest drain on our economy and I would imagine the same for the UK. Bring that down and the other costs of living are more than manageable. Instead of a universal income, I would be much more supportive of universal accommodation support. If you have a place of your own, you can always build up (imo)
RedDave2 wrote:I disagree that every job needs to fully support a grown adult living alone. I think if we take that approach we will both make it much more costly to employ and train low skilled and/ or inexperienced people and we make it more costly for smaller business to compete.
b0r1s wrote:I read this and can’t stop seeing Shortround from Indy
Yossarian wrote:RedDave2 wrote:I disagree that every job needs to fully support a grown adult living alone. I think if we take that approach we will both make it much more costly to employ and train low skilled and/ or inexperienced people and we make it more costly for smaller business to compete.
This means that someone else has to subsidise the employee in order to be able to live something approaching a life. Why should any business expect to be subsidised in that way?
Yossarian wrote:I don’t think you can reasonably compare contracting out a piece of work to employing someone full time.
Yossarian wrote:But yeah, here in the UK, the majority of people on universal credit are also working. Why should the taxpayer be expected to pick up the bill to ensure someone can live?
RedDave2 wrote:Pretty certain if ireland raised its minimum wage to 12.30, within a few months the resulting price increases across the board would mean another bump needed.
GooberTheHat wrote:
Yossarian wrote:And again, why should the tax that I pay be used to subsidise employers’ shitty wages?
Yossarian wrote:Because you aren’t entering into an indefinite relationship with them, that alone changes the dynamics.
RedDave2 wrote:GooberTheHat wrote:
Well if that's the argument....
Yossarian wrote:And again, why should the tax that I pay be used to subsidise employers’ shitty wages?
You've lost me a bit here. How is your tax subsidising someone on minimum wage.
Yossarian wrote:Because you aren’t entering into an indefinite relationship with them, that alone changes the dynamics.
I think you have to weight up how long the person might be working for you. I employ plenty of people on seasonal work. Not everyone is coming to work for me for the long term. I had one waiter work for me every summer for 3 years while he got his degree and then he was off.
Again, what makes this so special? In an age where very few people stay in the one career let alone company, why few all employment as some special relationship? Its a transaction - you agree to do a certain task for a certain amount of hours and in return you get some cash.
Yossarian wrote:It’s not a separate issue, they’re intrinsically linked. Ultimately, of course it falls to the government to subsidise these wages, who else does it fall on if you don’t have family who can look after you?
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!