Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
From the 'late great' Sir Keith Joseph..
"Making the rich poorer does not make the poor richer, but it does make the state stronger—and it does increase the power of officials and politicians, power more menacing, more permanent and less useful than market power within the rule of law. Inequality of income can only be eliminated at the cost of freedom. The pursuit of income equality will turn this country into a totalitarian slum." -
Nothing truer than that, proven time and time again.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
opinion...ated quote.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,706
However making the poor better off (richer) does make all of our society a better place and ultimately affords the opportunity for the rich to get richer too.
It is ludicrous that in one of the largest economies in the world 60% of the state benefits bill (non pension) is paid to people in work - effectively subsidising business. I recognise that for many small businesses they pay the best rate they can and the payment of benefits to their workers is a necessary evil, but there is frankly no excuse for major national/international and global corporations to be getting wage bill subsidy from the state.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Ross - then we agree about 'in-work' benefits though we both come at it from different angles.
The market is the best way to determine wages, good old supply and demand.
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,706
The market works when it is genuinely free - however it is not and is skewed in the favour of employers.
Major corporations should pay a wage level that ensures their employees require no state assistance in order to live if that means they see a short term fall in profit levels then fine, longer term those profits will return as not only will spending increase if people get paid better, but a reduced benefit bill will ultimately feed through into a lower rate of tax for corporations and individuals. The reductions in tax levels and increased spending power will also progressively enable smaller business to increase wages leading to further benefit bill reductions etc.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
whats this people working still having to claim benefits.thats a bit poor isn't it.if employers payed a decent wage there would be no need for this benefits to be payed,and it defeats the goverments target of cutting welfare payments.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
some interesting thoughts......
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Ross - we have seen it before, if you try to manipulate the market then there is always a cost. That cost can be lost business to overseas, lost jobs, higher prices that offset any wage benefits that may accrue and, as in the case of the minimum wage, lock people into low pay by eliminating wage competition.
Ultimately the market is the best way to determine wages and get more long-term prosperity for everyone.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
barryw,what would you call a decent hourly wage to get people out of minimum wage and of benefits all together.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Theres some merit in what you say
also if employers could be trusted to pay a decent wage it would help, thus why the minimum wage is in place
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Employers can be trusted to pay the wage for the job based on the supply of appropriately qualified and suitable applicants. The right wage for the job would be just that.
Of course Labour's mass immigration would have pushed down wages if the minimum wage had not stopped it, which at the same time itself therefore helped boost immigration.... These things meet the right level.
Sensible immigration controls will help reduce supply and if you get rid of the minimum wage you can re-construct the wage ladder that can help people off low incomes particularly as their skills and experience (therefore market value) grows. This has worked before and will work again if we let it. This is actually another reason for quitting the EU and getting control of our own borders.
Remember, those of you who argue for the minimum wage and perhaps a higher rate, if the tax and NI threshold was higher than the min wage level at a full week work there would be a better boost to incomes than the idiotic 'living wage' without damaging employment or causing price inflation.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,883
BarryW wrote:Employers can be trusted to pay the wage for the job based on the supply of appropriately qualified and suitable applicants. The right wage for the job would be just that.
I disagree with the above statement, the vast majority of employers especially in big business will always pay as little as they can get away with, those that pay above the going rate are few and far between.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Jan - the appropriate wage is that a willing employer can offer and what a willing employee will accept.
Of course employers do not want to pay more than they feel they have to and an employee will want to earn as much as he or she can. That is life and that is actually how the market is regulated and works. But it is nevertheless more complex than that because the supply of willing workers determines how much an employer has to offer alongside the need to get and keep employee with the right skills and attitude they need.
The 'keeping' bit is probably the most important. Once someone has proven their worth they acquire additional value to the employer. It is better and more efficient to retain good people than go for the lottery of finding new people. This is what then drives up wages. There will be competition for those with the skills, experience and attitudes needed by employers. A job changer, in work, is a more desirable prospect than someone unemployed and out of work.
The problem with the minimum wage is that the market is skewed. It may result in a slightly better wage for someone new in a job or with little experience but in some industries they then have no-where to go after that as wage competition is suppressed. The minimum wage becomes a norm what people expect to get in some types of job and that is just not right and healthy for them or a healthy economy.
In work benefits also skew the market. Yes, Ross is right, these help keep wages down and this is wrong.
I, as a businessman, really want more and more people to have decent jobs and income so they can save and invest, needing the services that I am able to provide. I have a real personal and business self-interest in higher incomes for people. This is no different to other businesses. It is the market that will best achieve that, not the minimum wage, not in work benefits.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW.
Imposing a minimum wage does not stop employers paying above the minimum rate.
The only thing that is skewed is the zero hours contract that many 1000's now have to work from.
How is that healthy for them?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
GaryC - no it does not, as such, but it does most certainly have a dampening effect on the market. Think for a minute - if you were an employer taking on cleaning staff, agricultural workers or junior hotel staff you do not have to think about what to pay them, you do not have to look at what your competitors pay, you just offer the min wage. What point as well, for such staff to move jobs as they know other hotels, farms etc will just pay the same.
As I say the market is the best determining factor of all for wages. You do need to do something about supply though, an excess of supply does push wages, down so something should be done about the availability of cheap foreign labour. As I said, one of the good reasons to get out of the EU.
As for 'zero hour' contracts. Once again we see how, perhaps well meaning, legislation that interferes with the market creates methods of getting round the rules to enable employers to get the flexibility they need to operate efficiently.
Guest 756- Registered: 6 Jun 2012
- Posts: 727
Barry, what hourly rate do you consider as fair?
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
Lesley,thats what I've asked,but still waiting for an answer.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
in barry's absence might i suggest a bowl of rice a day?
Guest 756- Registered: 6 Jun 2012
- Posts: 727
I once took a cleaning job in a private household when my children were small. The Dr I worked for told me that by being her "lady that does" she felt able to dedicate more of her time to her work, I was therefore valuable.
Why does a job become less important if it supports those higher up the educational/ professional ladder?of course I am not suggesting that those who have worked hard to achieve should not be rewarded for their status, but equally those who are not such high achievers still need to be able to aspire through a decent wage structure.
The same folk who decry the benefits system seem to advocate paying low wages, is that not an oxymoron?
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry, one way to become quickly rich is to establish one's own wages with other people's money, pay oneself top salaries and add a three-fold bonus to it.
Money that should go to share-holders as dividends goes to chief executives as excessive top salaries and bonuses.
The Government doesn't change this, because a 50% tax rate is levied on top salaries and bonuses, so half the money detracted from share-holders by chief executives goes to the Treasury.
In this way, the money-grabbers and the Government work together to rob the People and go 50-50.
Carpet-baggers!
