Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

B452 - National Minimum Wage (Repeal) Bill 2012

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Most definitely not.
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    Most definitely not.
    Why?
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    even with the basic income, people still deserve a decent remuneration for the work they do, so this is a no from me.
    Who decides what "decent renumeration" is? Why is your idea of "decent" better than someone else's? Should not each individual be able to decide what is decent by his standards?
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bax-man)
    Who decides what "decent renumeration" is? Why is your idea of "decent" better than someone else's? Should not each individual be able to decide what is decent by his standards?
    "The minimum hourly income necessary for a worker to meet basic needs". The government already has standards in place for measuring relative poverty, and it would make sense to use them.
    • 62 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    I fail to see what a blanket minimum wage has to do with decent remuneration for work.
    I don't trust the market to do so, people deserve at least a decent amount for work, I would be okay I suppose with lowering it given the citizens income thing, but not with it's abolition.
    • 62 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bax-man)
    Who decides what "decent renumeration" is? Why is your idea of "decent" better than someone else's? Should not each individual be able to decide what is decent by his standards?

    (Original post by JPKC)
    "The minimum hourly income necessary for a worker to meet basic needs". The government already has standards in place for measuring relative poverty, and it would make sense to use them.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I don't see how the minimum wage is justifiable even without the citizens income. With it, it's positively anti-growth. It's not different to any other minimum pricing mechanism in terms of the damage and harm it does and most of you seemed to be against the idea of a minimum price for alcohol. Intention means nothing, it's the repercussions of a law that matter.
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    Why?
    Because I believe that employees have a right to be paid no less than a set amount legally, protecting the worker from exploitation by employers.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    Because I believe that employees have a right to be paid no less than a set amount legally, protecting the worker from exploitation by employers.
    People would still enjoy a decent standard of living without going to work, though. The compulsion that exists currently to take a low paying job that you think isn't worth your time (ie you don't think they're paying you enough) doesn't exist, or rather, only exists in terms of you wanting to buy things you can't otherwise afford, not in the sense that you'll starve or go without otherwise. I find it hard to describe that scenario as "exploitation" if someone chooses to sell their labour for a lower value than one that you find personally tasteful.
    • 17 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    Actually, given in TSR world Citizen's Income exists, I'm fine with this.
    Glad to know that TSR Labour are happy with this. Will note it down for when manifesto time comes. It will be fun to be the only party fighting for left wing votes :yy:
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    Glad to know that TSR Labour are happy with this. Will note it down for when manifesto time comes. It will be fun to be the only party fighting for left wing votes :yy:
    More win.
    • 17 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    More win.
    I'm made of win.

    You should take a look at the new party actually, you might find that we fit you better than before.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    I'm made of win.

    You should take a look at the new party actually, you might find that we fit you better than before.
    I was going to rejoin the socialists, actually, I just haven't got around to it yet. Do you still have the thing whereby new members have to wait ages to get back in? I seem to recall that was Grape's way of getting back at me when I went off into my wilderness huff...
    • 17 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    I was going to rejoin the socialists, actually, I just haven't got around to it yet. Do you still have the thing whereby new members have to wait ages to get back in? I seem to recall that was Grape's way of getting back at me when I went off into my wilderness huff...
    Heh. We still post requests in the thread, yes, but i can't imagine many of us having objections to you. I shall post there on your behalf now

    However, we may keep you waiting just for that comment (and because you did keep us waiting...)
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    A guy on NMW working the average week would get £380.88 (including CI), compared to the CI figure of £162 - half! My only mistake was assuming more work hours, though that in itself might not be too foolish in the case of unskilled workers. I know my aunt works two jobs, as would most of her coworkers - the workforce is "flexible", part-time work is all that's available so multiple jobs are a requirement and thus the workhours get pushed up.
    I'm still not sure how you arrived at the figure of £453.80. I'm merely saying that we should look at RL - where the NMW is in place, and working the average week gets you £195.51 after tax - plus £10.70 in working tax credit (here), to a total of £206.21, which is pretty much comparable to the £168 you get from doing nothing with the RI - and 36.3 hours of your time - meaning that the extra money earned in RL compared to here is at a rate of £1.05/hour.

    That's right, earn a wage of £1.05/hour for an average week and you'd be as well off as with the NMW in RL. Let's not underestimate the RI. If you'd rather keep the time - you are more than welcome to, and still have enough to adequately live (next paragraph!).


    If the basic income provided enough to "adequately live" then there would be no need for a minimum wage. This is a difficult argument for me because I don't believe in the NMW, I believe in a living wage. Getting rid of the NMW is a step away from this, which is why myself (and probably most on the left) will be voting against.
    Well the first line is exactly my point. As for the basic income, it is supposed to provide an adequate lifestyle. That's the whole point of those figures - which are in line with the extensive research done by the JRF (and merely adjusted for tax changes we've made here in TSR-land). The RI does provide enough for an adequate standard of living - that's the whole point. If you disagree with their research - then absolutely feel free to amend the rates through a Bill.

    Having a varying CI would just defeat the point of it. Egalitarian treatment by the state is one of the very principles behind having one IMO; additionally, it'd create an extra layer of complication for the distributors. And the fact that you trust business to act like that is a point on which we will never agree I'm afraid.
    Not if the variation is introduced at local government level. As for complication (!), to fill in one form with the number of people in the household to get a payment is simple. To put the address on too isn't really an 'extra layer of complication' when we compare it to any other system.

    However, since the main difference cost is housing, and that's already done at local government level (on top of the RI) then I don't see that much difference in the basic prices of most other things.

    As for business, I'm not 'trusting' them to do anything. I'm merely saying that they will act in their own interests - as you claim. It doesn't even require 100% of businesses to do this, merely some who then go on to achieve better results. I mean, if a business, doing y, sees someone making more profit by doing x rather than y, and they have the ability to do x - you really think they'll carry on with the low profit option?

    Furthermore - we do see businesses not just drive down wages to the stipulated minimum. Why aren't all wages £6.08/hour? Business does act in its own interest, and this includes the cases where they pay higher wages.

    Furthermore, the power of the market is huge here in facilitating information flows. I have absolutely no problem with businesses paying higher wages, and for social pressure to be put on business to pay higher wages. Indeed, these flows of information empower the worker to get a fair deal. I just don't think that, having equalised the negotiating field, there's any need to stop voluntary (and thus mutually beneficial) agreements from happening just because someone in Whitehall goes 'ugh!'
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    I don't trust the market to do so, people deserve at least a decent amount for work, I would be okay I suppose with lowering it given the citizens income thing, but not with it's abolition.
    How do you define 'decent', though? Since they have no obligation to accept (they will be able to live an adequate lifestyle without working), will they accept anything they do not consider 'decent'? I'd much rather have the individuals concerned choosing what is decent for them, rather than us sitting away from it all stopping two people from entering into a voluntary agreement because we find it a bit distasteful.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    "The minimum hourly income necessary for a worker to meet basic needs". The government already has standards in place for measuring relative poverty, and it would make sense to use them.
    As in my reply - this is now £0 - since the RI gives enough to live a socially accepted, participatory, non-derisory adequate lifestyle, without working.

    So, £0 is a 'decent wage', so we'll reduce the minimum labour price to £0. Just like this Bill.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    You give the current situation, but could you give us the proposed situation with regards to how this would work coupled with the welfare Bill let's say for the average worker and a worker currently on minimum wage please? I understand that this may be difficult, but it would help me to vote because I'm currently moving towards a yes vote on this.
    It entirely depends on what the employer and employee come in to agreement over. Things we've already done:

    1) Hugely increased competition for workers, since business can't rely on desperation for hiring.

    2) Reduced taxes on incomes for both employer and employee, such that the employer can afford to pay higher wages at no extra cost and the employee keeps more of those wages.

    With this in mind, someone currently on the minimum wage at avg working week (36.3 hours) earns in RL £195.51 per week after tax, and gets £10.70/week in working tax credit. In TSR-land, they would need to, at the same working hours, earn £1.05/hour to reach the same level of income. A rate that I simply don't think will be paid - not unless an individual thinks that the extra £38.12 per week is worth 36.3 hours of their time.

    One of the other things you'd see is a reduction in unemployment among the least skilled and the young - and thus an opportunity to further their careers by getting that first step.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    Well, as I said in my post, it morally reprehensible for all the things you'd expect me to post. Since you've already anticipated what I might say, I can't really go much further than that. I found your previous "Poverty Abolition Act" a disgrace, frankly, and since this is basically the same thing only without the evil man pushing it all the time I really cannot go along with it.
    I can see your argument for why the PAA wasn't entirely productive to discussion - however, I think the Welfare Act is much, much better - and much better thought through. It provides a basic income at a set rate and provides allowances for the special cases where this might not be adequate. For sure - if you don't believe £162 pw is adequate (bearing in mind the tax changes made meaning that TSR living is cheaper than UK living), I can understand your concern, and we'll respectfully disagree - but at least we can be clear with what we're debating. I'd argue that's the big difference between the PAA and the Welfare Act.
    • 17 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    But this wouldn't work. Because companies will still be extremely picky about who they hire - at the moment the problem isn't that we don't have enough jobs. The claimant count at the moment, is 1,590,000 looking for work. So it would just result in a race to the bottom for employees - the minimum wage is what we deem the ethical guideline for that. Don't you think we should be doing that? Giving people a fair price for their labour? Personally, i believe we should enforce moral guidelines - as a country i'd hate for us think we could end up with people working in sweatshops like China. Let's do it, lets give people a fair price for their labour. Keep the minimum wage! :woo:

    I have a question to you Libertarians. It might not be you, because i'm assuming we've all got a comfortable lifestyle - having a computer, education, and luxuries, but would you ever like to hear that your neighbour goes out to work at 9 and gets home at 5 and comes home with £8.80 (no break- £1.10/hour), works 6 days a week (£52.80).
Updated: June 6, 2012
New on TSR

Halloween 2014

Spooky tales from this year's fright night

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.