[PhateGBR]

Hi,

I'm [redacted] in Top Hat's posts above.

(Original post by JPKC)
That's exactly the argument Hague used back in '98, without the "but this'll hurt business" aspect. Cameron: the NMW "would send unemployment straight back up". However, once it passed, there was no decrease in the number of low-paid jobs available, which kind of undermines the idea that scrapping the NMW would lead to some massive bubble of brilliant call-centre serf jobs. You're very confident that businessmen would cut working people's wages to hire the unemployed, rather than just to swell their own business' profit.

I agree with you here, JPKC, and I think I made this point above. There's very little evidence to suggest that lowering the minimum wage would lead to higher employment. If it would be more profitable to keep the difference, rather than investing it in more labour, then that is what companies would choose to do. There would be a sort of optimum number of employees a company would have to hire to meet demand and maximise profits, and beyond that optimum there would be no reason to employ more people. That optimum has probably already been reached by most large companies and that would explain why introduction of the NMW did not lead to mass unemployment; the NMW reduced profits but sacking workers would have reduced productivity and profits further. No company hires beyond the necessary.

However, you seem to contradict yourself on this point by saying, "without doubt this bill would lead to an increase in low-paid unskilled jobs in the UK". So do you or don't you believe the bill would create more jobs?

Let's look at what you said about unskilled labour:

(Original post by JPKC)
People shouldn't see them as a valid option, in the same way that people shouldn't be allowed to sell themselves to other people (extreme analogy but it's the same rationale).
[...]
I don't in all honesty think there's much difference. At least unemployed folk on RI have the opportunity to increase the value of their labour. Read this article. Some job isn't always better than no job for social mobility.

I find this very confusing. What you seem to be saying is that unemployment is more desirable than unskilled labour, and, presumably, you therefore equate unskilled labour with unnecessary labour? I think you're wrong on both counts.

The idea that it is preferable to be unemployed than to work a job which requires little to no professional skill, is often used by the right to attack the unemployed, who, they claim, would rather sit around scrounging from the state than performing a hard day's work. Your argument strengthens this kind of prejudice. It doesn't necessarily make it wrong, however.
You're wrong because you think there is something inherently wrong with unskilled labour; you're wrong because you believe that unemployment, which means no production, automatically increases the value of your labour; you're wrong because unskilled labour is a large and integral part of our society; and you're wrong because it is absurd to think that snobbishness about types of work and voluntary surrender of wages will in any way advance the cause of the working class.

It's completely baffling that, as a socialist, I usually find myself arguing against the forced redundancies of unskilled workers or against the belief that unskilled labourers don't "deserve" decent wages, but now I find myself arguing against another self-identified socialist who believes that unskilled work is akin to prostitution. Seriously, explain yourself.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by JPKC)
As I've already said, I don't see the tremendous bargaining power brought by the RI. Having it in place only delivers a 9% rise in the proportion of an NMW person's income that they lose by quitting - it'd have a very similar level of impact on their lifestyle.

Gahahaha.

So, a fall in income from £100m p/a to £30m p/a has as much of an impact on someone's lifestyle as a fall from £200 p/w to £60 p/w? Riiiiiight, so therefore we shouldn't be taxing the rich at any greater proportion to the poor? Some Socialist position this is.

[Abiraleft]

(Original post by TopHat)
Hope this illustrates better why I'm arguing what I'm arguing.

I went and talked to a friend whose family is from a similar background to obi's and yours, paperclip. I hope this illustrates why I'm arguing what I'm arguing, and how I'm arguing it from a leftwing perspective.

I can see where you're coming from. A couple of points, though:

To what extent do you think the RI system is different from the benefits system in real life? As JPKC said a couple of posts up, people don't actually face the 'work-or-die' scenario this bill bases itself upon. Given that;

In RL, I'm very much for the NMW

Why? You mention that it's because workers have such little bargaining power - but you've also agreed (from what I understand) in your conversation with [redacted] that workers have pretty limited bargaining power even with the introduction of the RI.

Also, and more importantly, your point about the minimum-wage depressing the poorest is an interesting one, but the removal of it would depress the poor in general, which is still not something that sits comfortably with me. I understand your point about helping the most vulnerable, but I still feel that the move this bill proposes would ultimately just widen the general socio-economic gap, and not achieve that aim. Even with the MW abolished, not all of the unemployed are going to get jobs, are they? I mean, the wage-budgets of the employers isn't going to increase - they'll simply be able to hire more people by paying each low-level worker less. If someone uses the bargaining power afforded by the RI, they could simply switch them around with another worker willing to take their place. Now the argument here has been that this is completely down to free will - the worker perceives the benefits of the wage as less than the cost of his labour, and chooses to go into voluntary unemployment - but consider that fact that they have essentially been forced out of their job because of the added bargaining power that their employers have actually received. And what would happen in the long run? Wouldn't the household of the worker in question fall behind socio-economically in comparison to others? (I suppose the main point of my argument is that because there would be a significant number of the unemployed willing (competing) to work for very low wages, the bargaining power would fall more to the employers than the workers). (I suppose I'm saying that I think - or feel, perhaps - that it would be better for now to help the unemployed via the welfare system and simultaneously look to tackle to roots of the system, rather than make a move that will depress the wider working class and further inequality on a bigger scale)

And finally, don't you think that that would still amount to some form of exploitation? Do you not think that the poorest of the employed are, as it is, exploited because they have to accept a job just on the minimum wage - not to survive, as it were, but to keep up?


(On a side note, I hope you didn't construe my previous posts as personal attacks, because that certainly wasn't my intention )

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by Abiraleft)
To what extent do you think the RI system is different from the benefits system in real life? As JPKC said a couple of posts up, people don't actually face the 'work-or-die' scenario this bill bases itself upon.

Except they do, because welfare in RL is conditional on searching for and accepting work. It's work, or work as soon as you can, or die. You can't opt-out unless you have a huge bank of savings to fall back on.

Even with the MW abolished, not all of the unemployed are going to get jobs, are they? I mean, the wage-budgets of the employers isn't going to increase - they'll simply be able to hire more people by paying each low-level worker less.

This is very fuzzy logic. Employers set their wage budget according to their revenues. If they hire someone, that contributes to their revenues as well as their costs (after all, if this wasn't true, we'd have just 1 person businesses everywhere). As such, it's that it creates new jobs at the lower end, by allowing those who previously weren't worth hiring now be worth hiring.

[TopHat]

(Original post by Abiraleft)
To what extent do you think the RI system is different from the benefits system in real life? As JPKC said a couple of posts up, people don't actually face the 'work-or-die' scenario this bill bases itself upon.

I disagree. Benefits in RL are not even near the standard the RI provides. They provide a miserable quality of life that is barely above the "starve" option, and I am always ashamed as a country our JSA is so low. The RI is based on what it means to provide not only all the bare necessities, but enough money for very basic self-improvement - so you could indeed drop out of your job, or maybe take a lower-paid job but with less hours, so you can give yourself a better education. RI is a real step above benefits - and it's a proposal that actually originates from the left in the first place, all the way back with Thomas Paine!

Why? You mention that it's because workers have such little bargaining power - but you've also agreed (from what I understand) in your conversation with [redacted] that workers have pretty limited bargaining power even with the introduction of the RI.

They don't have absolute bargaining power, in that the amount of power they have is dependent on the level of the RI, so they're still dependent on the state to an extent. The higher the RI, the more bargaining power the workers have, essentially. Set the bar too high, though, and you risk causing large amounts of inflation in the economy, which is not really good for anyone. Too low, and they don't have enough bargaining power. So, ultimately they are still dependent on the state maintaining the RI at a decent level. However, it still allows them much more freedom than under the NMW, because the NMW has exactly the same problem - the exact level is fully dependent on the state. Not only that, the NMW means that workers can't voluntarily agree to work for wages lower than the NMW, which they may want to do! Under the RI, they can accept any wage deal they want, and also have the liberty to refuse it. Without actually creating a fully mutual/co-operative market or making everything collectives or enforcing mass union membership by law, RI is the system which gives workers the most power, to my mind. In addition, if I ever thought the RI was set too low, I would campaign fervently to raise it, I promise you.

Also, and more importantly, your point about the minimum-wage depressing the poorest is an interesting one, but the removal of it would depress the poor in general, which is still not something that sits comfortably with me. I understand your point about helping the most vulnerable, but I still feel that the move this bill proposes would ultimately just widen the general socio-economic gap, and not achieve that aim.

I don't think that's true. What the NMW does is make the slightly less vulnerable closer to the richest, but at the cost of making the more vulnerable further away. It doesn't fix social inequality, it just moves the numbers around. If you want to increase social inequality, you have to lift ALL of the bottom up, not just the upper part of the bottom, and NMW doesn't do that. I'd argue that RI actually does that to an extent, because it gives more employment. It's not a silver bullet, by any means, and there is so much more that needs to be done (tackling education and massively increasing inheritance tax, for starters), but it is one of many ways in which we can help.

Even with the MW abolished, not all of the unemployed are going to get jobs, are they? I mean, the wage-budgets of the employers isn't going to increase - they'll simply be able to hire more people by paying each low-level worker less.

If someone uses the bargaining power afforded by the RI, they could simply switch them around with another worker willing to take their place. Now the argument here has been that this is completely down to free will - the worker perceives the benefits of the wage as less than the cost of his labour, and chooses to go into voluntary unemployment - but consider that fact that they have essentially been forced out of their job because of the added bargaining power that their employers have actually received. And what would happen in the long run? Wouldn't the household of the worker in question fall behind socio-economically in comparison to others? (I suppose the main point of my argument is that because there would be a significant number of the unemployed willing (competing) to work for very low wages, the bargaining power would fall more to the employers than the workers). (I suppose I'm saying that I think - or feel, perhaps - that it would be better for now to help the unemployed via the welfare system and simultaneously look to tackle to roots of the system, rather than make a move that will depress the wider working class and further inequality on a bigger scale)

As I said earlier, I agree. It's no silver bullet. But to make it really simple, which of these societies would you say is more equal. Society A, which has 5 people. One has £100, one has £7, and three have £1. Or, Society B, which has 5 people. One has £100, and four have £2. I'd strongly argue that Society B is more equal. Obviously, there are still dramatic problems with Society B, and they need focusing on, but if I was in Society A, and could make my way to Society B, I absolutely would. In addition, I don't believe people would be so desperate. In the long run, I think a lot of people would actually take the opportunity RI provides to improve their skills and thus employability in the long-run. It all comes down to personal choice.

And finally, don't you think that that would still amount to some form of exploitation? Do you not think that the poorest of the employed are, as it is, exploited because they have to accept a job just on the minimum wage - not to survive, as it were, but to keep up?

I'm not sure I'm following your thread here. Can you re-explain this one? I'm reading it as "people who are employed are being exploited if the NMW wage is removed as their wage would go down". I've accepted that, but I think that's a trade-off we make in order to see more people employed.

On a side note, I hope you didn't construe my previous posts as personal attacks, because that certainly wasn't my intention )

Well, I was quite wounded by paperclip's post.

[Thunder and Jazz]

On TSR do we not have a better version of the NMW?

[MacDaddi]

(Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
On TSR do we not have a better version of the NMW?

I think the rates are still the same.

[TopHat]

(Original post by TopHat)
I think the point raised about businesses not necessarily expanding to hire people is a very valid one. NMW causing unemployment only applies in markets which have elastic or unitary elasticity, like so:



But in steady state markets which so little to no yearly expansion and thus perfect inelasticity, NMW doesn't actually cause more unemployment, it just reduces the profit margin, like so:



Even if demand is not perfectly inelastic, but still moderately inelastic, while having a NMW does increase unemployment, overall it increases the aggregate amount of wages received by workers, which is shown below as the blue area is larger than the red area.



That makes the trade-off not worth it, to my mind. Overall, if demand was inelastic, it's hurting more than helping. Minimum wage only has a negative effect when demand is unitary, or elastic. Otherwise, it can do good.

As such, I'd feel a lot more comfortable supporting the bill if there were something like this;

"Each year, the minimum wage is to be reduced by 20p. If, at the end of any given year, the aggregate wage paid to those earning up to the minimum wage +66% decreases, then at the end of the year, rather than the minimum wage being decreased, it is to be reinstated at the previous level."

This combines a staggered retreat with the ability to see if we've moved into an area of demand inelasticity. It's also more grounded in reality - rather than relying on theory, we'd get to see the true impact of what the NMW was doing.

Sorry for the boring economics 101 graphs, but they help me communicate what I'm trying to say better. I hope you can see what I mean.

Posting this as PhateGBR has a point.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by TopHat)
Posting this as PhateGBR has a point.

We must be careful not to confuse the issue. We are always dealing with the labour market - not many many different goods market.

Even if no extra output is produced by the firm, there's still capital --> labour switching with lower wages. So I'm not sure how you got from 'no yearly expansion' to perfectly inelastic demand for labour - especially since even with no expansion, you still have elasticity in the goods market for demand, so a firm could earn higher profits by reducing it's costs and producing a higher output.

So I'm not sure that the perfectly inelastic situation is ever one where you'd be close.

Furthermore, let us also make the distinction between employment and unemployment. Unemployment is those who are willing and able to work (at the given wage rate), but don't have a job. So it's the gap between supply and demand. So, even with perfectly inelastic demand it still does cause unemployment through the excess supply. Also, we shouldn't be treating labour wages as some kind of aggregate total we should be seeking to maximise, but rather look at the effects on individuals, and actual people.

Those graphs treat labour as a homogenous good, where 1 person's labour is exactly the same as another. In reality, this isn't how it works, and thus the best applicants get the job, while the others don't. This is the key to the NMW causing unemployment, more so than any graph that doesn't capture the heterogeneity. Since one person's labour is worth more than another - it's only those who add more than £6.08 to the revenues for each hour of work they do that get jobs (at least when you take expectations). So the least skilled are the least able to get onto the job ladder - thus cementing the poverty trap. No, removing the NMW isn't a silver bullet, but it's sure as hell a step.

As for your proposal, I think it fails to take into account that real wages could fall for reasons outside of the NMW falling (such as currently in RL), and as such it would be a mistake to assume causality and therefore raise the minimum wage in the middle of a recession, for example.

[TopHat]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
We must be careful not to confuse the issue. We are always dealing with the labour market - not many many different goods market.

Even if no extra output is produced by the firm, there's still capital --> labour switching with lower wages. So I'm not sure how you got from 'no yearly expansion' to perfectly inelastic demand for labour - especially since even with no expansion, you still have elasticity in the goods market for demand, so a firm could earn higher profits by reducing it's costs and producing a higher output.

So I'm not sure that the perfectly inelastic situation is ever one where you'd be close.

I know, which is why perfectly inelastic demand is theoretical. However, I would point out that switching from capital to labour is far, far more infrequent than switching from labour to capital. Physical capital almost always has lower variable costs than labour. I feel that in some industries, while demand will not be perfectly inelastic, it will be closer to the model above than to one of unitary elasticity.

Furthermore, let us also make the distinction between employment and unemployment. Unemployment is those who are willing and able to work (at the given wage rate), but don't have a job. So it's the gap between supply and demand. So, even with perfectly inelastic demand it still does cause unemployment through the excess supply. Also, we shouldn't be treating labour wages as some kind of aggregate total we should be seeking to maximise, but rather look at the effects on individuals, and actual people.

Those graphs treat labour as a homogenous good, where 1 person's labour is exactly the same as another. In reality, this isn't how it works, and thus the best applicants get the job, while the others don't. This is the key to the NMW causing unemployment, more so than any graph that doesn't capture the heterogeneity. Since one person's labour is worth more than another - it's only those who add more than £6.08 to the revenues for each hour of work they do that get jobs (at least when you take expectations). So the least skilled are the least able to get onto the job ladder - thus cementing the poverty trap. No, removing the NMW isn't a silver bullet, but it's sure as hell a step.

I'd disagree with unemployment being purely the gap between supply and demand, at least in the short run. That implies if all workers who were currently unemployed immediately offered to work for £1, then the next day all of those workers would become employed - that is, that all unemployment is voluntary. Keynes dealt with this 80 odd years ago.

(Original post by Keynes)
Let us assume, for the moment, that labour is not prepared to work for a lower money-wage and that a reduction in the existing level of money-wages would lead, through strikes or otherwise, to a withdrawal from the labour market of labour which is now employed. Does it follow from this that the existing level of real wages accurately measures the marginal disutility of labour? Not necessarily. For, although a reduction in the existing money-wage would lead to a withdrawal of labour, it does not follow that a fall in the value of the existing money-wage in terms of wage-goods would do so, if it were due to a rise in the price of the latter. In other words, it may be the case that within a certain range the demand of labour is for a minimum money-wage and not for a minimum real wage.

You've left out involuntary unemployment;

Men are involuntarily unemployed if, in the event of a small rise in the price of wage-goods relatively to the money-wage, both the aggregate supply of labour willing to work for the current money-wage and the aggregate demand for it at that wage would be greater than the existing volume of employment.

The perfectly inelastic demand model shows supply stretching on in perpetuity, but that's because I couldn't be bothered to draw it as a function in S(p) = k(e^p) rather than a function in S(p) = kp. That also takes into account non-homogeneity.

As for your proposal, I think it fails to take into account that real wages could fall for reasons outside of the NMW falling (such as currently in RL), and as such it would be a mistake to assume causality and therefore raise the minimum wage in the middle of a recession, for example.

That's quite true. Perhaps passing the ability to set the yearly minimum wage with the SoS?

[JPKC]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
But it's not the % difference that makes the bargaining power different. It's the fact that workers have to work in order to survive, and thus they have a greater desperation to work than an employer does to hire. Giving everyone the required does equalise this, since employment may be hugely beneficial for both parties - but it isn't necessary.

I disagree. It's always going to be about what a person needs to do to maintain their standard of living. My cousin-in-law (wife, two kids, mortgage), a construction worker, was just made redundant. Before that happened he offered to work for less and less and less until, in economicsy terms, the value of his labour was ****ed to far below what it should have been. The central point in your argument against the NMW is that, now we have universal welfare, the value of a person's work will not be distorted by the market. So, again, an unskilled worker currently getting near NMW will still prefer to see their wage drop before they quit, because that's the least worst option for them - who wants to throw themselves upon the mercy of a labour market where other employers, without an NMW in place, will be cutting pay packets just as much?

Except that in order to keep an employee - the employer must not just offer something that is better than not working, but offer something that is better than all the other employers. It's just that now employers can't exploit the fact that workers need to work in order to survive.

Oh so there's now massive demand for unskilled workers?

So no jobs are better than unskilled jobs? Tell that to the people who can't get jobs and don't have skills. Furthermore, I don't necessarily agree with the premise. People aren't forced to take a job at all, and thus, if they so desire can choose to spend time gaining skills, pursuing their own interests and the like. There's no requirement to get a job to live a decent life, so I don't think we can be saying that everyone would suddenly rush in desperation to the labour market and take whatever they can get.

Unskilled 'flexiforce' service-sector jobs are destroying the working class in this country; there needs to be an escape back towards traditional skilled work, this bill would do nothing but hamper this by encouraging the acceptance of jobs that undermine the socialist effort to improve the lot of working class people. People are not born skilled/unskilled. Letting the latter type fester is wrong when all workers should be in skilled work - that's not just some abstract vagary, it's an objective that all left-wingers should be working for.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by TopHat)
I know, which is why perfectly inelastic demand is theoretical. However, I would point out that switching from capital to labour is far, far more infrequent than switching from labour to capital. Physical capital almost always has lower variable costs than labour. I feel that in some industries, while demand will not be perfectly inelastic, it will be closer to the model above than to one of unitary elasticity.

But production depends on the both. Capital increases the productivity of labour and vice versa. They can't do a load of good without the other. A load of machines with no-one to operate them produces nothing, and likewise a load of workers standing in a field with no tools can do very little. Moreover, since capital depreciates, there's a cost of replacing it, and that, given changes in the wage rate certainly allows for capital --> labour switching in the replacement of old capital. Neither is a permanent switch.

I'd disagree with unemployment being purely the gap between supply and demand, at least in the short run. That implies if all workers who were currently unemployed immediately offered to work for £1, then the next day all of those workers would become employed - that is, that all unemployment is voluntary. Keynes dealt with this 80 odd years ago.



You've left out involuntary unemployment;

Rather, I've left out voluntary employment - because the NMW doesn't affect that. The gap between S & D in that model is involuntary - it's people who want to work at that wage rate but can't find a job. That is the involuntary bit. Also, it doesn't quite suggest that "if all workers who were currently unemployed immediately offered to work for £1, then the next day all of those workers would become employed" - it implies that all those who would be willing to supply their labour at the £1 wage rate would become employed - and the others would no longer be willing to work. That is, that some would accept, and others would reject. I don't think this is controversial.

The perfectly inelastic demand model shows supply stretching on in perpetuity, but that's because I couldn't be bothered to draw it as a function in S(p) = k(e^p) rather than a function in S(p) = kp. That also takes into account non-homogeneity.

On the supply side, yes - but not on the demand side. The supply side models people's preferences (but assume homogenous jobs with the same disutility from working in any job), whilst the demand side models firm's preferences (assuming homogenous labour). There's nothing in the graphs that models the heterogenity of workers on the demand side, which is the important bit here.

That's quite true. Perhaps passing the ability to set the yearly minimum wage with the SoS?

Give more power right to the politicians with all their skewed incentives? Please no!

[JPKC]

(Original post by PhateGBR)
Hi,

I'm [redacted] in Top Hat's posts above.

Hi [redacted].

I agree with you here, JPKC, and I think I made this point above. There's very little evidence to suggest that lowering the minimum wage would lead to higher employment. If it would be more profitable to keep the difference, rather than investing it in more labour, then that is what companies would choose to do. There would be a sort of optimum number of employees a company would have to hire to meet demand and maximise profits, and beyond that optimum there would be no reason to employ more people. That optimum has probably already been reached by most large companies and that would explain why introduction of the NMW did not lead to mass unemployment; the NMW reduced profits but sacking workers would have reduced productivity and profits further. No company hires beyond the necessary.

However, you seem to contradict yourself on this point by saying, "without doubt this bill would lead to an increase in low-paid unskilled jobs in the UK". So do you or don't you believe the bill would create more jobs?

That's not as contradictory as it looks. I'm adamant that the Bill won't lead to more jobs, but the jobs that come along once the NMW's scrapped will be worse than they would be. So there'd be more relatively low-paid unskilled jobs, as opposed to the adequately paid unskilled jobs we have currently. There'd be an increase in low-paid unskilled jobs without any extra jobs coming along, if that makes sense.

I find this very confusing. What you seem to be saying is that unemployment is more desirable than unskilled labour, and, presumably, you therefore equate unskilled labour with unnecessary labour? I think you're wrong on both counts.

I'm saying that unemployment is bad, as is unskilled labour. Both are contrary to the interests of working class people, and neither should be tolerated by those who consider themselves left. Replacing one evil with another is the business of the capital market, not socialism.

The idea that it is preferable to be unemployed than to work a job which requires little to no professional skill, is often used by the right to attack the unemployed, who, they claim, would rather sit around scrounging from the state than performing a hard day's work. Your argument strengthens this kind of prejudice. It doesn't necessarily make it wrong, however.

Being a slave was "a hard day's work", and I'm sure you'd agree that that was in no way preferable to being without work. The right attack the unemployed for a perceived reluctance to take part in a kind of work that undermines and disempowers them, as unskilled work does. I and many on the left reject this because, well, not all work is good work and we shouldn't cave in to the rightist dogma that holds this to be true.

You're wrong because you think there is something inherently wrong with unskilled labour; you're wrong because you believe that unemployment, which means no production, automatically increases the value of your labour; you're wrong because unskilled labour is a large and integral part of our society; and you're wrong because it is absurd to think that snobbishness about types of work and voluntary surrender of wages will in any way advance the cause of the working class.

Unskilled labour damages the working class (ask me how or read Owen Jones' The Demonisation of the Working Class to save me the time); unemployment has a neutral effect on the value of an unskilled person's labour, though they can use the time to take up skills, thus increasing the value of their labour - this option isn't available to those in unskilled work; unskilled labour is a bad part of our society that we should seek to do away with; and finally, please don't conflate my opinions with snobbiness - I can assure you it'd be extremely ironic if such a claim were justified. I'm not looking down on a type of work because I feel it's below myself personally, I'm judging it based on the consequences it has for the class of people my politics supports.

It's completely baffling that, as a socialist, I usually find myself arguing against the forced redundancies of unskilled workers or against the belief that unskilled labourers don't "deserve" decent wages, but now I find myself arguing against another self-identified socialist who believes that unskilled work is akin to prostitution. Seriously, explain yourself.

I don't consider anything wrong with prostitution so that's a funny point to make. And I feel you're slightly missing my point here. Unskilled workers are my lot, I believe what I believe on their behalf, in their interest, as any socialist would. What is happening here, in my opinion, is a disagreement over how best to aid the working class. I strongly believe that skilled work is way to empowerment, and I reckon history's on my side with that. Unskilled work, on the other hand, is a trap that has led to the situation we see today. The working class is on its knees because of unskilled labour. Where are the unions? Where are the communities? Where are the professions that elevated millions out of poverty in the last century? Where? The fortunes of working class people will decline for as long as self-proclaimed socialists fail to recognise forces of oppression in the form they currently take. The proliferation of unskilled service-sector jobs has must be turned backwards, and it is high naivety to - as a socialist - think otherwise.

[Jarred]

I'm sorry I didn't notice this bill earlier on.
It's a wholehearted aye from me. I wrote a motion for my party a while back (think it might've been last term now) in which I expressed dissatisfaction for a Living Wage.
When I originally wrote that motion, my intention was to write about the NMW instead, but that would've failed and I thought a better way of easing into discussion of wage control would be to instead discuss the Living Wage idea.

Anyway I digress, the NMW is an abhorrent idea and I support its repeal. It's supporters more often than not have their heart in the right place, with the intention of making sure that everyone in work is earning a decentish wage.

But it doesn't do that in practise. All the NMW does is guarantee that people without skills sufficient enough to warrant a wage as high as the NMW are consigned into unemployment. People who maybe left school with no qualifications, kids growing up in crappy inner-city areas with no education are guaranteed a place in the dole queue with a minimum wage. People who do have skills are not going to benefit either, because chances are the worth of their skills is higher than the minimum wage anyway. So it benefits no-one.

I believe that people have the right to work for whatever pay they want. No-one is forced to work for a poor wage, if someone is offered a low wage then they can simply have the intelligence to not apply for that job, and go on the dole until they find a job paying an amount closer to what they want. Better yet, that person with few skills can take on the job anyway and get some work experience, making it easier for them to home their abilities better and ensure that in the future they can earn more. With a minimum wage they don't get that chance, it forces millions of poorly skilled people into unemployment, getting rid of it will create obs for those people, granted, they won't be good jobs, but given the chance to work and learn a trade on the job can only be a good thing, chances are they'll be earning a decent amount within a few years of taking on that job which otherwise wouldn't have even existed if the NMW was in place. Not having a minimum wage provides a perfect environment for individually-driven social mobility and aspiration, which I would have thought that everyone is in support of.

[CyclopsRock]

This thread is blowing my mind. People are talking about whether money really makes people happy.. ?! Who cares!! It's not the government's choice on what people choose to think makes them happy! The government isn't daddy! It's not there to tell the silly X-Factor loving masses why they're all so wrong about what they believe and how, god, if only they'd do what they're bloody told they'd all be so much happier! What this bill will do is get out of the way somewhat. It'll enable people who WANT to work (whether you agree with their choice or not) will be allowed to, if they can find someone to purchase their labour. If they can't, well tough tits I guess, you must really have dog **** for brains but hey ho, the government's still paying for you to have a pretty nice life anyway. If you don't wanna sell your labour for so cheap, the government will still pay for your pretty nice life. And if you're actually a bit of a clever cloggs and get paid more than that, it doesn't affect you anyway. The only people who lose out here are those people who were earning more than their labour was really worth on the grounds that their role was deemed "vital" (in the sense that a cleaner can be deemed vital because no one wants a dirty office, for example, not that they're strictly vital for profit making or safety or whatever). This was justified on the grounds that no one should have to work for under a certain amount (Whilst ignoring the swathes of people it made utterly unemployable and thus were resigned to the scrap heap of JSA arse-banditry, a payment far far below minimum wage) and cheers were let out every time it went up, for those that didn't deserve it got a raise, and those who couldn't reach that level of value got even further away from ever getting a job again. Hurray! That's certainly not a stunning pillar of social mobility we'd want to bring crashing down in tiananmen square, of course - especially not when the whole point of the policies origins (that people could, apparantly, be exploited by companies who would pay less than their worth [which is more or less impossible, btw - your worth is what someone is willing to pay for your labour. Any other metric isn't 'worth', it's some arbitrary measure of how happy the nice socialist man wants to make himself feel that morning] because a brother's gotta eat) is no longer relevant as daddy's now paying the rent.

In short, anyone against this bill both 1) doesn't understand economics, 2) hates the poor and 3) needs to read a ****in' book that's not a goddamn a-level intro to psychology colouring sketch pad.

JESUS CHRIST.

[Metrobeans]

This is in cessation.

[Metrobeans]

This has gone to a second reading.