[blueray]

There is nothing but cons to a national living wage. Creating a National Living Wage is tantamount to placing an artificial price floor on the labor market. This will instigate employers to find ways to reduce its levels of non-skilled workers. A National Living Wage will in effect hurt the very people it intends to help.

Do you think this is truth? If not tell me why not.

[Nick100]

If the national minimum wage didn't have any negative consequences then we could raise it to £1,000,000/hour and all live like kings.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by Nick100)
If the national minimum wage didn't have any negative consequences then we could raise it to £1,000,000/hour and all live like kings.

Have you ever heard of the saying everything in moderation? Water isn't bad for you by itself. However, increase amount = water intoxication. Same principle here. The negative effects of NMW aren't significant.

[Martyn*]

I think that we should individually assess each job role. It isn't fair that someone who picks up litter in a public park gets more per hour than a labourer hoisting heavy bricks on a building site.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by Martyn*)
I think that we should individually assess each job role. It isn't fair that someone who picks up litter in a public park gets more per hour than a labourer hoisting heavy bricks on a building site.

And who is to judge what's fair or not? Why do you think they pay litter pickers more per hour? For the lulz? Or because there isn't much people who want to do the job due social stigma? Are you forgetting private vs public? Someone who works for a building site is probably employed by a private firm. Whereas, someone who picks up litter is employed by council.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
And who is to judge what's fair or not? Why do you think they pay litter pickers more per hour? For the lulz? Or because there isn't much people who want to do the job due social stigma? Are you forgetting private vs public? Someone who works for a building site is probably employed by a private firm. Whereas, someone who picks up litter is employed by council.

It's plainly obvious that picking up litter is less strenous than carrying a hod of bricks up a roof top. The government should see that private companies, in the interests of fairness and equality, pay a wage which matches the type of job. Of course, that would not do because a lot of people in this world cannot see wood for trees. If people were handed freedom they would put obstacles in place to ensure that they would never get it.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by Martyn*)
It's plainly obvious that picking up litter is less strenous than carrying a hod of bricks up a roof top. The government should see that private companies, in the interests of fairness and equality, pay a wage which matches the type of job. Of course, that would not do because a lot of people in this world cannot see wood for trees. If people were handed freedom they would put obstacles in place to ensure that they would never get it.

It requires more physical strength sure but those who are carry bricks will be stronger than the average man. Hence, you have to take that into consideration. Again, this is why we allow business to calculate value. It's subjective, you can't calculate an objective value. As I said, there's the social stigma attached to job as hell hence it lowers the supply and there's a lot of demand for the service hence of course salary will be a little high for a low-skilled position. Whereas building is low-skilled and it's pretty easy to find a worker. You can't say which one is harder. Some builders find their job easier than some litter pick uppers. Whereas, some litter pick uppers find their job easier than some builders. As I said, hardness of a job is relative and just because something is harder doesn't mean it should require higher pay because there are multiple factors involved in calculating salary.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
It requires more physical strength sure but those who are carry bricks will be stronger than the average man. Hence, you have to take that into consideration. Again, this is why we allow business to calculate value. It's subjective, you can't calculate an objective value. As I said, there's the social stigma attached to job as hell hence it lowers the supply and there's a lot of demand for the service hence of course salary will be a little high for a low-skilled position. Whereas building is low-skilled and it's pretty easy to find a worker. You can't say which one is harder. Some builders find their job easier than some litter pick uppers. Whereas, some litter pick uppers find their job easier than some builders. As I said, hardness of a job is relative and just because something is harder doesn't mean it should require higher pay because there are multiple factors involved in calculating salary.

I guess so. But 8 hours on a dusty building site throwing bricks and lumps of metal vs 8 hours walking the park picking up crisp packets and the odd can of pop. I know which one I would choose for an easy-life. Moreover when I was a cleaner I got the chance to earn £10 an hour doing the same job in another building. I didn't get the job because I moved back to St Helens. And then when I got to St Helens I got a lousy job that paid £5.75 an hour carrying heavy boxes up and down three flights of stairs for 8 hours everyday. I ended up damaging my knees. I felt at that point that some jobs just don't pay enough for the kind of work done, whilst other jobs pay a lot for little work.

[Origami Bullets]

(Original post by Martyn*)
I think that we should individually assess each job role. It isn't fair that someone who picks up litter in a public park gets more per hour than a labourer hoisting heavy bricks on a building site.

They do that in Australia. Unfortunately, it means that it's nigh on impossible to work out what your own personal minimum wage is (there are thousands, based upon type of business and your skill level within that industry - both of which are open to interpretation, along with factors such as age and what time of day it is). That then means that no one has any idea what their rights are regarding minimum wage, and so it's a lot easier to exploit workers, particularly the uneducated, unintelligent, uninformed and migrant workers - those whom the minimum wage is supposed to protect. I say this from personal experience - there is rampant abuse of the minimum wage system over there,and people are being exploited - I was paid sub-minimum wage in 2 out of 5 jobs that I had there, whereas no one has ever attempted to pay me less than the minimum wage in the UK, and I've worked for 4 different employers in the UK. Unfortunately, simpler = better.

Minimum wage should be there to make sure that all those working full time (37.5 hours) can have an acceptable standard of living. Unfortunately, the minimum wage is currently lower than that, so we call the level that it should be at the living wage. In London, that level is £8.30ph http://www.london.gov.uk/publication...ng-wage-london