[Martyn*]

Further to the 'Is the Minimum Wage Now Worthless?' thread, I was talking to a friend about raising the minimum wage whilst en-route to a Morrissey concert last night. My friend runs a chain of hairdressers here there and everywhere. He says that giving his employees £1.60 an hour would suit him down to the ground.

In reply I told him that he would never get anyone to work for him. His response "...somebody desperate enough..."

So I was thinking could this opinion catch on in the years to come? I know of a few business men and they are not would I would consider very sympathetic towards the plight of the wage earner. A number of businessmen are truly ruthless in their approach to business; these people exemplify what is the worst in Capitalism. Personally, I have only ever known one business person who was a very kind person (she was from California, USA), the rest have all been very cruel and vicious with views that could quite easily be considered far-right wing.

Perhaps this might not catch-on, and the meaning of social justice shall be evenly matched against Capitalist power. I think, however, that wage earners need to fight to raise the minimum wage or else face the onslaught of Capitalist power. I do not necessarily accept the notion that entire swathes of businesses would go under. I think there could be a tax break for business to lessen the impact of the blow after raising the minimum wage. I also think that Capitalists need to curb their greed and realise that everyone in society needs a comfortable life. This elitist notion that people are nothing more than a means to procure a continuous supply of profit for self-interested entrepeneurs will quite likely lead to wicked notions of getting them to work for little or no pay. This is almost bordering on the fascist tendency to organise work camps for the unemployed, which would probably suit Capitalism. We have seen this recently with people working for free at Tesco and Poundland. Tesco gets free labour, when they are done with them, they relieve them of their duties, and in comes another batch of free labour, and the cycle continues.

My friend who I just mentioned gets three holidays a year. I have seen him spend ridiculous amounts of money on something that would costs half that price elsewhere. As for the cliche that business people work hard so that they can enjoy those things: well, what about the people who work for them who work hard and do not even get one single holiday because they cannot afford it? Is working hard simply a term only applicable to the entrepeneur now? I think not. If that was the case every man who toiled down a mine would be a rich entrepeneur! As for others I have known them to be very snobbish around those who have less money than they have. The notion that greed is good is no consolation to the average wage earner, in fact I would say that the notion is abominable to their ears. The view that people have of bankers is that of greedy men following their bonuses. But greed is good? Not according to them, but maybe to the bankers themselves.

[Dalek1099]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Further to the 'Is the Minimum Wage Now Worthless?' thread, I was talking to a friend about raising the minimum wage whilst en-route to a Morrissey concert last night. My friend runs a chain of hairdressers here there and everywhere. He says that giving his employees £1.60 an hour would suit him down to the ground.

In reply I told him that he would never get anyone to work for him. His response "...somebody desperate enough..."

So I was thinking could this opinion catch on in the years to come? I know of a few business men and they are not would I would consider very sympathetic towards the plight of the wage earner. A number of businessmen are truly ruthless in their approach to business; these people exemplify what is the worst in Capitalism. Personally, I have only ever known one business person who was a very kind person (she was from California, USA), the rest have all been very cruel and vicious with views that could quite easily be considered far-right wing.

Perhaps this might not catch-on, and the meaning of social justice shall be evenly matched against Capitalist power. I think, however, that wage earners need to fight to raise the minimum wage or else face the onslaught of Capitalist power. I do not necessarily accept the notion that entire swathes of businesses would go under. I think there could be a tax break for business to lessen the impact of the blow after raising the minimum wage. I also think that Capitalists need to curb their greed and realise that everyone in society needs a comfortable life. This elitist notion that people are nothing more than a means to procure a continuous supply of profit for self-interested entrepeneurs will quite likely lead to wicked notions of getting them to work for little or no pay. This is almost bordering on the fascist tendency to organise work camps for the unemployed, which would probably suit Capitalism. We have seen this recently with people working for free at Tesco and Poundland. Tesco gets free labour, when they are done with them, they relieve them of their duties, and in comes another batch of free labour, and the cycle continues.

My friend who I just mentioned gets three holidays a year. I have seen him spend ridiculous amounts of money on something that would costs half that price elsewhere. As for the cliche that business people work hard so that they can enjoy those things: well, what about the people who work for them who work hard and do not even get one single holiday because they cannot afford it? Is working hard simply a term only applicable to the entrepeneur now? I think not. If that was the case every man who toiled down a mine would be a rich entrepeneur! As for others I have known them to be very snobbish around those who have less money than they have. The notion that greed is good is no consolation to the average wage earner, in fact I would say that the notion is abominable to their ears. The view that people have of bankers is that of greedy men following their bonuses. But greed is good? Not according to them, but maybe to the bankers themselves.

Yes business is a very evil act and all business should be stopped and replaced with the Government paying people wages and all the profit given to the Government so that it can be shared out fairly and we should be careful rising the minimum wage though because it may mean that businesses can't afford as many jobs as before and thus people lose their jobs,the maximum wage needs to be implemented I feel.A lot of crafty businesses,have been replacing employees,with machines thus cutting jobs and increasing unemployment for more profit

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Dalek1099)
Yes business is a very evil act and all business should be stopped and replaced with the Government paying people wages and all the profit given to the Government so that it can be shared out fairly and we should be careful rising the minimum wage though because it may mean that businesses can't afford as many jobs as before and thus people lose their jobs,the maximum wage needs to be implemented I feel.A lot of crafty businesses,have been replacing employees,with machines thus cutting jobs and increasing unemployment for more profit

Businesses could be given certain benefits like periodic tax breaks. It would probably mean that the business owner might no longer be able to afford a third holiday. But who needs three holidays a year? Seriously. I'm not talking about raising the minimum wage to a ridiculously high level. If people work full-time but have less of a comfortable life than what was previously enjoyed, something needs to be done about it. Raising the minimum wage would do more for the happiness of the people than some Olympic ceremony, for example. The rising emphasis placed on the spirit of entrepeneurealism (which is mainly about the power of selling as against buying) will likely lead to the profusion of these outragous ideas, such as getting staff to work for as little pay as possible.

[johndoranglasgow]

Your friend is absolutely right about somebody being desperate enough, but he'll sure as hell notice a difference in the quality of people he's surrounded himself with :P

[Dalek1099]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Businesses could be given certain benefits like periodic tax breaks. It would probably mean that the business owner might no longer be able to afford a third holiday. But who needs three holidays a year? Seriously. I'm not talking about raising the minimum wage to a ridiculously high level. If people work full-time but have less of a comfortable life than what was previously enjoyed, something needs to be done about it. Raising the minimum wage would do more for the happiness of the people than some Olympic ceremony, for example. The rising emphasis placed on the spirit of entrepeneurealism (which is mainly about the power of selling as against buying) will likely lead to the profusion of these outragous ideas, such as getting staff to work for as little pay as possible.

We don't want to give businesses periodic tax breaks-that will mean the government will have less money and will either have to cut things or raise tax to people.

[Arekkusu]

Eventually the economy will pick up and staff will once again be seen as something where quality is better than quantity.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Dalek1099)
We don't want to give businesses periodic tax breaks-that will mean the government will have less money and will either have to cut things or raise tax to people.

We don't because we would rather spend (or waste) whatever money on projects which do not usefully serve the interests of the wider community. I think that the government could cut things without it having an adverse effect on people's well-being and livelihood. Such cutting would likely take intelligent organisation and would involve a much broader perspective on how the economic system impacts on the daily lives of people, nothing like we have now where the government of the day is cutting mainly for ideological reasons, and because they want to procure a vote or secure some sort of legacy.

[ono]

to people who think getting rid to minimum wage is a good idea lets look at some of the countries that do not have one (or one that is stupidly low):

china, cameroon, india, brazil...

all of which have high levels of poverty and a huge gap in the distribution of income.

now tell me it is a good idea.

[Dirac Delta Function]

(Original post by Le Martyn*)
Getting people to work for less than Minimum Wage would suit business owners.

Earth-shattering.

[xoxAngel_Kxox]

The thing is, there would be a lot of people who were perfectly willing to work for less than minimum wage. I have a feeling you'd get a lot more students in those kinds of jobs, maybe to support themselves through A Levels or their degree when they wouldn't be able to claim any other benefits. Obviously if the wage being offered is less than an individual would receive on benefits they're not all that likely to take the job, because they'd struggle more.

I don't think it would be good for the economy at all. It would be easier for younger people to get jobs, but you'd get more older people unemployed.

[Dalek1099]

(Original post by Martyn*)
We don't because we would rather spend (or waste) whatever money on projects which do not usefully serve the interests of the wider community. I think that the government could cut things without it having an adverse effect on people's well-being and livelihood. Such cutting would likely take intelligent organisation and would involve a much broader perspective on how the economic system impacts on the daily lives of people, nothing like we have now where the government of the day is cutting mainly for ideological reasons, and because they want to procure a vote or secure some sort of legacy.

We are in a recession,we need to be making cuts any projects the Government funds are useful and even the best budgeters can waste quite a bit by increasing the minimum wage and giving businesses periodic tax breaks the Government will get less and this is really bad in such a recession that we are currently in,the Government can't afford to do what your asking.

[Sam Walters]

Someone wouldnt be desperate enough. 60 quid for a full weeks work. If youre over 25 youll get 71 from JSA and you dont have to pay out for fuel and buses to get to work...

Even if it was legal and JSA was not given to people. What quality of work do you expect from someone being paid £1.60 an hour? It would be one way to ensure a business fails.

[Astronomical]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Further to the 'Is the Minimum Wage Now Worthless?' thread, I was talking to a friend about raising the minimum wage whilst en-route to a Morrissey concert last night. My friend runs a chain of hairdressers here there and everywhere. He says that giving his employees £1.60 an hour would suit him down to the ground.

In reply I told him that he would never get anyone to work for him. His response "...somebody desperate enough..."

So I was thinking could this opinion catch on in the years to come? I know of a few business men and they are not would I would consider very sympathetic towards the plight of the wage earner. A number of businessmen are truly ruthless in their approach to business; these people exemplify what is the worst in Capitalism. Personally, I have only ever known one business person who was a very kind person (she was from California, USA), the rest have all been very cruel and vicious with views that could quite easily be considered far-right wing.

Perhaps this might not catch-on, and the meaning of social justice shall be evenly matched against Capitalist power. I think, however, that wage earners need to fight to raise the minimum wage or else face the onslaught of Capitalist power. I do not necessarily accept the notion that entire swathes of businesses would go under. I think there could be a tax break for business to lessen the impact of the blow after raising the minimum wage. I also think that Capitalists need to curb their greed and realise that everyone in society needs a comfortable life. This elitist notion that people are nothing more than a means to procure a continuous supply of profit for self-interested entrepeneurs will quite likely lead to wicked notions of getting them to work for little or no pay. This is almost bordering on the fascist tendency to organise work camps for the unemployed, which would probably suit Capitalism. We have seen this recently with people working for free at Tesco and Poundland. Tesco gets free labour, when they are done with them, they relieve them of their duties, and in comes another batch of free labour, and the cycle continues.

My friend who I just mentioned gets three holidays a year. I have seen him spend ridiculous amounts of money on something that would costs half that price elsewhere. As for the cliche that business people work hard so that they can enjoy those things: well, what about the people who work for them who work hard and do not even get one single holiday because they cannot afford it? Is working hard simply a term only applicable to the entrepeneur now? I think not. If that was the case every man who toiled down a mine would be a rich entrepeneur! As for others I have known them to be very snobbish around those who have less money than they have. The notion that greed is good is no consolation to the average wage earner, in fact I would say that the notion is abominable to their ears. The view that people have of bankers is that of greedy men following their bonuses. But greed is good? Not according to them, but maybe to the bankers themselves.

You should get a job.

In any case, anyone can turn up and do a 9-5 job. It's not difficult to replace those people.

The phrase "hard work" is being abused here, too. Working hard starts well before getting an actual job; these rich businessmen and entrepreneurs are usually very intelligent men and women, whereas your average 9-5 worker isn't. That is no coincidence. The "hard work" is getting yourself into a position to get a top job, not the physical demand of the job itself.

Also, I agree with your friend about the fact that people would work for £1.80 or a sub-minimum wage; many people just like working, and don't like sitting at home on JSA.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox)
Obviously if the wage being offered is less than an individual would receive on benefits they're not all that likely to take the job, because they'd struggle more.

I don't think it would be good for the economy at all. It would be easier for younger people to get jobs, but you'd get more older people unemployed.

That's where the Work Programme comes in. It attempts to close the loop. The government have found a way to get people to apply for any or all jobs or else face sanctions on their benefits. In that situation anyone refusing a job offer would be punished. I think that we are about to see many people forced (or cohereced) into low-paid work. Of course, people are clever and they could easily mess-up at the job interview and effectively not get the job.

[Donald Duck]

The German economy is currently the strongest in Europe, even with all the euro trouble they've got.

Germany does not have minimum wage.

[Hopple]

If the employer just wants someone to do the job rather than join the company and aim to move up, then yes, paying as little as possible to get that job done would suit them very well. If you're doing something for minimum wage, you'll likely have your sights set elsewhere so the employer has no way to get your loyalty and might as well drive a hard bargain.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Astronomical)
You should get a job.

In any case, anyone can turn up and do a 9-5 job. It's not difficult to replace those people.

The phrase "hard work" is being abused here, too. Working hard starts well before getting an actual job; these rich businessmen and entrepreneurs are usually very intelligent men and women, whereas your average 9-5 worker isn't. That is no coincidence. The "hard work" is getting yourself into a position to get a top job, not the physical demand of the job itself.

That is completely unfounded. There are entrepeneurs who are not very intelligent at all. They know how to run a business, maybe know the fundamentals of a trade, but that is all that they know. There are intelligent 9-5 workers as well, many of them have university degrees, some of them have expert knowledge.

"Hard work" is defined through two main components: manual and brain. Manual workers toil and we know that they are not always paid very well; their life is usually very harsh like the environment they work in. Brain workers on the other hand have the advantage of getting paid very well, they make important decisions which might affect the business though. But the brain worker's lot is not nearly as harsh as the manual worker's lot. Although hard work is subjective there is also an objective understanding, that being that manual work is less desireable compared to brain work, and for good reason.

[Snagprophet]

It's no big secret that if a business cut someone's pay they get more money. Means nothing in terms of business in general though.

[electriic_ink]

(Original post by ono)
to people who think getting rid to minimum wage is a good idea lets look at some of the countries that do not have one (or one that is stupidly low):

china, cameroon, india, brazil...

all of which have high levels of poverty and a huge gap in the distribution of income.

now tell me it is a good idea.

Norway doesn't have one but Iraq does.

[TimmonaPortella]

Minimum wage causes unemployment by eliminating jobs that aren't worth £6 per hour. It interferes to stop private negotiations which both parties may be glad to conclude. I agree with neither of these aspects. And fyi I've done menial work before, and am currently employed over the holiday doing some.

(Original post by Martyn*)
Although hard work is subjective there is also an objective understanding, that being that manual work is less desireable compared to brain work, and for good reason.

Whilst whether the work is hard or not is nothing to the point, a lot of "brain work" is infinitely more taxing than "manual work". Many of those doing brain work work far longer hours, and undergo far more stress caused by the responsibility they have. If you are doing manual work you can usually go home at 5 o'clock and forget all about the work you've done during the day. You can just chill. If you are doing brain work, often you'll go home much later and have to sit stressing out over what you've not finished, over whether your thinking was correct or good enough etc. This is more a distinction between positions of responsibility and positions without responsibility than one between brain and manual work per se, but the dividing lines coincide. Including aspects of stress, "brain work" is often the much harsher environment.