Should young people be paid minimum wage?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by sw651
You mean like, employers should pay what they wish. Surely that would make it all a lot worse
Yes. Employers should pay what they can afford to attract talent.
Original post by Treeroy
Why?
Because ultimately, Minimum Wage is artificially inflating worth and in doing so, is hitting the poorest the hardest.
You have a cleaner on MW and a MD on MW x 20.
The MW is calculated to see the minimum that Person X can make before they fall under the poverty line and into difficulty. This is calculated by taking the cost of living, as well as the cost of goods/services.
Cost of goods/services are determined by the business and one of the factors within that costing, is staff costs. If you have a MW, there is a set % that you need to factor into the cost of the product in order to make a profit. That drives the cost of the product up.
As the cost of the product goes up, the cost of living goes up and if the cost of living goes up, the government increases MW to factor in that.
So, you have a perpetual system whereby the MW will only go one way, and that is up.
That may not be such a bad thing, I hear you say, but it leads to higher income disparity between the poorest and the richest.
You know above where I said the MD pays himself MW x 20, the effect of an MW be in his favour. Let's work it out logically:
Spoiler
The above clearly demonstrates the effect that would happen if we continue to increase the MW. Those who are paid the highest, will be better off under a MW system because their wages are calculated in reference to the MW.
MW simply helps people to not fall below the "poverty line" but it is a system where those who are well off are made to be even more well off.
MW doesn't increase prosperity or wealth of the poorest, it just perpetually punishes them.
nobody should be entitled to a "minimum wage"; the only people determining wages should be those involved in a contract - not a state government that has nothing to do with such contracts ecept enforcing agreements - we live in the west in the 21st century. we don't live in the third world. britain before 1997 when it (the minimum wage law) was implemented wasn't a shanty town.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by sleepysnooze
nobody should be entitled to a "minimum wage"; the only people determining wages should be those involved in a contract - not a state government that has nothing to do with such contracts ecept enforcing agreements - we live in the west in the 21st century. we don't live in the third world. britain before 1997 when it (the minimum wage law) was implemented wasn't a shanty town.
Absolute recipe for a disaster that would be.
Original post by ron_trns
Absolute recipe for a disaster that would be.
I don't think you've read into the unintended consequences of the minimum wage law. if you know of them, address them to me and tell me how they aren't real? unless you *don't* know what you're talking about, obviously
You people are stupid. The lack of a minimum wage is intended to help young people. They have no experience, they need an employer to take a chance employing them over someone older. Charging less is what they can offer.
Imagine if we newsagents were forced to pay paper-boys the minimum wage. No one would pay it, people would stop getting papers delivered, absolutely no one would be better off, and plenty of kids wouldn't get their first crack at work.
Imagine if we newsagents were forced to pay paper-boys the minimum wage. No one would pay it, people would stop getting papers delivered, absolutely no one would be better off, and plenty of kids wouldn't get their first crack at work.
Original post by ron_trns
Absolute recipe for a disaster that would be.
Except we only have to go back to the mid-nineties before we had any minimum wage at all in this country. And wherever you stand on that debate, there is absolutely no way it was a disaster.
Original post by Rinsed
Except we only have to go back to the mid-nineties before we had any minimum wage at all in this country. And wherever you stand on that debate, there is absolutely no way it was a disaster.
There are already enough poor people living on the poverty line in this country.
Original post by ron_trns
That was then though, this is now. You can't say what worked back then will work now, unfortunately circumstances have changed and not for the better. Taking away min wage now would cause a dive for the bottom. There are already too many employers hiring below min wage illegally, making it legal would enforce cheap labour in the poor.
There are already enough poor people living on the poverty line in this country.
There are already enough poor people living on the poverty line in this country.
This was 17 years ago, not the 1800's, the economy has hardly changed beyond all recognition. There are plenty of developed countries without minimum wages who do not have the problems you describe, including places like Austria and Denmark, which are not known for low wage rates.
Further, there is scant evidence that the minimum wage has actually been beneficial in this country, as opposed to whether perceived benefits would have occurred due to GDP growth anyway.
The reality is that you are scaremongering, and not even very well.
with more and more jobs likely or able to automatized - and capitalism unable to replace them with enough equivalent jobs, meaning an ever-increasing surplus population - a guaranteed social wage (or universal basic income) seems like the only sustainable outcome to me
In my opinion we need to either create more incentives for big businesses to pay at least the living wage. Min wage is not an acceptable form of life. People someone shouts 'go get skilled' mate life is not all that rosey. i have known people that earned £60k+ but are not only working zero hour contract work/part time/min wage. Life is definitely uncertain I can tell you that people who have the 'I'm alright jack' attitude lack empathy
Credit to Lidl and Aldi btw for agreeing to pay living wage i hope more follow
Credit to Lidl and Aldi btw for agreeing to pay living wage i hope more follow
I think younger workers should be measured by their productivity. If they are as able as a 25 year old worker they should receive the National Living Wage.
Im 19 and in full time work, Ive just looked at the gov.uk website and the minimum wage is diffrent for me because im under 21 luckily I get paid the same as my co-workers (who are over 21) which is therefore over the 21+ minimum wage . I think it would be unfair for people to get paid more or less than a co-worker who is doing the same job because of there age. So it wouldnt be fair to have a diffrent minimum wage for under 21's unless a company employeed only people who were under 21.
Original post by sw651
16 year olds are often unreliable and do not do anywhere near the same hours. Also they do not have to live of that money.
What makes you so sure?
I'm lucky that my parents can pay for my phone contract and car insurance, and send me a small amount of money while I'm away at university. I do a bit of work during the holidays to make some extra money on top of that.
Other people don't have that and may need to make money themselves for those sort of things. For some people, their student loan doesn't even cover the cost of accommodation - never mind other things like food. Some parents either can't afford to support them or just refuse to support them. Not everyone can live off the bank of mum and dad.
You're all too hung up on the amount the employee is earning each hour. First and foremost - before they can start earning anything - they need a job. You're all assuming an employer is going to be happy to pay 6.70 pounds an hour to employ some 16-year-old schoolkid as a dish washer, paperboy, or whatever.
It's better to be employed and earning a few pounds less per hour than unemployed and earning nothing, don't you think? You should expect the youth unemployment rate to soar if the minimum price of their labour suddenly increased by 50%. Think bigger.
It's better to be employed and earning a few pounds less per hour than unemployed and earning nothing, don't you think? You should expect the youth unemployment rate to soar if the minimum price of their labour suddenly increased by 50%. Think bigger.
Original post by TheArtofProtest
Yes. Employers should pay what they can afford to attract talent.
Because ultimately, Minimum Wage is artificially inflating worth and in doing so, is hitting the poorest the hardest.
You have a cleaner on MW and a MD on MW x 20.
The MW is calculated to see the minimum that Person X can make before they fall under the poverty line and into difficulty. This is calculated by taking the cost of living, as well as the cost of goods/services.
Cost of goods/services are determined by the business and one of the factors within that costing, is staff costs. If you have a MW, there is a set % that you need to factor into the cost of the product in order to make a profit. That drives the cost of the product up.
As the cost of the product goes up, the cost of living goes up and if the cost of living goes up, the government increases MW to factor in that.
So, you have a perpetual system whereby the MW will only go one way, and that is up.
That may not be such a bad thing, I hear you say, but it leads to higher income disparity between the poorest and the richest.
You know above where I said the MD pays himself MW x 20, the effect of an MW be in his favour. Let's work it out logically:
The above clearly demonstrates the effect that would happen if we continue to increase the MW. Those who are paid the highest, will be better off under a MW system because their wages are calculated in reference to the MW.
MW simply helps people to not fall below the "poverty line" but it is a system where those who are well off are made to be even more well off.
MW doesn't increase prosperity or wealth of the poorest, it just perpetually punishes them.
Because ultimately, Minimum Wage is artificially inflating worth and in doing so, is hitting the poorest the hardest.
You have a cleaner on MW and a MD on MW x 20.
The MW is calculated to see the minimum that Person X can make before they fall under the poverty line and into difficulty. This is calculated by taking the cost of living, as well as the cost of goods/services.
Cost of goods/services are determined by the business and one of the factors within that costing, is staff costs. If you have a MW, there is a set % that you need to factor into the cost of the product in order to make a profit. That drives the cost of the product up.
As the cost of the product goes up, the cost of living goes up and if the cost of living goes up, the government increases MW to factor in that.
So, you have a perpetual system whereby the MW will only go one way, and that is up.
That may not be such a bad thing, I hear you say, but it leads to higher income disparity between the poorest and the richest.
You know above where I said the MD pays himself MW x 20, the effect of an MW be in his favour. Let's work it out logically:
Spoiler
The above clearly demonstrates the effect that would happen if we continue to increase the MW. Those who are paid the highest, will be better off under a MW system because their wages are calculated in reference to the MW.
MW simply helps people to not fall below the "poverty line" but it is a system where those who are well off are made to be even more well off.
MW doesn't increase prosperity or wealth of the poorest, it just perpetually punishes them.
What is the basis for your assumption that the MD's earnings will rise proportionally with MW?
Original post by Rinsed
You people are stupid. The lack of a minimum wage is intended to help young people. They have no experience, they need an employer to take a chance employing them over someone older. Charging less is what they can offer.
Imagine if we newsagents were forced to pay paper-boys the minimum wage. No one would pay it, people would stop getting papers delivered, absolutely no one would be better off, and plenty of kids wouldn't get their first crack at work.
Imagine if we newsagents were forced to pay paper-boys the minimum wage. No one would pay it, people would stop getting papers delivered, absolutely no one would be better off, and plenty of kids wouldn't get their first crack at work.
Original post by Dandaman1
You're all too hung up on the amount the employee is earning each hour. First and foremost - before they can start earning anything - they need a job. You're all assuming an employer is going to be happy to pay 6.70 pounds an hour to employ some 16-year-old schoolkid as a dish washer, paperboy, or whatever.
It's better to be employed and earning a few pounds less per hour than unemployed and earning nothing, don't you think? You should expect the youth unemployment rate to soar if the minimum price of their labour suddenly increased by 50%. Think bigger.
It's better to be employed and earning a few pounds less per hour than unemployed and earning nothing, don't you think? You should expect the youth unemployment rate to soar if the minimum price of their labour suddenly increased by 50%. Think bigger.
Could you not make the same case for over 21s or 25s or whatever though. By having such a rule, the government is bringing age discrimination into it, where there was not any before. It just means a shift towards youth employment leaving elder citizens unemployed. Either way, you will have the same amount of people unemployed, so I would rather the ones being employed getting paid a proper wage. I don't see there being much point of different minimum wage levels.
Original post by Rinsed
Except we only have to go back to the mid-nineties before we had any minimum wage at all in this country. And wherever you stand on that debate, there is absolutely no way it was a disaster.
That applies to the post min wage world as well.
Original post by RVNmax
What is the basis for your assumption that the MD's earnings will rise proportionally with MW?
That's how people usually measure themselves.
For example, if I'm a cleaner on MW and my mate, who is a Hardware Engineer, he would expect to be on a higher salary than me.
Not because he is deserving of it, not because his effort is twice as less as mine, not because he needs the extra money but because he expects, and there is an perception, that his job is worth more than mine.
Due to the MW, society has been dragged into an illusion that if you follow a set path (i.e: school, university, postgraduate courses), you would increase your chances of earning a higher salary, a salary that is in proportion to the starting figure, which is usually taken to be the MW.
Original post by sw651
poll tax
You worried me that my research into the tax system had missed out some sort of tax I was supposed to pay.
A quick Google search says poll tax was abolished over 20 years ago.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
