Turn on thread page Beta

The minimum wage promotes more discrimination than it alleviates. watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrew97)
    I can see your point. This would be solved if wages were above benefits.
    No!

    Increasing the minimum wage to a living wage would be disastrous and would just lead to more unemployment.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    No!

    Increasing the minimum wage to a living wage would be disastrous and would just lead to more unemployment.
    Basic principles of Economics do support your theory. In the benefits bit I was more talking of reducing benefits than raising wages though.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Abolishing minimum wage would most significanly be exploited by employers, hiring immigrants and paying them a wage insufficient to afford the basic standards of living. A minimum wage provides job security and protection to workers, without being exploited by their employer. Corperations have one intention, and their purpose to function is through prioritising profits, living in a capitalist society. Majority of employers are tryingt to find cost-effective alternatives to employees, they want to get rid of them. Go to your local city centre or central business district, and witness the plethora of closed stores. Out of town shopping centres and most prominently online shopping has contributed to the decline of physical shopping; cheaper prices, greater variety and conveinience, simply abolishing minimum wage would provide employers the opportunity to save their pockets and business and pay the workers peanuts! It is an absolutely ludicrous idea, even more than a "maximum wage"- inherently flawed.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    Yes, and in my opinion, the person who just got rejected should be allowed to negotiate and work for less if he really wants that job. This will allow people who are not skilled enough to get jobs, to survive, to keep themselves off the streets. 30% of the people in the UK have IQs lower than 70. Where do suppose these people go? They cannot get jobs easily. Is it moral to deny them the right to negotiate the salary in the hope to convince an employer to hire them? To allow them to buy food, a roof over their heads? According to you, it’s neither moral, nor just, but just nonsense.
    0
    It won’t get people off the streets, it’ll keep them on the streets because despite working full time, they aren’t making enough money to live.

    You can negotiate salary when you actually have a job. You can’t just walk into morrisons like “oi mate, i’ll work for £3 an hour” and they’re going to jazz their pants over cost cutting.

    If you don’t have the ability to do a job, why would a employer hire you? It makes the company much worse off in the long run to have a cheap bad employee.

    There are plenty of things to help people without jobs in the UK. Benefits exist, jobseekers allowance. If you don’t get a job in six months you get put on a 13 week course to gain new skills to make you more employable. The government supports people until they can support themselves, which is much better than people living on the streets working a job paying them pennies.

    Having people living in poverty while working full time isn’t a good idea.

    I hoped you were a troll because I don’t want to believe people are dumb enough to think abolishing minimum wage would improve anything. Should we be taking a leaf out of china’s book and set up some factories like they have too? People are treated like slaves but at least they’re working right? :facepalm:
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    If your concern is living costs, then you should focus on central bank credit expansion and its resulting effects on that, as well as subsidised mass migration, nevermind taxes and the high cost of regulation, the benefit of which is not always in existence.

    (Original post by Andrew97)
    Ah I’m finally starting to understand your point. I disagree because 5% unemployment is better than 2% unemployment but the 3% have a dismal wage they can’t live on.
    And basically ever decreasing prospects of ever being gainfully employed. The fact of the matter is, for some jobs, you're a net drain until you're trained to a certain level. Hence why all the noise about unpaid internships etc. is plain nonsense. The employer cannot hope to pay you more than you bring in (discounted for risk of not making a sale, the fact that wages, at least contractually, must be paid regularly whereas revenues are haphazard and subject to consumer demand etc.) and remain profitable. A price control called a minimum wage won't change that.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Science99999)
    Abolishing minimum wage would most significanly be exploited by employers, hiring immigrants and paying them a wage insufficient to afford the basic standards of living. A minimum wage provides job security and protection to workers, without being exploited by their employer. Corperations have one intention, and their purpose to function is through prioritising profits, living in a capitalist society. Majority of employers are tryingt to find cost-effective alternatives to employees, they want to get rid of them. Go to your local city centre or central business district, and witness the plethora of closed stores. Out of town shopping centres and most prominently online shopping has contributed to the decline of physical shopping; cheaper prices, greater variety and conveinience, simply abolishing minimum wage would provide employers the opportunity to save their pockets and business and pay the workers peanuts! It is an absolutely ludicrous idea, even more than a "maximum wage"- inherently flawed.
    They already hire illegals where they can, and rely on automation where they can't. Sticking a label below which you cannot pay a wage won't change the realities firms are faced with. The entire reason firms are seeking alternatives to employees is because of idiotic policies like the MW, not to mention countless other taxes and regulations they're faced with, as well as consumers who certainly don't want to pay more... and shareholders seeking diminishing yield in an environment of artificially low risk due to central banks suppressing it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TCA2b)
    They already hire illegals where they can, and rely on automation where they can't. Sticking a label below which you cannot pay a wage won't change the realities firms are faced with. The entire reason firms are seeking alternatives to employees is because of idiotic policies like the MW, not to mention countless other taxes and regulations they're faced with, as well as consumers who certainly don't want to pay more... and shareholders seeking diminishing yield in an environment of artificially low risk due to central banks suppressing it.
    Those illegally hire illegals or immigrants represent a small minority, the abolision of MW would increase and dramatically exceed the minority into the majority. Being blinded by the media such as the pathetic and absolutely atrocious "Daily Express", which inherently expresses racist bigotry, filled with idiotic, ignorant and manipulated statistics. Considering the illegality of hiring illegals and paying others under MW, the reality is that the majority of large scale corporations, are not going to risk the stability of their assets on a legal settlement. Thefore the majority of businesses hire employees through a legal basis. Illegals don't even represent 1% of the economy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cat_mac)
    It won’t get people off the streets, it’ll keep them on the streets because despite working full time, they aren’t making enough money to live.

    You can negotiate salary when you actually have a job. You can’t just walk into morrisons like “oi mate, i’ll work for £3 an hour” and they’re going to jazz their pants over cost cutting.

    If you don’t have the ability to do a job, why would a employer hire you? It makes the company much worse off in the long run to have a cheap bad employee.

    There are plenty of things to help people without jobs in the UK. Benefits exist, jobseekers allowance. If you don’t get a job in six months you get put on a 13 week course to gain new skills to make you more employable. The government supports people until they can support themselves, which is much better than people living on the streets working a job paying them pennies.

    Having people living in poverty while working full time isn’t a good idea.

    I hoped you were a troll because I don’t want to believe people are dumb enough to think abolishing minimum wage would improve anything. Should we be taking a leaf out of china’s book and set up some factories like they have too? People are treated like slaves but at least they’re working right? :facepalm:
    It's funny how you think you know what you're talking about, yet all the evidence disagrees with you. The 5 HAPPIEST countries in the world, all of which are also the RICHEST countries in the world with VERY LOW unemploy rates have NO minimum wage.

    Luxembourg (richest, top 10 happiest), Denmark (second happiest, top 10 richest), Norway (happiest, top 10 richest), Iceland, Switzerland (4th richest, very happy) and Finland (very rich, very happy). Not one country has abolished the minimum wage and been better off.

    This is a very common Libertarian policy and has worked wonders.

    Care to refute, or are you just going to carry on calling me a troll without a leg to stand on.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Luxembourg is a bit of a special case when it comes to statistics.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Science99999)
    Abolishing minimum wage would most significanly be exploited by employers, hiring immigrants and paying them a wage insufficient to afford the basic standards of living. A minimum wage provides job security and protection to workers, without being exploited by their employer. Corperations have one intention, and their purpose to function is through prioritising profits, living in a capitalist society. Majority of employers are tryingt to find cost-effective alternatives to employees, they want to get rid of them. Go to your local city centre or central business district, and witness the plethora of closed stores. Out of town shopping centres and most prominently online shopping has contributed to the decline of physical shopping; cheaper prices, greater variety and conveinience, simply abolishing minimum wage would provide employers the opportunity to save their pockets and business and pay the workers peanuts! It is an absolutely ludicrous idea, even more than a "maximum wage"- inherently flawed.
    A ridiculous idea that has contributed in financing some of the richest and happiest countries in the world, Finland, Luxembourg, Iceland, Norway, Denmark. NO worker exploitation is present. our argument is rendered null, because you've provided no evidence of the abolishment of a minimum not working, and I'll you why there isn't one. It has worked wonders for many countries and we are worse off for not adopting it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrew97)
    Luxembourg is a bit of a special case when it comes to statistics.
    Care to explain why?

    Even so, I provided serval countries, all extremely rich and extremely happy with low unemployment.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrew97)
    Basic principles of Economics do support your theory. In the benefits bit I was more talking of reducing benefits than raising wages though.
    What basic principles of economics are you using to support your statement.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    What basic principles of economics are you using to support your statement.
    The statement I was making there was that a higher living wage than the current national wage would cause some unemployment. The principle to support this is supply and demand and it’s equilibrium.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    It's funny how you think you know what you're talking about, yet all the evidence disagrees with you. The 5 HAPPIEST countries in the world, all of which are also the RICHEST countries in the world with VERY LOW unemploy rates have NO minimum wage.

    Luxembourg (richest, top 10 happiest), Denmark (second happiest, top 10 richest), Norway (happiest, top 10 richest), Iceland, Switzerland (4th richest, very happy) and Finland (very rich, very happy). Not one country has abolished the minimum wage and been better off.

    This is a very common Libertarian policy and has worked wonders.

    Care to refute, or are you just going to carry on calling me a troll without a leg to stand on.
    I’ve made my point, you don’t seem capable of retaining information so there’s really no point in me parroting it back to you. If you have anything to dispute with what I said then maybe respond to the points I made rather than diverting attention by bringing up something else.

    A lot contributes to how countries are run. Did any of those countries have minimum wage that was abolished? Getting rid of something and never having it are very different things.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrew97)
    The statement I was making there was that a higher living wage than the current national wage would cause some unemployment. The principle to support this is supply and demand and it’s equilibrium.
    Hey, my bad. I think I sort of lost track of what we were talking about. I'm still not sure whether you agree with me, disagree with me or are making a separate point, sorry!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    Hey, my bad. I think I sort of lost track of what we were talking about. I'm still not sure whether you agree with me, disagree with me or are making a separate point, sorry!
    I disagree with your general point, but a further point you made about the living wage I agreed with.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    A ridiculous idea that has contributed in financing some of the richest and happiest countries in the world, Finland, Luxembourg, Iceland, Norway, Denmark. NO worker exploitation is present. our argument is rendered null, because you've provided no evidence of the abolishment of a minimum not working, and I'll you why there isn't one. It has worked wonders for many countries and we are worse off for not adopting it.
    However, you need to consider other factors. You cannot simply correalte a relationship with MW with economic success. You haven't provided any evidence, just names of Scandinavian countries that are known boast a plethora of advantages in the quality of life and economic success.

    1) They provide a better education system
    2) The quality of life is much better primarily because of diet, levels of high taxation, which promote growth and development in infrastructure
    3) Their smaller populations such as Luxembourg, mean that the levels of income are statistically higher.
    4) The number of immigrants are signficantly lower
    5) Sweden isn't menitioned because they're beginning to see down turn

    6) India? China? African countries? Pakistan? Afghanistan? LEDCs? The majority of poorer countries, without economic stability, growing levels of poverty and levels of slavery all have no MW. Middle eastern countries thrive on indian slavery to construc ttheir hotels. Exploitation is rife in these corrupt and poor countries
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Science99999)
    Those illegally hire illegals or immigrants represent a small minority, the abolision of MW would increase and dramatically exceed the minority into the majority. Being blinded by the media such as the pathetic and absolutely atrocious "Daily Express", which inherently expresses racist bigotry, filled with idiotic, ignorant and manipulated statistics. Considering the illegality of hiring illegals and paying others under MW, the reality is that the majority of large scale corporations, are not going to risk the stability of their assets on a legal settlement. Thefore the majority of businesses hire employees through a legal basis. Illegals don't even represent 1% of the economy.
    Again, not sure what the basis of this is. If the wage cost to a firm is too high it will seek 1) alternative legal arrangements that circumvent the regular MW (apprenticeships are an example of this, but there's other means of doing so that are entirely legal) 2) push for subsidised mass migration 3) outsource 4) automate or 5) seek employees who are more capable and can do more things, to justify the higher expenditure. Some will risk 6) breaching the law. For the firm to be able to soak up the cost of the MW it has to be able to pass on the costs to consumers, which it won't usually be able to do without losing sales. The firms that would benefit from the abolition of the MW are those being forced to resort to the aforementioned practices. Yet so would those hired by them.

    I don't read the Daily Express or care about it, but I am sorry, the figures regarding migration have nothing to do with "racist" bigotry, and I've no reason to think they're any more manipulated or ignorant than the figures put out for it. What do you think 500k net migration p.a. does to the wages earned by the pool of workers already in the country, nevermind living costs? It depresses wage levels further through simple supply/demand mechanics. And when the firm can't even contractually hire the person legally, those people are simply out of luck. I'm not saying illegals factor into the hiring pool of most firms in the UK to any significant extent, just that some already do hire on this basis.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    No!

    Increasing the minimum wage to a living wage would be disastrous and would just lead to more unemployment.
    When the Labour Party were on the verge of introducing the minimum wage in the UK there were, I remember, plenty of apparent 'experts', economic and otherwise, making it known that there would be a terrible recession as a result but it didn't really happen. Sometimes people let their ideological orientation lead them to conclusions that aren't evidenced in the complexities and nuances of economic reality.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cat_mac)
    I’ve made my point, you don’t seem capable of retaining information so there’s really no point in me parroting it back to you. If you have anything to dispute with what I said then maybe respond to the points I made rather than diverting attention by bringing up something else.

    A lot contributes to how countries are run. Did any of those countries have minimum wage that was abolished? Getting rid of something and never having it are very different things.
    To be honest, you made a baseless assumption, proceeded to call me a troll and my argument nonsense, telling me that it would never and when I fired back with irrefutable evidence, you claim 'i can't retain information'. I mean, in essence, I've proved your claim that the lack of a minimum wage would be a disaster, whole-heartedly, and utterly WRONG. You'd have to be knowingly ignorant to simply shrug that off and double down.

    To address the actual point of your comment, it doesn't matter whether these countries had minimum wages, to begin with, or not. You claimed it would be a disaster if minimum wage laws got repealed, and yet these countries are prospering. If they weren't, then I'd concede and you'd be right, but that's not what's happening. At all.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,316

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.