If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Why do we need a minimum wage?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Minimum wage legislation is designed to improve the standard of living of the lower paid. However isn't it better if it were abolished?
If the minimum wage is so beneficial, then why not set it at £30? Surely that would help the lower paid, no?
If the minimum wage is so beneficial, then why not set it at £30? Surely that would help the lower paid, no?
0
Comments
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk
- if it was, then businesses could not afford to pay their work force.... it would simply be too expensive. It would result in massive unemployment... which would in turn lead to less saving, less spending, less development, huge inflation, social degredation, increased crime, huge levels of inequality and general economic and social stagantion.
in fact, it would pretty much destroy the lower paid section of society
:yeees:
Why is £3.60 per hour too low?
Which socialist organisations made the £7.00 per hour demand?
How did they arrive at that figure?
Steely, you do realize that prices have to rise with wages, yes? Not in exactly proportion (affluence is the excess of the latter over the former), but they are linked. The companies do have to pay their workers, whether or not they are run by 'bosses' or -- as in your socialist dreamworld -- by the workers themselves.
Which is my point.
Any great increase in the minimum wage simply leads to excess unemployment as workers are priced out of the workforce.
It's simply better to let the market decide who is paid what; any artificial setting of wages is folly.
It should be scrapped.
£7 an hour could lead to greater unemployment.
The Socialist Alliance did at the last election. Clearly a vote winning strategy
onenatcons: Do you think having people on £1.20 an hour would benefit the economy?
Increasingly, the economy relies massively on consumer spending. A minimum wage ensures a higher level of desposable income, meaning more people spend and the economy is improved.
Without a minimum wage, employers are free to exploit those depserate for work. More people fall into poverty, which damages the economy as they are spending less and are less productive due to their reduced state, not having enough money to eat and all. Ever heard of national efficiency?
Nonsense (apart from any statement regarding consumer spending).
Those who are not earning the minimum wage would earn the market rate for their specific vocation. If the market rate for one's labour is £1.20 an hour then so be it.
Ultimately inequality is an inherent aspect of a capitalist society; no one can alter that. Inequality should be limited (well in my view anyway), but not eradicated (I'll leave any socialist tendency to Steelgate).
Britain was one of the few countries in Europe without a minimum wage. Before it was imposed millions of unskilled workers were getting paid as little as £1.20 for shitty dead end factory/warehouse/fast food joint jobs. When the minimum wage came into effect the greedy bastards the majority of bosses in this country are predicted doom and mass unemployment as scores of workers would have to be laid off.
In fact quite the opposite has happened: unemployment has continued falling and it's at it’s lowest for almost 30 years. All those scary stories were desperate attempts by the greedy fat cats and the pathetic tories to frighten the government into backing up on this issue. The extra money for the wages has come from the incredibly large profits most of the companies involved make, and tempted as they might have been to sack a few workers so the greedy shareholders squeeze every possible penny, they didn't dare because the companies were never in danger of going bankrupt.
As far as I'm concerned the minimum wage is still too low. Large companies such as CrapDonalds that make billions in profits should be made to increase the wage so workers can take home a decent salary. Such companies can clearly afford the extra wage. Shareholders can go to hell for all I care.
Frankly, you're the one talking nonsense. But I was polite enough above not to mention it.
Without the minimum wage, employers are free to drive down the market rate at will. If all hiring employers are only paying £1.20 an hour for a particular job, then the market rate becomes that.
Also, a minimum wage does not seek to eradicate inequality; simply control or limit it. Eradicating inequality would be paying everyone the same amount no matter what their profession; not a good idea.
Why is this bad?
In order to survive - not have a high quality of life but to surivive - they're forced to work long hours. Their children may be neglected as the parents have to work 15 hour days; not because they're bad parents, but because it's either that or the children starving to death.
Workers in such circumstances will be less motivated and less productive, not to mention malnourished and ill-housed. Since they're less productive, the economy will suffer once again.
You're clearly a very insular person, and have no idea about the real world. Have you any clue how hard it would be to survive on £1.20 an hour, let alone support a family? Try growing up a little. At the moment you sound pathetic, frankly.
The World is backwards.
The amount of profits companies are now making means they can afford to pay more, yet don't.
I'd be happy if my wage increased to £5 an hour, that's how bad it is.
Those of you asking why we need a minimum wage, try living on one.
May it should be lowerd, maybe its ok at the level its on....
But i think the national Tax free income should be the same as the standerd minimum wage full time income.
If a shareholder owns part of a company, why isn't s/he entitled to any share of the profit that the company makes?
Thats kinda the point in being a shareholder, you get a anual / quarterly divident payment, based on the profit the company has made.
Some types of share get you a vote on decsions made, some garuantee you a pay-out regardless of how the company profits are looking.
All of them give you a share in the profits.
The more a company pays its employee's, the less profit there is to give to the shre holders.
This is why the share holders (typically) are against pay increases for the employees.
If a worker shows excellent efficiency and is hardworking, why shouldn't he/she get paid at a corresponding level?
Why should the shareholders take all the pieces of the cake?
Complete crap.
Since shareholders own a company, they are entitled to ALL profits!!
As you say, what is the point of being a shareholder?
Because they own the company. Next question.
Nice to see you taking a long term economic view there.
Okay, so they pay crap wages, and get crap employees as a result. Profits dive.
Now what?
onenatcons
Complete crap.
Since shareholders own a company, they are entitled to ALL profits!!
yes, meaning that each shareholder is entilted to a share of the profits.
That share being a part of the profit.
Which is what I said.
So what was the line "Complete crap" aimed at?
Anything? Or is the thrill of anominity going to your head, and you thought you'd take the opertunity to insult some-one without cause?
And not all the profit is given to the shareholders. While they could take all of the profit, and could be said to be entitled to all of the profit, generaly they leave some of it for future developements, research etc etc.
Not doing this means the company cannot grow, and a company that is not growing is getting smaller.
_____________________________________________
Really i'm with MoK here. Lots of companys say the employees are the most important asset, but how many act like it? None that i've worked at, thats for sure.
Many things can affect profit margins.
If an economy is in slowdown or recession, then profits could fall. If a corporation receives a greater market share of its good/service, then profits may rise.
and who loses their jobs then?
Shareholders?
Point being that shareholders deserve a return on their investment, that isn't in question. However, the people who actually do the work also deserve the correct recognition. This should either come from profit sharing, or from better wages.
By maintaining an artificially low wage structure comapnies actually end up will a lower calibre of employee. This has a negative effect of the performance of the company.
By giving the employees a reasonable wage, and/or profit sharing the shareholder encourage excellence.
All I can say is that I'm glad I don't work for you. But then with your attitude, I know I wouldn't.
Perhaps you would like to repeat such comments to the families of the victims of the Hatfield rail crash...
On second thoughts it'd wouldn't be a wise thing to do...
Well, seeing as the railways are, statistically, hugely safer than the roads, I don't think your comment actually carries much weight.