Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest MattP]

32 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Remember how angry you got at Osbourne's 'punishment budget' (which never happened)?  This argument is essentially the same thing. 

Massively different. 

 

The "punishment budget" died hours after he threatened it as about 50 Tory backbenchers openly wrote a letter saying they would vote it down. So it would have needed Labour support which was never going to happen.

 

The fact they keep repeating it despite that was what made people angry, they were still promising to implement something that couldn't happen .

[Webbo]

21 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

The fallacy being that "they'd be no better off because companies would pass on their costs, inflating prices in direct proportion to cancel out their employees' increased spending power".  This is obviously not true if you understand that a company's wage payout is only part of the larger cost to produce a good/service and that a minimum wage increase only affects the company's outlay to their employees on minimum wage, it doesn't affect them across the entire company.  So a x% increase in minimum wage would, up to a point, increase prices across the economy by <x%. 

 

It's actually quite an evil argument since it's often used to justify not increasing minimum wage to match inflation, incurring even less spending power on the poor as prices rise faster than their income.

 

But since you're the one asserting this as a fact, the onus is on you to prove rather than on me to disprove. I look forward to seeing your evidence.

So you think if the lowest paid in a company all of a sudden are on parity with someone who's worked their way up the ladder a bit there won't be any pressure on the employer to raise other wages?

 

All costs have to be paid, either by taking money out of profits, putting up prices or reducing other costs. As businesses exist to make profit then, unless there are competition pressures, the cost will be will be passed on to customers or jobs will be lost.

[Carl the Llama]

19 minutes ago, MattP said:

Massively different. 

 

The "punishment budget" died hours after he threatened it as about 50 Tory backbenchers openly wrote a letter saying they would vote it down. So it would have needed Labour support which was never going to happen.

 

The fact they keep repeating it despite that was what made people angry, they were still promising to implement something that couldn't happen .

My point is that saying "we're going to cut jobs if we have to pay our lowest-paid members of staff a bit more" is in most cases an empty threat all things considered.  Once the catalyst happens (brexit/higher min. wage) the promised retaliation probably won't surface, certainly not in the form most seem to be promising.  A company needs to have cleaners for instance, they're not going to stop filling roles just because it requires a bit more expenditure.  Some jobs will be lost at some companies but equally other companies will see more income (because of increased spending power) and will expand, hiring more staff.

 

13 minutes ago, Webbo said:

So you think if the lowest paid in a company all of a sudden are on parity with someone who's worked their way up the ladder a bit there won't be any pressure on the employer to raise other wages?

 

All costs have to be paid, either by taking money out of profits, putting up prices or reducing other costs. As businesses exist to make profit then, unless there are competition pressures, the cost will be will be passed on to customers or jobs will be lost.

In my experience the pay disparity has been sufficiently large that the lowest paid members of staff wouldn't be at parity if their hourly rate was increased to £11-12/h (not even close - and that would give them more than I'm suggesting is necessary to live and improve anyway, a 40h week at £9/h is already a good start).  But you're right I didn't consider the companies where that's the case.  I guess those other members of staff would need a few extra quid an hour themselves but the costs will still be passed onto consumers such that living costs would increase at a less-than-proportionate rate to the wage increases.

Edited 25 August 2017 by Carl the Llama

[Webbo]

20 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

My point is that saying "we're going to cut jobs if we have to pay our lowest-paid members of staff a bit more" is in most cases an empty threat all things considered.  Once the catalyst happens (brexit/higher min. wage) the promised retaliation probably won't surface, certainly not in the form most seem to be promising.  A company needs to have cleaners for instance, they're not going to stop filling roles just because it requires a bit more expenditure.  Some jobs will be lost at some companies but equally other companies will see more income (because of increased spending power) and will expand, hiring more staff.

 

In my experience the pay disparity has been sufficiently large that the lowest paid members of staff wouldn't be at parity if their hourly rate was increased to £11-12/h (not even close - and that would give them more than I'm suggesting is necessary to live and improve anyway, a 40h week at £9/h is already a good start).  But you're right I didn't consider the companies where that's the case.  I guess those other members of staff would need a few extra quid an hour themselves but the costs will still be passed onto consumers such that living costs would increase at a less-than-proportionate rate to the wage increases.

You think if a company is employing people at min wage (£7ish isn't it?) they won't be employing anyone at £10 an hour?

 

You talk as if this has never been tried before. Wages rocketed in the 70s due to union pressure, it was virtually impossible to fire anyone as well. Orders were lost, firms either went bust or were nationalised and instead of the taxpayer paying in work benefits we were subsidising ridiculous, undeserved wages instead.

 

Inflation was rampant and unemployment rose.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You think if a company is employing people at min wage (£7ish isn't it?) they won't be employing anyone at £10 an hour?

 

You talk as if this has never been tried before. Wages rocketed in the 70s due to union pressure, it was virtually impossible to fire anyone as well. Orders were lost, firms either went bust or were nationalised and instead of the taxpayer paying in work benefits we were subsidising ridiculous, undeserved wages instead.

 

Inflation was rampant and unemployment rose.

Reality is either a job needs doing or it doesn't. Surely the hugely efficient private sector wouldn't be stocked full of jobs that don't need doing? Perhaps firms could reduce top end salaries a little to increase the bottom end. Admittedly this is harder in a smaller company but then each staff member has a relatively larger part to play in generating profit in smaller company.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Reality is either a job needs doing or it doesn't. Surely the hugely efficient private sector wouldn't be stocked full of jobs that don't need doing? Perhaps firms could reduce top end salaries a little to increase the bottom end. Admittedly this is harder in a smaller company but then each staff member has a relatively larger part to play in generating profit in smaller company.

Nobody needs a Rolls Royce, they can make do with a lesser car. Nobody needs smoked Salmon, they could eat chips. If you can't sell your product at a profit it won't get made, simple as that. The other alternative is is that you make more with less people. Either way jobs are lost.

[Captain...]

.

Edited 25 August 2017 by Captain...

[Carl the Llama]

23 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You think if a company is employing people at min wage (£7ish isn't it?) they won't be employing anyone at £10 an hour?

 

You talk as if this has never been tried before. Wages rocketed in the 70s due to union pressure, it was virtually impossible to fire anyone as well. Orders were lost, firms either went bust or were nationalised and instead of the taxpayer paying in work benefits we were subsidising ridiculous, undeserved wages instead.

 

Inflation was rampant and unemployment rose.

I don't think that, I know it's the case in some places.  £7.50 is the current minimum and the employers I know of have followed a policy of like it or lump it.  My immediate superior in my last job was on £12/h but he was the only one and that had him earning far below the rest of the company's non-minimum wage staff.  So I don't see how you think you've countered my £9/h suggestion - the £10-11 bit was merely highlighting just how much disparity there is.

 

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Nobody needs a Rolls Royce, they can make do with a lesser car. Nobody needs smoked Salmon, they could eat chips. If you can't sell your product at a profit it won't get made, simple as that. The other alternative is is that you make more with less people. Either way jobs are lost.

Now you're just being a troll again.  Nobody's asking for that.  Wake up to the needs of humans mate.

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

 

 

Now you're just being a troll again.  Nobody's asking for that. 

Quote

Reality is either a job needs doing or it doesn't.

Some jobs don't need doing but they still create work.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Nobody needs a Rolls Royce, they can make do with a lesser car. Nobody needs smoked Salmon, they could eat chips. If you can't sell your product at a profit it won't get made, simple as that. The other alternative is is that you make more with less people. Either way jobs are lost.

The same arguments were used by the tories in 1997 against the introduction of the minimum wage. By 2010 it was viewed as the most successful legislation of the previous 30 years.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11896971

[Webbo]

Just now, toddybad said:

The same arguments were used by the tories in 1997 against the introduction of the minimum wage. By 2010 it was viewed as the most successful legislation of the previous 30 years.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11896971

By whom?

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Webbo said:

By whom?

It's that dreaded 'e' word again.

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I don't think that, I know it's the case in some places.  £7.50 is the current minimum and the employers I know of have followed a policy of like it or lump it.  My immediate superior in my last job was on £12/h but he was the only one and that had him earning far below the rest of the company's non-minimum wage staff.  So I don't see how you think you've countered my £9/h suggestion - the £10-11 bit was merely highlighting just how much disparity there is.

 

The minimum is going up to £9 isn't it? The disparity will still be there, just at a higher level.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

By whom?

Didn't fancy reading the link?

 

Researchers at the Institute for Government polled 159 members of the Political Studies Association.

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

The minimum is going up to £9 isn't it? The disparity will still be there, just at a higher level.

Which is fine if the worst off can afford to live.  Nobody's asking for more than that. 

 

Also when's that happening?  I didn't know that was in the pipeline.

Edited 25 August 2017 by Carl the Llama

[Guest]

Just now, Webbo said:

The minimum is going up to £9 isn't it? The disparity will still be there, just at a higher level.

So its going to 9 under the tories who you like but if it goes to 10 under labour the capatalist system will come crashing down? Is that basically what you're saying?

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

Remember how angry you got at Osbourne's 'punishment budget' (which never happened)?  This argument is essentially the same thing. 

 

See my post towards the top of this page for an explanation.

 

 

Well that's more than a little condescending.  If you're telling me that you managed to pay rent, feed yourself, pay your bills, run a car, pay for a TV back when even a small one was expensive, the licence to go with it, keep yourself clothed and still make luxury purchases on £3/h (assuming a standard 40h week and not taking unpaid breaks into account that's £7,020/y or £525/m) without dipping into your savings or receiving any extra money from elsewhere then I'd suggest there's a piece of the jigsaw you're deliberately leaving out.  That just about covers my rent and 1-2 weeks of food.  I certainly wouldn't be able to travel anywhere (ie. work), top up my cheap Chinese phone's low PAYG fees, eat for at least half the month, spend the one night a week I currently allow myself to socialise outside of the house, pay medical costs, cover emergencies, or even think about considering a luxury purchase.

 

Your last line is just a sad generalisation not even worth addressing.

 

Edit:  I would say that to provide someone an income which at least gives them the option of bettering themselves then you need to be looking at somewhere around at least £1400 - 1500/m if they pay rent at today's rates.  If they choose to squander their money in that scenario then that would be their own fault but how about we don't make it impossible for them to put money towards improving their prospects out of some weird spite?  Admittedly this figure probably could be lowered the further north you get but then you're getting into fascistic ghettoïsation territory, forcing all the poor people to move out far away from the richer folk (and then who would do all the low-paid work in the south?  Will we all have to commute from Sunderland to Guildford?)

Yes I did. Remember this is 15-17 years ago now obviously a lot of things were cheaper than they are now. I used to rent a room small shared terrace house for around £150 a month with all bills included. I survived perfectly well actually. Now I have not tried surviving on Minimum wage now, but you are looking at 14k now with a personal allowance of 12k so tax is only paid on 2k which I personally would increase the personal allowance to £15k and remove the national insurance payments. Now I made a choice to go into shared accommodation because I could afford my own house, sometimes you have to make sacrifices.

 

Now obviously there is a problem of costs differences north and south, this is an issue successive governments have failed to solve and I doubt that a wealthy middle class socialist from Islington is going to improve anything for Northerners. Of course people need to do the low paid jobs in London

 

Most people on low wages are able to get access to Free education and training the last time I looked.

 

£1400-1500 seems like quite a high monthly spend to me. Even if your rent is £500-600 a month house you still have nearly half of this to spend on other things.

 

If we increase wages to £10 a hour all that will do is drive inflation, the skilled workers will want pay rises too and this will push up the cost of good and housing accordingly thus completely wiping out the effect of increasing the minimum wage. When do we stop increasing it?

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Didn't fancy reading the link?

 

Researchers at the Institute for Government polled 159 members of the Political Studies Association.

 

Quote

 

403

 

We can't find the page you're looking for. Check out our site map,  contact us, or head back home.

 

Who are "The political studies Association"? If I polled 159 members of the IEA or The Adam Smith Institute I'm sure they'd say Mrs Thatcher's privatisation programme was far more successful.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

So its going to 9 under the tories who you like but if it goes to 10 under labour the capatalist system will come crashing down? Is that basically what you're saying?

I'm not particularly in favour of any minimum wage, the market should set the rate. I accept that's not going to happen so it's not worth fighting. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

I'm not particularly in favour of any minimum wage, the market should set the rate. I accept that's not going to happen so it's not worth fighting. 

But do you accept that £9 under the tories and £10 under labour are not actually that far apart?

[Webbo]

Just now, toddybad said:

But do you accept that £9 under the tories and £10 under labour are not actually that far apart?

I will if you will.

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said:

Yes I did. Remember this is 15-17 years ago now obviously a lot of things were cheaper than they are now. I used to rent a room small shared terrace house for around £150 a month with all bills included. I survived perfectly well actually. Now I have not tried surviving on Minimum wage now, but you are looking at 14k now with a personal allowance of 12k so tax is only paid on 2k which I personally would increase the personal allowance to £15k and remove the national insurance payments. Now I made a choice to go into shared accommodation because I could afford my own house, sometimes you have to make sacrifices.

 

Now obviously there is a problem of costs differences north and south, this is an issue successive governments have failed to solve and I doubt that a wealthy middle class socialist from Islington is going to improve anything for Northerners. Of course people need to do the low paid jobs in London

 

Most people on low wages are able to get access to Free education and training the last time I looked.

 

£1400-1500 seems like quite a high monthly spend to me. Even if your rent is £500-600 a month house you still have nearly half of this to spend on other things.

 

If we increase wages to £10 a hour all that will do is drive inflation, the skilled workers will want pay rises too and this will push up the cost of good and housing accordingly thus completely wiping out the effect of increasing the minimum wage. When do we stop increasing it?

It's a balancing act, we don't give up on the lowest rungs of the ladder because it's too hard to work out without mildly upsetting those a bit further up.  The point is something needs doing for the millions who barely get by despite our country's very good employment figures papering over the cracks.  If minimum wage really is going up to £9 soon then that's great, the sooner the better.  Let's see how much employment tumbles once it comes into effect before boo-hooing the idea of helping the most disadvantaged, yeah?

[Guest]

Just now, Webbo said:

I will if you will.

Happy to.

Only one of us has spent months saying that voting for labour increasing the minimum wage to those sort of levels would be catastrophic before now admitting that this isn't true.

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Happy to.

Only one of us has spent months saying that voting for labour increasing the minimum wage to those sort of levels would be catastrophic before now admitting that this isn't true.

Well all costs have to be paid for. An extra £1 per hour for a 40 hour week is is an extra £40, if you employ 100 people that's an extra £4000 per week, £208,000 a year. This isn't small beer.

 

That's ignoring the extra pension contributions and NI.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

Well all costs have to be paid for. An extra £1 per hour for a 40 hour week is is an extra £40, if you employ 100 people that's an extra £4000 per week, £208,000 a year. This isn't small beer.

 

That's ignoring the extra pension contributions and NI.

I understand that. I realise the money has to come from somewhere. Now we've gotten beyond just trying to call out labour and can admit that their policy isn't fundamentally going to damage the economy more than the tory version, I'm happy to get into the detail of how it could work. Dont forget, paying workers more gives them more spending power and potentially increases sales for those same companies. If tesco pay their staff more they would sell more tesco taste the difference goods.