Guaranteed Minimum Wage: Good or Bad?

[james_walsh]

You are Julie Burchill and I claim my five pounds.

I reakon your wrong, didn't she admit that she'd been on a two year coke binge before she started talking such otter shit. and had now repented.
Though BB may have had a commie father and is now tring to look 'ard while on coke.

 

[detective-boy]

Much as I like the concept of the minimum wage, many of the issues which have been raised on this thread arise from dealing with it in isolation, as a single aspect of the finances of society we live in.

If you start from first principles, society is all about living together in a mutually supportive group (on whatever scale). If you live entirely alone then you are responsible for finding / growing food for you and any family you choose to have, for finding the means to survive (warmth, shelter, protection from predators (human or otherwise), etc. etc.

When we live together in groups we find there are a number of things which we want done on our collective behalf and so we select some individuals to do those tasks. This means they cannot do the finding food, etc. bits they woould otherwise be doing and so we agree to compensate them for doing the job for "us" instead. The start of a reward strategy!

We live in a massively complex society, where there are hundreds and hundreds of tasks we have done for "us" by someone else. And the way we all reward them is by chipping in cash (tax) which is then paid out (public service wages, benefits). The minimum wage should ensure that private sector workers receive minimum reward for their efforts, especially at a time of privatisation and outsourcing where many of the jobs being done for "us" are being delivered by private companies.

And let us not forget that "the State", "the Government", "the Exchequer", "them", etc. as mentioned (disparagingly) by other posters are, in fact, "us" (I know that is somewhat theoretical and these entities have taken on lives of their own but, at first principles they are our creation and we have the power to change them (by majority decision - ah, voting systems, another imperfection ...)

So, what does this mean for a minimum wage? I would say that it means that it should be the level where someone receives enough to cover the basisc of life, the things they would be working for if they were living as an individual. Perhaps this would be better entitled as "minimum income" (and I guess new Labour would say that their complex tax credit system was a move to achieve this).

But then the other issues need to be considered:

- Should there be a maximum wage? Is there anything wrong with people striving to earn more and more, enabling them to have ever better caves, ox carts, bear skins ... ? After all, the more conspicuous wealth someone has, the more spending they do, the more jobs are created in the supply / service chain. My view would be that there should be a maximum, but it should be way higher than most of us would ever aspire to. There must, in my view, be a (long) scale on which people can aspire to raise their incomes, to encourage effort, improvement (education, skills), etc.

- Where does the funding for the minimum wage come from? We have to provide it. There is no "money fairy" (something which seems to evade some posters on other threads). So we must have some system of taxation, contributing to the society pot. Up to the minimum income level that should be zero. Beyond that I think there should be a progressive scale, balancing the need to retain incentive with the principle of those that can afford it paying more (if you remove the incentive bit then there will be nothing to take a share of).

- Should other forms of "work" (e.g. raising children, caring for others) be rewarded with the minimum wage? In my view, yes. There is scope for lots of things like this to be decided as general "good" things and hence get added to the list.

- Should there be a safety net, for those unable through illness, injury or whatever, to work in any way? Yes, I believe there should. And that it should be set at the same level as the minimum wage - they are not choosing not to work, they are unable to. But there must be strong controls to prevent this being abused - no-one should be able to choose to do fuck all and live off the rest of society. That is extremely divisive (it lies at the root of most Daily Mail style rants) and would, in time, destroy society.

- Should, therefore, there be some way of society excluding someone who does not play by the rules? Yes, if it is to work, assuming we do not live in Utopia where everyone plays the game fairly. Hence we get into all the arguments about legal systems, penalties, etc.

- What about inherited wealth? Should that be allowed? In my view, yes, within reason. No person should be born into a position where they, through through absolute accident (from their perspective) they do not have to work for a living. I believe we are born equal and die equal and that should be broadly reflected financially. That said, I think providing for your family is a good thing to encourage and some provision for your children is hence a good thing ... but we should decide on a ceiling level.

- What about pensions? The minimum income concept should, I believe, apply here just the same - when people reach a point where they can no longer earn the minimum through frailty / ill health then we should provide. Is this at a single arbitrary age? If so what should it be? I would say there should be a (fairly high) "Right, you're in now" age (maybe 75 bearing in mind we are living longer, staying fitter) but entitlement at any earlier stage on proof of inability to work (just an extension of the general welfare safety net), with robust safeguards against abuse.

- Should the provision of capital be considered "work" - now we get into the difficult areas. Without capital, business could not exist, jobs would not exist, the source of socities income would dry up. So yes, I believe it should. Subject to the same principles as any other work and with the income subject to the same rules (such as maximum income) applied to any other source.

Anyway, I've gone on enough. These are just some of my naive thoughts on the subject but my central position is that the minimum wage is, broadly, a good thing, but it needs to considered as part of a whole system, many of the problems identified coming from dealing with it in isolation.

Stands back and awaits multiple corrections on politics, ecnomics, sociology ...

 

[tobyjug]

What is it? Is this not really a forum just a club for clones or something where everyone thinks the same thoughts.

You obviously need to spend an hour or two perusing thes boards. You would soon realise we fight like cats in a bag over a wide range of issues.
If however you come out with blanket condemnations of entire groups of people you will get stick from all quarters.
The minimum wage (far too low as it is) has benefitted mainly women in low paid jobs.
Anyone who thinks the minimum wage is high is to be honest an idiot.

 

[parallelepipete]

It also meant that workers who had a safe little job sweeping up, all they could manage whether due to physical or mental inability, suddenly had to be paid a whopping wage when their contribution to the business was basically nil.

*wishes a severely mentally disabled child on BB*

*rescinds wish as it would be cruel to the child*

The great British workman, who likes to do as little as possible for as much as possible. Nobody wants to be a drone anymore, maybe no-one ever did want to be. Everyone has this belief that they are entitled to flat screen tellies, cars, holidays etc whether or not they are actually capable of earning the necessary to achieve their aspirations.

And powerful TNCs with huge advertising budgets have nothing to do with these unrealistic ambitions?

Some people will never be anything more than sweepers/loo cleaners/bin emptiers et al. They should accept their place in the big scheme instead of expecting everyone else to carry them and sub them through life.

Including several asylum seekers who often have good degrees and skills from a profession back home which was curtailed because as educated members of society they spoke up against injustice...

I think what unites most urbanites is a belief that Margaret Thatcher was wrong when she said there was no such thing as society.

 

[parallelepipete]

You obviously need to spend an hour or two perusing thes boards. You would soon realise we fight like cats in a bag over a wide range of issues.

Can I post a picture of a kitten? Please?

 

[herman]

Should the provision of capital be considered "work" - now we get into the difficult areas. Without capital, business could not exist, jobs would not exist, the source of socities income would dry up.
Stands back and awaits multiple corrections on politics, ecnomics, sociology ...

This should be phrased the other way round- without labour capital or business could not exist. The concept of capital is relatively new one but labour in various forms is as old as humanity. If you were alone on a desert island there would be no capital to provide you with work but you would still have to hunt and gather food, create shelter, collect fresh water etc.

Humans are able to produce more than their individual needs and this surplus value is appropriated (capital).

There are various ways in which society can produce what is needed for the individual and not all are dependant on capital.

I suppose we could consider the appropriation of the fruits of other peoples labour as work. We could I suppose then take this to mean that capitalists do work. But not essential work, and while it has a function within the capitalist mode of production it is not essential for a society to function.

We are encouraged to think of jobs as something we do to get money, which we in turn spend on the essentials of life. But this discounts the social worth of a job. Buildings, food, shelter, water and electricity supply etc are all the product of labour, these could be provided whether or not there was "capital" as these are the products of nature that are tailored to suit our needs (labour) and not the product of capital.

 

[dylanredefined]

if the citizens income is set high enough to give everyone a decent
living how do we get the crappy jobs done ? I know the only reason I kept working in my last job was because i got paid and I was near the top of that dunghill and i took home less than £24 grand .

 

[tbaldwin]

if the citizens income is set high enough to give everyone a decent
living how do we get the crappy jobs done ? I know the only reason I kept working in my last job was because i got paid and I was near the top of that dunghill and i took home less than £24 grand .

Interesting point, maybe people would haveto pay more to get the crappy jobs done. Which might not be such a bad thing.

 

[Epicurus]

if the citizens income is set high enough to give everyone a decent
living how do we get the crappy jobs done ? I know the only reason I kept working in my last job was because i got paid and I was near the top of that dunghill and i took home less than £24 grand .

I think it would depend on the level it was set.

Isn’t there a kind of CI with tax credits? I thought that gave people money to boost there wages?

As for “crap” jobs, they would have to pay enough money to persuade people to work.

Look at what happens now with many low paid jobs, if the pay is low the person is able to claim tax credits, so in reality what is happening now is that the Government is subsidizing these jobs by making the wages up with tax credits or some other benefit.

So we are in the situation where employers can pay low wages and have the Government pay extra via benefits, so companies can make millions in profit while there employees are on benefit, the real effect of this is that tax payers are supporting these employees wages and the company is left with lots of extra profit because they can get away with paying low wages, that can’t be right can it?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I think it would depend on the level it was set.

Isn’t there a kind of CI with tax credits? I thought that gave people money to boost there wages?

As for “crap” jobs, they would have to pay enough money to persuade people to work.

Look at what happens now with many low paid jobs, if the pay is low the person is able to claim tax credits, so in reality what is happening now is that the Government is subsidizing these jobs by making the wages up with tax credits or some other benefit.

So we are in the situation where employers can pay low wages and have the Government pay extra via benefits, so companies can make millions in profit while there employees are on benefit, the real effect of this is that tax payers are supporting these employees wages and the company is left with lots of extra profit because they can get away with paying low wages, that can’t be right can it?

The difference would be that being a universal benefit (like current child benefit) the basic citizen's income would be very cheap to administer; unlike the means tested tax credits which are simulatneously expensive to adminster and prone to costly mistakes.

Cheers - Louis Mac

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

HUH! is that your best shot?
Methinks your powder is dry.<snip Ernestos latest troll s bollocks>

the phrase is powder damp dry power would be fine to use as gun powder is supposed to be dry you sparrah fucker...

 

[tbaldwin]

The difference would be that being a universal benefit (like current child benefit) the basic citizen's income would be very cheap to administer; unlike the means tested tax credits which are simulatneously expensive to adminster and prone to costly mistakes.

Cheers - Louis Mac

This thread has got me more interested in a citizens income. From bits ive heard tax credits sounds a bit of a dogs dinner.

 

[Epicurus]

The difference would be that being a universal benefit (like current child benefit) the basic citizen's income would be very cheap to administer; unlike the means tested tax credits which are simulatneously expensive to adminster and prone to costly mistakes.

Cheers - Louis Mac

Talking with friends at the weekend I was told how many different benefits there are and from what people were saying there is an industry built up around them with 1000 of people employed to administer them.

I’m sure there is a better way

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I like the idea of a citizen's income, in that it would massively simplify the benefits system and in doing so make a significant proportion of the resources current spent on administration and delivery, available for use directly by the people who need them.

I also like it as an idea to be used in a battle of ideas; one which which stresses our equality. We are all deserving of a living income as a means to help us enjoy a decent standard of life.

Where I have problems is in its implementation; specifically as I pointed out earlier in this thread, its implementation at a level which would be high enough to guarantee this decent standard of life for all. I don't believe we currently live in a climate where the universal distribution of such a level of income is even a remote possibility; it doesn't figure on the political radar.

Moreover, if it were ever to become a real possibility, we would be living in such changed circumstances that many other possible ways of guaranteeing a good standard of living would have become available; e.g. through the abolition of private health care and education, the implementation of rights to and provision of housing, free transport...well you get the picture.

Cheers - Louis Mac

 

[Epicurus]

I also like the idea and if it was set high enough it would force wages up as many people would chose not to work for minimum wage, it would also put a lot of extra money in circulation, if people have more to spend there will be more demand for goods and services and more money for wages.

I wonder just how many non-jobs there are, I bet there are millions of people doing jobs that are not really necessary, so jobs in the services industries would be seen as having more social value and millions of people would still go to work, because that is what people do.

I’m not really sure it could be implemented in the developed world where expectations are so high but maybe it would work in countries where the difference between $2 a day and $10 a day is a really big difference.

 

[detective-boy]

This should be phrased the other way round- without labour capital or business could not exist.

I take your point. I think it is probably a question of complexity - modern society is just so large, and the interactions so complex, that capital adds value in making more opportunities to work available.

 

[tbaldwin]

I wonder just how many non-jobs there are, I bet there are millions of people doing jobs that are not really necessary, so jobs in the services industries would be seen as having more social value and millions of people would still go to work, because that is what people do.

I’m not really sure it could be implemented in the developed world where expectations are so high but maybe it would work in countries where the difference between $2 a day and $10 a day is a really big difference.

Non Jobs.
Loads of people work supposedly for the public good but in reality there jobs are part of a giant web of bureacratic nonsense.
Loads of people work in Regeneration and hardly any of the money gets thru to people it was supposedly intended for.
Volunteer schemes and employment projects are usually a bit of a Joke.
A citizens income would at least benefit people directly and hopefully sweep away a lot of the nonsense that exists in the public and voluntary sector.

DEATH TO THE LIBERALS AND MIDDLE CLASS PARASITES.

 

[tbaldwin]

I like the idea of a citizen's income, in that it would massively simplify the benefits system and in doing so make a significant proportion of the resources current spent on administration and delivery, available for use directly by the people who need them.

Cheers - Louis Mac

Just read the Guardian. 500,000 people apparently work for charities!
I remember a few years ago Louise Casey the then govts Tsar of Homelessness revealed that £24,000 per person was being spent on each homeless person.
Vast industries are set up to supposedly help people but they are usually full of people who are just helping themselves.

 

[Epicurus]

It wasn’t that long ago that there were more people working in the aids “industry” than there were people with aids.

This kind of thing is the reason I believe something like CI would need to be started in a developing country rather than in the developed world.

 

[Kameron]

* In place of the current benefits system which pays out 'benefits' when you are not working, every citizen, regardless of whether they work or not, regardless of income or means, would instead be paid by the state a guaranteed minimum income. This would be significantly above the current benefits payments, but below a figure that might disincentivise actually working . Any salary you receive from working would then top up this income. What it would mean is:

* the end of progressive taxation (the more you earn, the more you pay) and be replaced by a flat taxation system (say 25% that everyone pays regardless of income).

Let me get this straight, you want to massively increase the social security budget (even if you call it something else it is the social security budget at the moment) and collect less tax (as a percentage) from the very well off, in fact you are talking about collecting significantly more tax from those in the gap between what ever level this minimum wage guarantee is set at and the higher rate tax band at £32,400 and much less tax from people earning more than £32,400 who would be higher rate tax payers at the moment. Your proposal is clinically insane.

Disincentives actually working you say. Your proposal sounds like a way for me to take holiday on half pay any time I feel like it I admit that it sounds lovely but not in this world my chum.