Proposed minimum wage cut for poorer areas.

[Fullyplumped]

Good god, where does this bitterness come from? Are you feeling culturally deprived out in the sticks or something? Maybe you should move.

See when someone says "that London?" It means that they are being ironic. You need to lighten up. It must be the stress of living in that London.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Yes, it costs more to live in London than it does in almost anywhere in the country. I'm absolutely astounded that anyone can dispute that.

Oooh! I can dispute that! It costs more to live in rural Scotland than it does in that London. Housing is scarce, jobs are hard to come by, often seasonal and low paid, and no choice. Shipping costs mean all goods and service scost hugely more, and you need to keep a car and pay more for fuel.

See this memo to the HC Scottish Affairs Committee by Highland Council last October -

The Highland Council have highlighted several key areas in the following submission to inform the Committee's inquiry into Poverty in Scotland.

— The difficulties posed through the low wage rural economy.

— The higher costs of living, transport and housing placed on people living within rural areas.

— Lack of access to essential services such as banking, post offices, cash machines and financial advice.

— Households within Highland spending proportionately higher amounts on heating their homes leading to fuel poverty.

Mean pay in Highland is 91% of the Scotland mean and 86% of the UK mean. Median pay in Highland is 92% of the Scotland median and 88% of the UK median.

Poverty and deprivation are often associated with urban situations, with less recognition of rural experiences. Many families in rural areas will run a car at the expense of other essential requirements in order to access education, employment and essential services. In addition, food and fuel are often more expensive within rural areas. Issues such as increased travel costs to access employment and services, low pay—often linked to seasonal employment ...and the historical low take up of benefits in rural areas all compound the issues of poverty within rural areas across Highland. There is also little doubt that the general problems associated with poverty are compounded when combined with the issue of isolation.​

And testimony from the Trades Council and others.

Astounding, or what?

 

[_angel_]

Well that might be the economic reality. You're not going to change that just by forcing employers to pay more for their labour than it's worth.



It's not a moral matter, it's an economic one. People get paid broadly in line with how the market values different kinds of labour. It's nothing to do with their intrinsic worth.



It really depends more on the individual contribution rather than the role or sector. People that put in a lot tend to get out a lot by rising up the ranks. Those that coast along tend to stay where they are.

There's nothing wrong with starting at the bottom. You don't need to stay there, though.

Worth. Interesting word. You say it's not a moral thing, but economic. Then you contradict yourself and say it's down to the effort of the individual, Implying that the hard work done by people such as care assistants and childminders really isn't worth very much. And if only they worked harder they would be promoted...!

So you contradict yourself. Then you say that people in these low paid caring jobs that make a complete difference to peoples lives, sometimes between life and death are just 'coasting along' if they stay in them! Priceless.

So, decide now, is a carer to an elderly infirm person 'worth' less than £5.35 an hour? Or should they get a 'proper' job.

You're going to be old and infirm oneday, so do you think the person caring for you should be so badly paid as there to be no incentive for them to do their job properly and actually give a shit. That's where extreme low wages for jobs like that end...

You can't have it both ways - telling me that employers only pay what a job is 'worth', then saying it isn't a moral argument but an economic one but THEN telling me that people in low paid jobs *coast along* - ie are lazy and therefore deserve their lot.

Your logic is totally flawed. You use a moral argument when it suits and an economic one when it doesn't.


Anyhow you haven't explained how it should be okay to actually CUT the already piss poor pay of these people??

 

[_angel_]

Judging by the advertisments in the local press and the JobCentres to get more than £6.35 requires a degree and several years experience.

Yes wages are pretty low up here judging by the amount of experience and that employers want. They even want qualifications and experience for min wage jobs a lot of the time (caring and catering qualifications for min wage sometimes zero hours contracts. The job centre is worst for advertising these jokes of 'jobs')

 

[untethered]

Worth. Interesting word. You say it's not a moral thing, but economic. Then you contradict yourself and say it's down to the effort of the individual, Implying that the hard work done by people such as care assistants and childminders really isn't worth very much. And if only they worked harder they would be promoted...!

It's not a contradiction at all. I'm just saying that people that work hard are likely to be promoted (due to gaining skills and experience) and then they can earn more.

The work done by childminders and care assistants isn't worth very much to the market. The value of labour to the market is generally defined by how hard that labour is to acquire (its scarcity) and how much that labour can earn for the employer (its profitability). Most people know how to wipe their own backside therefore you do not need to be an intellectual powerhouse to be able to wipe someone else's. Further, the kind of people who need their backsides wiped tend not to have much money, therefore they can't afford to pay very much for this service. Thus, such labour is fungible and low-paid.

Matters are made much worse by immigration (both EU and non-EU) depressing the wage rates of native workers. I can assure you that if I had my way, we'd be out of the EU by the close of play today. So I'm with you on that one.

So you contradict yourself. Then you say that people in these low paid caring jobs that make a complete difference to peoples lives, sometimes between life and death are just 'coasting along' if they stay in them! Priceless.

Well it's pretty routine work, isn't it?

So, decide now, is a carer to an elderly infirm person 'worth' less than £5.35 an hour? Or should they get a 'proper' job.

It's not me that decides, because I'm not the wage-setter in the kind of Stalinist command economy you seem to favour. However, it seems to be evident that if people want to earn more they either need to move into management in the same field or find another occupation entirely. It's just pragmatism.

You're going to be old and infirm oneday, so do you think the person caring for you should be so badly paid as there to be no incentive for them to do their job properly and actually give a shit. That's where extreme low wages for jobs like that end...

Someone who will do a bad job simply because they're low paid isn't worth employing in the first place. Employers need to ensure that standards are maintained no matter what the market labour rates are.

If you have an operation on the NHS and it goes horribly wrong because the staff had rushed it, do you think you'd be happy if the surgeon said, "Well sorry, if you'd gone private we'd have been paid twice as much and taken a lot more care." I doubt it.

You can't have it both ways - telling me that employers only pay what a job is 'worth', then saying it isn't a moral argument but an economic one but THEN telling me that people in low paid jobs *coast along* - ie are lazy and therefore deserve their lot.

I didn't say that anyone was lazy. I just said that industrious and pragmatic people have a clear route to improving their lot under the current system.

Your logic is totally flawed. You use a moral argument when it suits and an economic one when it doesn't.

Hardly. I respect the moral values of someone that puts in an honest day's work, no matter what their occupation and what they get paid. It just doesn't automatically follow from their that they should be paid more for some spurious moral reasons.

Anyhow you haven't explained how it should be okay to actually CUT the already piss poor pay of these people??

The rate should follow the market. If it's acceptable to raise wages in line with market conditions it should follow that it's also acceptable to decrease them.

But as I mentioned earlier, you really need to consider the role of foreign workers in the rates earned by low-skilled commodity labour.

 

[_angel_]

It's not a contradiction at all. I'm just saying that people that work hard are likely to be promoted (due to gaining skills and experience) and then they can earn more.

The work done by childminders and care assistants isn't worth very much to the market. The value of labour to the market is generally defined by how hard that labour is to acquire (its scarcity) and how much that labour can earn for the employer (its profitability). Most people know how to wipe their own backside therefore you do not need to be an intellectual powerhouse to be able to wipe someone else's. Further, the kind of people who need their backsides wiped tend not to have much money, therefore they can't afford to pay very much for this service. Thus, such labour is fungible and low-paid.

Matters are made much worse by immigration (both EU and non-EU) depressing the wage rates of native workers. I can assure you that if I had my way, we'd be out of the EU by the close of play today. So I'm with you on that one.



Well it's pretty routine work, isn't it?



It's not me that decides, because I'm not the wage-setter in the kind of Stalinist command economy you seem to favour. However, it seems to be evident that if people want to earn more they either need to move into management in the same field or find another occupation entirely. It's just pragmatism.



Someone who will do a bad job simply because they're low paid isn't worth employing in the first place. Employers need to ensure that standards are maintained no matter what the market labour rates are.

If you have an operation on the NHS and it goes horribly wrong because the staff had rushed it, do you think you'd be happy if the surgeon said, "Well sorry, if you'd gone private we'd have been paid twice as much and taken a lot more care." I doubt it.



I didn't say that anyone was lazy. I just said that industrious and pragmatic people have a clear route to improving their lot under the current system.



Hardly. I respect the moral values of someone that puts in an honest day's work, no matter what their occupation and what they get paid. It just doesn't automatically follow from their that they should be paid more for some spurious moral reasons.



The rate should follow the market. If it's acceptable to raise wages in line with market conditions it should follow that it's also acceptable to decrease them.

But as I mentioned earlier, you really need to consider the role of foreign workers in the rates earned by low-skilled commodity labour.

But the issue is whether or not that rate is liveable HAS to come into the equation, don't you think? If you were only making the minimum wage you wouldn't take kindly to being told you were going to be paid less.

Nobody anywhere would be happy about a paycut - can you not see why people will be opposed to this?

 

[untethered]

But the issue is whether or not that rate is liveable HAS to come into the equation, don't you think?

Only in as far as lowering the wage too much is going to mean you can't acquire the labour. But that doesn't seem to be a problem as there are plenty of immigrants that will do these jobs for wages that probably aren't liveable if all your eggs are in a UK basket. But then I'm opposing immigration and the EU. Are you?

If you were only making the minimum wage you wouldn't take kindly to being told you were going to be paid less.

Nobody anywhere would be happy about a paycut - can you not see why people will be opposed to this?

Of course I can see why people are opposed to it. But these things aren't determined by what people will be happy with. If they were, everyone would get a 100% pay rise.

 

[_angel_]

I know you would doubtless disagree, but pay for people in caring professions should be raised as it should be valued more.

Classroom assistants are v. lowly paid and do great work for society at large.. yet they are likely to have a high turn over of staff, be first to lose their jobs in any cuts.

Especially in my sons school (a special school) the kids need a continuity, to get to know the staff and the staff need to get to know the kids.

Having a high turnover of staff on min wage jobs may be one thing for burgerking but when it's happening in schools it affects the kids education.

The low status of caring/education assistants etc needs overturning for humane reasons - it affects the people being cared for.

 

[poster342002]

I'd like to see how they can justify such a decision. I don't think it'll happen.

They don't have to justify any decision now. They just go ahead and do it with the unspoken "what are you gonna do about it, mate?" boast.

 

[butchersapron]

Over glenquamire and fullyplumped's dead bodies!

 

[glenquagmire]

Are you six years old or just behaving like it because it's Friday?

 

[untethered]

I know you would doubtless disagree, but pay for people in caring professions should be raised as it should be valued more.

What's all this "should be valued more"? I've explained how labour is valued.

What you're actually saying is that people in some low-skilled occupations want to be paid more. Of course they do. So does everyone else.

Classroom assistants are v. lowly paid and do great work for society at large.. yet they are likely to have a high turn over of staff, be first to lose their jobs in any cuts.

Especially in my sons school (a special school) the kids need a continuity, to get to know the staff and the staff need to get to know the kids.

Things might be different in special schools, but I managed to get through 13 years of school education without ever seeing a teaching assistant. There was, however, a teacher at the front of the class commanding everyone's attention and woe betide anyone that didn't give it.

Aside from some particular special needs, teaching assistantry is just a bogus occupation to get more bodies onto the public sector/Labour-voting payroll.

Having a high turnover of staff on min wage jobs may be one thing for burgerking but when it's happening in schools it affects the kids education.

The low status of caring/education assistants etc needs overturning for humane reasons - it affects the people being cared for.

Well I think I've made my view on teaching assistants clear. As for care workers, as I said earlier, anyone that does a job badly because of their wage level shouldn't have a job in the first place.

Are you suggesting that these people are going to have a higher regard for their charges if you pay them more? Are they mercenaries?

 

[butchersapron]

What's all this "should be valued more"? I've explained how labour is valued.

No, you've explained how *you* value labour.

 

[_angel_]

Assistants are very necessary in special schools and underpaid for the work they do. They are vital in keeping the place going, in fact.

And I don't think non special needs assistants are 'bogus'. Actually a lot of them are there, untethered, to help kids with special needs attend mainstream schools rather than special schools. Which costs the tax payer LESS not more money. So you ought to rather like them.

What's all this "should be valued more"? I've explained how labour is valued.

What you're actually saying is that people in some low-skilled occupations want to be paid more. Of course they do. So does everyone else.



Things might be different in special schools, but I managed to get through 13 years of school education without ever seeing a teaching assistant. There was, however, a teacher at the front of the class commanding everyone's attention and woe betide anyone that didn't give it.

Aside from some particular special needs, teaching assistantry is just a bogus occupation to get more bodies onto the public sector/Labour-voting payroll.



Well I think I've made my view on teaching assistants clear. As for care workers, as I said earlier, anyone that does a job badly because of their wage level shouldn't have a job in the first place.

Are you suggesting that these people are going to have a higher regard for their charges if you pay them more? Are they mercenaries?

 

[untethered]

No, you've explained how *you* value labour.

I've explained how employers value labour. Given that employers are the ones that pay the wages, that seems to be pertinent.

 

[butchersapron]

It is in that it exposes the utter greed and selfobsession at the heart of people like yours positions but it also opens up the perspective of the people subject to that greed doing something about it.

 

[untethered]

It is in that it exposes the utter greed and selfobsession at the heart of people like yours positions but it also opens up the perspective of the people subject to that greed doing something about it.

Then I'm glad to have provided such a valuable service to you.

What do you think it's worth?

 

[butchersapron]

Then I'm glad to have provided such a valuable service to you.

What do you think it's worth?

I know what greed people like you operate on already thanks. What do i thhink labours worth? Sorry what year is this?

 

[lewislewis]

Don't worry, the Labour Left is going to save us from this! Or maybe not!

 

[Dave Mullen]

I'm not surprised that this is being proposed as in one Government Department regional pay is being proposed and Brown was the architect of much of what is happening in the Civil Service.

I don't know why whenever the government proposes anything to improve "competitiveness" the lowest paid always bear the brunt of the attacks. Why not concentrate on the Private Equity people and the city fatcats whose ridiculous and unjustifiable bonuses are bleeding the country dry?