The alternative is the abolition of social security which would create mass inequality with all the consequences it brings. But then if you're not poor and can easily afford security, healthcare and a pension, you probably won't give a damn.
Er... saying that something is not a human right is not the same as saying one should abolish it! There are plenty of things that are not human rights, but which we may decide that the State should provide because that's the kind of society we wish to live in and promote.
I am glad we are now agreed that Osbourne's words were meaningless.
The function of the Low Pay Commission (in this area) is to review the level set by the government. Up to the point at which government policy on a NMW or a Living Wage changes. And then they (the LPC) will make annual adjustments to that new figure.
I hope we are now clear about what is controlled by the government (Everything. Maybe we could call this "Legislation" ) and what is controlled by the LPC (not much).
The Tory led Coalition (and Osbourne) were free to announce a Living Wage, (or some alternative description) at any point in time and at any starting level of their choosing. They are the government. Osbourne could have done that. He did not do that. (Fact).
well you are wrong there, but then I suspect that secretly you know that.
Osborne's words were not meaningless. They were an aspiration that others not least the LPC shot down
No the function of the LPC is to advise the Government of the level the MW should be
Yes the Government could over ride the LPC but imagine the furore is they had. Still as you have now implied that Labour set up bodies such as the LPC can easily be ignored are there any other Labour set up bodies you think should be ignored ?
the reason the elite are getting richer is because we don't have a wealth tax. we can re-dstribute wealth in a very effective way by taxing to death anyone who has a alot of savings . the current system is a pyramid scheme .. all the money is being funneled to a tiny minority.
What sort of "wealth tax" do you have in mind? Isn't the state taking 45 or 50% of your direct earnings, plus a lot of the rest in VAT and other taxes, not enough?
Yes there are some extremely wealthy people in this country but there aren't many of them. Even if you could take 90% of their wealth off them without them hiding it in a tax haven then wouldn't make much difference to your or my life if it was equally distributed. A billion pounds shared between 50 million people is 20 quid each.
i think employers should be allowed to pay whatever they want.
Do you think they should allow whatever safety they want to, employ whatever age of person they wish to, whatever race, employ all the illegal immigrants they like etc etc
The bottom line is, many employers can't be trusted and therefore have to be legislated against.
well you are wrong there, but then I suspect that secretly you know that.
Osborne's words were not meaningless. They were an aspiration that others not least the LPC shot down
No the function of the LPC is to advise the Government of the level the MW should be
Yes the Government could over ride the LPC but imagine the furore is they had. Still as you have now implied that Labour set up bodies such as the LPC can easily be ignored are there any other Labour set up bodies you think should be ignored ?
If George Osbourne (or a future Labour Chancellor) chooses not to accept the recommendations of the LPC they have 2 choices. They simply reject the recommendation and stick to their guns. Or they announce new legislation. They usually accept the recommendation. Why would they not (accept) if they were reasonably content with the annual recommendation?
But..... if they not satisfied....Governments are there to govern. So you don't want Labour to reduce the gap between the NMW and a Living Wage (clue is in the title)? You say this might lead to the government wishing to govern in other areas of government?? Lol.
There are 2 ways to increase the NMW for either George Osbourne or Ed Balls (see above). Rejecting the recommendation does require Balls. It also requires motivation to actually do something. Or you can take the Osbourne approach.
Try feeding your pet hamster on a diet of Osbourne Advocacy and let the forum know how it gets on.
What sort of "wealth tax" do you have in mind? Isn't the state taking 45 or 50% of your direct earnings, plus a lot of the rest in VAT and other taxes, not enough?
Yes there are some extremely wealthy people in this country but there aren't many of them. Even if you could take 90% of their wealth off them without them hiding it in a tax haven then wouldn't make much difference to your or my life if it was equally distributed. A billion pounds shared between 50 million people is 20 quid each.
Plus there is the law of diminishing returns; the law that Monaco, Andorra many other havens are only happy to sidestep.
Red Ed loves to throw out these vague notions to placate his socialist chums for another few months.
But if he really wants to get Labour back in power then he needs to win the middle class vote. Blair knew it, Brown knew it, and Miliband might get the idea too.. at some point after the next GE.
Not really. Labour can win without selling out on their core policies but in any case, are you saying the middle class are against a living wage, affordable housing, affordable living in general?
And how do you pay for it, by raising prices therefore it becomes worthless and everyone is back where they were.
The haulage companies will raise prices, therefore shops will raise prices and everyone is no better off.
Not necessarily. A lot of businesses bare the extra costs without rising prices and take less profit if they have to but if wages go "UP", businesses may well get more business and therefore it will all balance out. The opposite of what you're predicting. What you predict was predicted about bringing in the Minimum Wage in the first place and it didn't cost jobs at all.
If George Osbourne (or a future Labour Chancellor) chooses not to accept the recommendations of the LPC they have 2 choices. They simply reject the recommendation and stick to their guns. Or they announce new legislation. They usually accept the recommendation. Why would they not (accept) if they were reasonably content with the annual recommendation?
Because as far as I know no one has refused to accept the LPC recommendation in the past. Of course if you are going to ignore LPC recommendations what is the point of having the LPC ? A question I asked before but you ignored.
But..... if they not satisfied....Governments are there to govern. So you don't want Labour to reduce the gap between the NMW and a Living Wage (clue is in the title)? You say this might lead to the government wishing to govern in other areas of government?? Lol.
You just made all that up. As to not wanting Labour to reduce the gap between the NMW and a Living Wage, that is hogwash. Where have I said I am in favour of a minimum wage and a separate living wage. Indeed if you had read my posts properly you would have seen that I referred to the minimum wage and a living wage as one and the same and that is how I believe it should be
There are 2 ways to increase the NMW for either George Osbourne or Ed Balls (see above). Rejecting the recommendation does require Balls. It also requires motivation to actually do something. Or you can take the Osbourne approach.
Osbourne did more than Miliband, he actually had a proposal for the current year whereas Miliband just has a vague wish for 6 years hence which does little more than keep pace with inflation and most of which will be swallowed up by a reduction in benefits as indeed Miliband admitted on the news channel this lunchtime.
Still I see you are still in favour of rubbishing the LPC so why not abolish it if you see it as of no use ?
Because as far as I know no one has refused to accept the LPC recommendation in the past. Of course if you are going to ignore LPC recommendations what is the point of having the LPC ? A question I asked before but you ignored.
I have not rubbished the LPC and I have no intention of ignoring your question.
I am perfectly happy with New Labour setting up the LPC and allowing them to recommend changes to the initial NMW level.
But Labour are free to put forward anything they wish in their 2015 Manifesto. And you are free to vote for them or to reject them. They may put forward policies for the NHS that have an obvious link to the NHS that Labour created. Or they may put forward NHS policies that have no obvious link.
That is up to the current Labour Party.
You seem to think that I am putting words in your mouth. If you do not agree that the next Labour govt have the right to create any framework they wish to push towards a higher NMW in a timetable of their choosing then we will have to agree to disagree.
Between 1994 and 2007 - the so-called boom years - real terms median earnings did not keep pace with productivity rises in the UK.
Business cannot be allowed to have it's cake and eat it. It didn't give the workforce a satisfactory increase in incomes during the boom years - it cannot now point to flat productivity as an excuse when it didn't give productivity-based pay increases when it was rising.
Instead of complaining about a minimum wage, go put some effort into your lives and work towards a job that will fund the lifestyle you want. We live in a capitalist society and there always needs to be people at the bottom to do the jobs no one wants. It's their fault for getting themselves there (of course, they always blame someone else) so they can reap what they sow as far as I'm concerned.
Unbelievable! You don't want ordinary workers to get £8 an hour even, not enough to live on but you're ok with the people at the top getting paid millions and millions in bonuses and you're asking me why this isn't alright?!!!!
Instead of complaining about a minimum wage, go put some effort into your lives and work towards a job that will fund the lifestyle you want. We live in a capitalist society and there always needs to be people at the bottom to do the jobs no one wants. It's their fault for getting themselves there (of course, they always blame someone else) so they can reap what they sow as far as I'm concerned.
People can get all the qualifications in the world but guess what, there is no guarantee that you will get a job let alone the money you're seeking to get! Its not as simple as you point out either.
People can get all the qualifications in the world but guess what, there is no guarantee that you will get a job let alone the money you're seeking to get! Its not as simple as you point out either.
It's their fault they're not better than the competition. Only you can make yourself successful.
It's their fault they're not better than the competition. Only you can make yourself successful.
Not true if you think that having more people going to university and getting qualifications helps it does not because the more people that have these qualifications drive the wages down not up.
We live in a capitalist society and there always needs to be people at the bottom to do the jobs no one wants.
And I'm guessing you're not one of those people on the bottom rung of capitalist society - or you would not have made such asinine, misanthropic remarks.
There is such a thing as a veil of ignorance. I wonder if you'd be so keen to design and defend such an unequal society if you had no foreknowledge of which position you would occupy witihn it - and your fellow citizens were responsible for deciding whether you were to be born lord of the manor or a landless, penniless agricultural serf.
Between 1994 and 2007 - the so-called boom years - real terms median earnings did not keep pace with productivity rises in the UK.
Business cannot be allowed to have it's cake and eat it. It didn't give the workforce a satisfactory increase in incomes during the boom years - it cannot now point to flat productivity as an excuse when it didn't give productivity-based pay increases when it was rising.
Average weekly earnings grew above inflation every year between 1996 and 2008.
1. I said productivity, not inflation - so you haven't addressed my point.
2. Your chart of choice uses the CPI measure of inflation, which I don't accept as valid. Get an RPI chart and we'll talk.
Edit: Your chart also looks at average rather than median incomes - you'll need to sort that out too.
Comments
Er... saying that something is not a human right is not the same as saying one should abolish it! There are plenty of things that are not human rights, but which we may decide that the State should provide because that's the kind of society we wish to live in and promote.
well you are wrong there, but then I suspect that secretly you know that.
Osborne's words were not meaningless. They were an aspiration that others not least the LPC shot down
No the function of the LPC is to advise the Government of the level the MW should be
Yes the Government could over ride the LPC but imagine the furore is they had. Still as you have now implied that Labour set up bodies such as the LPC can easily be ignored are there any other Labour set up bodies you think should be ignored ?
My heart bleeds for the likes of Amazon and Mcdonalds.
What sort of "wealth tax" do you have in mind? Isn't the state taking 45 or 50% of your direct earnings, plus a lot of the rest in VAT and other taxes, not enough?
Yes there are some extremely wealthy people in this country but there aren't many of them. Even if you could take 90% of their wealth off them without them hiding it in a tax haven then wouldn't make much difference to your or my life if it was equally distributed. A billion pounds shared between 50 million people is 20 quid each.
Do you think they should allow whatever safety they want to, employ whatever age of person they wish to, whatever race, employ all the illegal immigrants they like etc etc
The bottom line is, many employers can't be trusted and therefore have to be legislated against.
If George Osbourne (or a future Labour Chancellor) chooses not to accept the recommendations of the LPC they have 2 choices. They simply reject the recommendation and stick to their guns. Or they announce new legislation. They usually accept the recommendation. Why would they not (accept) if they were reasonably content with the annual recommendation?
But..... if they not satisfied....Governments are there to govern. So you don't want Labour to reduce the gap between the NMW and a Living Wage (clue is in the title)? You say this might lead to the government wishing to govern in other areas of government?? Lol.
There are 2 ways to increase the NMW for either George Osbourne or Ed Balls (see above). Rejecting the recommendation does require Balls. It also requires motivation to actually do something. Or you can take the Osbourne approach.
Try feeding your pet hamster on a diet of Osbourne Advocacy and let the forum know how it gets on.
Plus there is the law of diminishing returns; the law that Monaco, Andorra many other havens are only happy to sidestep.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-kingdom-productivity.png?s=unitedkinpro&d1=19840101&d2=20141231
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-kingdom-corporate-profits.png?s=unitedkincorpro&d1=20000101&d2=20141231
Not really. Labour can win without selling out on their core policies but in any case, are you saying the middle class are against a living wage, affordable housing, affordable living in general?
Not necessarily. A lot of businesses bare the extra costs without rising prices and take less profit if they have to but if wages go "UP", businesses may well get more business and therefore it will all balance out. The opposite of what you're predicting. What you predict was predicted about bringing in the Minimum Wage in the first place and it didn't cost jobs at all.
But its alright for the people at the top to get millions in bonuses on top of their already over inflated wages huh?
Because as far as I know no one has refused to accept the LPC recommendation in the past. Of course if you are going to ignore LPC recommendations what is the point of having the LPC ? A question I asked before but you ignored.
You just made all that up. As to not wanting Labour to reduce the gap between the NMW and a Living Wage, that is hogwash. Where have I said I am in favour of a minimum wage and a separate living wage. Indeed if you had read my posts properly you would have seen that I referred to the minimum wage and a living wage as one and the same and that is how I believe it should be
Osbourne did more than Miliband, he actually had a proposal for the current year whereas Miliband just has a vague wish for 6 years hence which does little more than keep pace with inflation and most of which will be swallowed up by a reduction in benefits as indeed Miliband admitted on the news channel this lunchtime.
Still I see you are still in favour of rubbishing the LPC so why not abolish it if you see it as of no use ?
Don’t give up the day job you will never make it as a comedian
That's fine. It's a free country and you are entitled not to work for them or use their services if you don't want to.
I have not rubbished the LPC and I have no intention of ignoring your question.
I am perfectly happy with New Labour setting up the LPC and allowing them to recommend changes to the initial NMW level.
But Labour are free to put forward anything they wish in their 2015 Manifesto. And you are free to vote for them or to reject them. They may put forward policies for the NHS that have an obvious link to the NHS that Labour created. Or they may put forward NHS policies that have no obvious link.
That is up to the current Labour Party.
You seem to think that I am putting words in your mouth. If you do not agree that the next Labour govt have the right to create any framework they wish to push towards a higher NMW in a timetable of their choosing then we will have to agree to disagree.
Why is it not all right?
Between 1994 and 2007 - the so-called boom years - real terms median earnings did not keep pace with productivity rises in the UK.
Business cannot be allowed to have it's cake and eat it. It didn't give the workforce a satisfactory increase in incomes during the boom years - it cannot now point to flat productivity as an excuse when it didn't give productivity-based pay increases when it was rising.
Unbelievable! You don't want ordinary workers to get £8 an hour even, not enough to live on but you're ok with the people at the top getting paid millions and millions in bonuses and you're asking me why this isn't alright?!!!!
People can get all the qualifications in the world but guess what, there is no guarantee that you will get a job let alone the money you're seeking to get! Its not as simple as you point out either.
It's their fault they're not better than the competition. Only you can make yourself successful.
Not true if you think that having more people going to university and getting qualifications helps it does not because the more people that have these qualifications drive the wages down not up.
There is such a thing as a veil of ignorance. I wonder if you'd be so keen to design and defend such an unequal society if you had no foreknowledge of which position you would occupy witihn it - and your fellow citizens were responsible for deciding whether you were to be born lord of the manor or a landless, penniless agricultural serf.
Average weekly earnings grew above inflation every year between 1996 and 2008.
http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/204115/inflation.png?w=598&h=378&l=50&t=50
Two problems;
1. I said productivity, not inflation - so you haven't addressed my point.
2. Your chart of choice uses the CPI measure of inflation, which I don't accept as valid. Get an RPI chart and we'll talk.
Edit: Your chart also looks at average rather than median incomes - you'll need to sort that out too.