Private sector strike

W1

notsoblue wrote:

There are ways round paying people a minimum wage though. Employers like Tesco's take people on as part time (~16 hours), with only a skeleton crew of full time employees. They put them on zero hour contracts, so they don't need to employ them on days when they don't need them. And if the employee isn't on a fixed time permanent contract they don't need to provide pension schemes, holiday or sick pay. A part time employee working 16 hours a week on minimum wage will not earn enough to survive, they have to work at least 30 hours a week to get working tax credit, and because they're working at all they won't get out of work benefit. So they need to get a second part time job to just put them in a position where the government can top up their wages.

If their employer had just paid them a "living wage" in the first place then a) there would be less dependence on the state and b) they would have much higher quality of life.

The system as it stands now basically amounts to the government picking up the tab for people on low wages so that employers can increase their profits, share value and executive pay. Its the average tax payer funding the wealthy. Things get even more bizarre when you consider new efforts by the governments to get people working for companies at no cost to them so claimants can "earn" their benefits.

It could be a lot worse, of course. But my point is that the view that people on low wages are already getting too much in the way of support from the government, that there are too many restrictions on big business, and that taxes get in the way of growth is a pretty simplistic view that simply doesn't reflect reality.

Since you ask, my aim would be to encourage an environment where it isn't more profitable for employers to pay their staff a sh1tty wage and let the government pick up the tab so that they can further increase profits. I don't really care about wealth redistribution. But the current situation encourages people to stay dependant on the state rather than get paid a a fair "living" wage. You seem to be suggesting that people at around this income level don't deserve it.

So you want people working 16 hour weeks to be paid the same as someone working 35 hour weeks? How a business is staffed is up to the business - unless you expect Tesco to pay people to not be working?

What's to stop people working one 16 hour contract having two jobs and "living" off that joint income (even on minimum wage)?

Or have I misunderstood you?

EDIT - sorry just re-read - what's the problem with people having two part time jobs if that what it takes to earn enough to live?

jds_1981

I though Norway traditionally has a high proportion of people on disability benefits (perhaps massaging unemployment figures down.)

Also Norway has high exports of oil and gas which pushes up the gdp/capita significantly.

rick_chasey

jds_1981 wrote:

I though Norway traditionally has a high proportion of people on disability benefits (perhaps massaging unemployment figures down.)

Also Norway has high exports of oil and gas which pushes up the gdp/capita significantly.

#1. GDP per head is simply real GDP / population, so whether you're claiming unemployment, a child, a pensioner, a housewife (or husband), or in work, it's all included in the productivity, which is higher. So while the unemployment figures might be different, the quality of life is still higher.


#2. That is correct.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

So you want people working 16 hour weeks to be paid the same as someone working 35 hour weeks? How a business is staffed is up to the business - unless you expect Tesco to pay people to not be working?

What's to stop people working one 16 hour contract having two jobs and "living" off that joint income (even on minimum wage)?

Or have I misunderstood you?

EDIT - sorry just re-read - what's the problem with people having two part time jobs if that what it takes to earn enough to live?

Well the point is that its cheaper for Tesco to employ 20 people part time than 10 people full time because they don't have to shell out for pensions, holiday and sick pay. Additionally, if for whatever reason they don't need these people to come in for a short period then they just don't have to employ them. The problem with someone having two part time jobs instead of one full time job is that they aren't protected by employment law, they have terrible job security, and it makes them more dependant on the state for support. And the reason this is a negative situation is that the companies employing these people under these conditions *can* afford to be better employers, but instead they choose to make more profit and increase executive remuneration. The result is poor employee welfare and a burden on the state. This is profit at the expense of tax payers.

jds_1981

Rick Chasey wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

I though Norway traditionally has a high proportion of people on disability benefits (perhaps massaging unemployment figures down.)

Also Norway has high exports of oil and gas which pushes up the gdp/capita significantly.

#1. GDP per head is simply real GDP / population, so whether you're claiming unemployment, a child, a pensioner, a housewife (or husband), or in work, it's all included in the productivity, which is higher. So while the unemployment figures might be different, the quality of life is still higher.


#2. That is correct.

So they're not good comparisons. Oil exports alone increase gdp/capita for Norway by ~$12,400 over the UK. Haven't worked out the also significant gas exports. It's not a surprise therefore that 'productivity' is higher.