To those that dislike the idea of wanting more

homers_double

Gotta love these topics...

VTech

You need people to struggle as believe it or not this is a fundamental way in which the world rotates.
Im not saying its right, just that this is the way it is.

I think when you raise standards of living to the masses, low grade jobs are seen as beneath people and the cycle of people not wanting to take menial jobs becomes a huge issue.

Lets face it, there are vast amounts of people that think the "black" population took the jobs after ww2 and then indians took jobs in the 70's and now polish taking jobs in the 0's and 10's but the reality is that they covered jobs people here wouldn't do.

We have huge issues with lazy people not willing to do menial tasks through either pure laziness or the fact that life without work is so comfy.

I know people won't like what I've wrote but it is the way it is, we have 3rd and 4th generations of unemployed in the UK through willing decision and not inability to find a job.
Thats the real crime.

arran77

VTech wrote:

I know people won't like what I've wrote but it is the way it is, we have 3rd and 4th generations of unemployed in the UK through willing decision and not inability to find a job.
Thats the real crime.

No, it's true VTech, people can flame me as well but you're right.

Some people do see certain work as beneath them and too much hard work whilst there are others, for example as you quote, the Eastern Europeans, who are still prepared to do these types of jobs.

Many people have got lazy and when you add to this the level of benefits you can receive you create generations who are unwilling to work :roll:

pesky_jones

Yep - think what Vtech and Arran are saying hits the nail on the head. Well, I'm certainly not going to hit the nail on the head - I'm an office worker.

Pross

HellsCyclist wrote:

The easiest way to make most peoples lives better is for the government to increase the minimum wage to the living wage. If EVERYBODY has a living wage then this can only be a good thing for the economy surely? Can someone tell me why this wouldnt work? If more people had more disposable income then that would mean businesses could flog more stuff thus increasing their profits. Cameron doesnt see it like this because he has a face like an elephants pooper, which I imagine is very off putting.

I'm no economist but wouldn't this just lead to an increase in inflation meaning the living wage would have to increase leading to greater inflation leading to........... you get the picture.

VTech

Pross wrote:

HellsCyclist wrote:

The easiest way to make most peoples lives better is for the government to increase the minimum wage to the living wage. If EVERYBODY has a living wage then this can only be a good thing for the economy surely? Can someone tell me why this wouldnt work? If more people had more disposable income then that would mean businesses could flog more stuff thus increasing their profits. Cameron doesnt see it like this because he has a face like an elephants pooper, which I imagine is very off putting.

I'm no economist but wouldn't this just lead to an increase in inflation meaning the living wage would have to increase leading to greater inflation leading to........... you get the picture.

You got it.
Its easy to think that having a "living wage" is the answer but it isn't.

I once did a job for a guy who was a government economist and he asked me what the most important role for a government was, I don't remember my answer but he said I was wrong.

He said the number one job is to keep people in order.
He went on to say, "do you honestly think that in modern times like this we really have huge wastage that isn't fixable ? do you honestly think that the government always need more tax to do less work?"

He said the government have organised wastage and to me it makes sense. People get more wealthy and so don't want to do things they then see as beneath them and we are in trouble so by taxing people you keep them on the edge, needing to work and keep the country rolling.

finchy

Pross wrote:

HellsCyclist wrote:

The easiest way to make most peoples lives better is for the government to increase the minimum wage to the living wage. If EVERYBODY has a living wage then this can only be a good thing for the economy surely? Can someone tell me why this wouldnt work? If more people had more disposable income then that would mean businesses could flog more stuff thus increasing their profits. Cameron doesnt see it like this because he has a face like an elephants pooper, which I imagine is very off putting.

I'm no economist but wouldn't this just lead to an increase in inflation meaning the living wage would have to increase leading to greater inflation leading to........... you get the picture.

Probably not, because (1) most people aren't on the minimum wage, (2) there are other costs involved in producing goods and providing services and (3) we import a hell of a lot of stuff anyway.

pliptrot

"VTech wrote:

He said the number one job is to keep people in order.
He went on to say, "do you honestly think that in modern times like this we really have huge wastage that isn't fixable ? do you honestly think that the government always need more tax to do less work?"

He said the government have organised wastage and to me it makes sense. People get more wealthy and so don't want to do things they then see as beneath them and we are in trouble so by taxing people you keep them on the edge, needing to work and keep the country rolling.

Apart from the fact that this is (almost) unintelligible nonsense, he must have been pulling your leg about having a job as you describe him: he's evidently an idiot. Governments have to step in and do what the private sector cannot, which is pretty much everything bar selfish, earnest venal obsession with gathering money.

And every argument made on here against giving a guarantee of a living wage to everyone is a carbon copy of the arguments made against the minimum wage: they didn't hold water either, and were proven wrong. Frankly, it is deeply offensive that in The UK the idea that someone should work for less than the living wage is ever considered. It's not that benefits are too high, it's that wages at the bottom are too low.

nathancom

johnfinch wrote:

Pross wrote:

HellsCyclist wrote:

The easiest way to make most peoples lives better is for the government to increase the minimum wage to the living wage. If EVERYBODY has a living wage then this can only be a good thing for the economy surely? Can someone tell me why this wouldnt work? If more people had more disposable income then that would mean businesses could flog more stuff thus increasing their profits. Cameron doesnt see it like this because he has a face like an elephants pooper, which I imagine is very off putting.

I'm no economist but wouldn't this just lead to an increase in inflation meaning the living wage would have to increase leading to greater inflation leading to........... you get the picture.

Probably not, because (1) most people aren't on the minimum wage, (2) there are other costs involved in producing goods and providing services and (3) we import a hell of a lot of stuff anyway.

The biggest inflationary pressure is coming from goods with a fairly steady demand, eg gas and electricity. Anyway inflation is not a massive problem to the economy currently so there is definitely scope to pay people more. They are being hit by inflation now.

Why is it that businesses are subsidised by the state to pay less than a living wage that taxpayers then top up with working credits etc? If someone is in full time employment they should be paid enough not to need state support. It is just another way in which workers subsidise shareholders since the profitability of companies is boosted by this effective subsidy.

Pay people for their labour and the value they create.

MisterMuncher

Indeed. Wouldn't a higher minimum/living wage put paid to the supposedly huge problem of the "benefit trap" at a stroke as well? Then again, getting people off benefits is apparently a stick-only job, no carrots required.

pliptrot

And there, in just 3 short paragraphs nathancom sums it well; and offers an antidote to the ugly mean views that are peddled here to suggest that hardship is any kind of motivating factor, and -in any way- a good thing. What he said, twice.

nathancom

Under 1% of families have multiple generations (2+) who have not worked, so it is just another strawman argument.
Only 13% of benefits going to the unemployed so again very far from the majority.

Clearly benefits in the majority are paid to working individuals. The government has to make up the shortfall in the wages paid by companies due to shareholders (owners and pension funds basically) exploiting workers by underpaying them.

VTech

Why is it that the same people argue with me on a whole level when I have merely pointed out a single part of the problem ?
The biggest issue is age, I've made that comment on other posts and was ridiculed by the same people there too
We are living too long, thats the biggest single issue we have to cope with and one that really we can't.

The problem with age and people living longer is one that we can't and wouldn't want to do anything about so we tend to try and place blame onto those that are 100% at fault and those unwilling to work which I have no sympathy for.

The problem with increasing minimum wage is that companies have to try and compete and these extra costs have or can have a dramatic effect on trade and in turn often hinder employment opportunity.
I don't really mind what people here try to use to argue with me but I've personally been a part of trade and commerce for Hereford and Worcester and it is something manny business owners make as a huge issue. I have employed quite a large amount of people myself, you have to remember that on top of the wages you have employers liability and all sorts of additional costs.
Whats the alternative ?
pay higher wages, employ less people, less tax is paid due to less people in work, more benefits paid as more people unemployed.

nathancom

Yeah you don't like it when your blather meets facts.

VTech

nathancom wrote:

Yeah you don't like it when your blather meets facts.

Not at all, I just like to discuss and get to the bottom of matters, maybe thats why I am where I am in life and you are where you are ? I mean no offence by that, but it is life.

I made some great points and you reply with a daft line which answers nothing and yet you want to be part of a grown up discussion. I am sorry if this offends but I have answered with my business head on and not with my heart, the facts are quite simple and I'm yet to see where any point I've made is unjust.

florerider

nathancom wrote:

Anyway inflation is not a massive problem to the economy currently so there is definitely scope to pay people more. They are being hit by inflation now.

Another fine insight there. Inflation is not a problem, apart from when it is.

team47b

You can't pay the workers a living wage and drive a lambo, something has to give

VTech

team47b wrote:

You can't pay the workers a living wage and drive a lambo, something has to give

Just so you are aware, I don't employ anyone under £30k/year so the fact that I drive a lambo isn't really an issue.
In my last company everyone was well over minimum wage too but that was due to my industry. Likewise, I wouldn't have an issue paying minimum wage if it meant employing people, I have no hard feelings about putting people in work, why should I ? why should any business owner ?
Likewise I wouldn't have an issue doing with my money what I feel fit, of course I wouldn't arrive at the office in a lambo or ferrari as I wouldn't want animosity but thats me.

nathancom

florerider wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Anyway inflation is not a massive problem to the economy currently so there is definitely scope to pay people more. They are being hit by inflation now.

Another fine insight there. Inflation is not a problem, apart from when it is.

We have lived through a generation of low inflation. There is scope for increasing the minimum wage without creating excessive inflationary pressure. If people are using inflation as a reason not to pay people properly you know they have run out of reasons...

VTech

nathancom wrote:

florerider wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Anyway inflation is not a massive problem to the economy currently so there is definitely scope to pay people more. They are being hit by inflation now.

Another fine insight there. Inflation is not a problem, apart from when it is.

We have lived through a generation of low inflation. There is scope for increasing the minimum wage without creating excessive inflationary pressure. If people are using inflation as a reason not to pay people properly you know they have run out of reasons...

Ill give you the most important reason.

To sell within the UK regurgitates the same capital, it doesn't support growth.
To build growth we need to export.
The biggest cost in almost all business is wages so the higher the wage, the higher the end product and in turn the higher the end cost.
This cost is what we use to build exports and if we are not competitive we simply don't get the business therefor no growth and no new jobs.

nathancom

VTech wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Yeah you don't like it when your blather meets facts.

Not at all, I just like to discuss and get to the bottom of matters, maybe thats why I am where I am in life and you are where you are ? I mean no offence by that, but it is life.

I made some great points and you reply with a daft line which answers nothing and yet you want to be part of a grown up discussion. I am sorry if this offends but I have answered with my business head on and not with my heart, the facts are quite simple and I'm yet to see where any point I've made is unjust.

"No offence but I am considerably richer than you so I am right".

Great argument there.

You made some point about 3-4 generation non working families when they are less than 1% and then moan when someone checks the fact. You also went on some Ayn Randish rant about the need for struggle. I can assure you that people on minimum wage know more about struggle than you.

Strangely enough you are not suddenly an expert or even particularly intelligent just because you have run a business. A desire to be rich doesn't make you more intelligent or worthy than you fellow human beings, whatever you tell yourself in the mirror.

VTech

nathancom wrote:

VTech wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Yeah you don't like it when your blather meets facts.

Not at all, I just like to discuss and get to the bottom of matters, maybe thats why I am where I am in life and you are where you are ? I mean no offence by that, but it is life.

I made some great points and you reply with a daft line which answers nothing and yet you want to be part of a grown up discussion. I am sorry if this offends but I have answered with my business head on and not with my heart, the facts are quite simple and I'm yet to see where any point I've made is unjust.

"No offence but I am considerably richer than you so I am right".

Great argument there.

You made some point about 3-4 generation non working families when they are less than 1% and then moan when someone checks the fact. You also went on some Ayn Randish rant about the need for struggle. I can assure you that people on minimum wage know more about struggle than you.

Strangely enough you are not suddenly an expert or even particularly intelligent just because you have run a business. A desire to be rich doesn't make you more intelligent or worthy than you fellow human beings, whatever you tell yourself in the mirror.

And your point is ?
I said there are 3rd and 4th generation unemployed, I was right, 100% right, thats a fact.

I said people need to struggle, thats right, 100% right, thats a fact.

I have not mentioned or made a point of my wealth, that isn't in question and doesn't mean or alter a thing, you simply chose to use points that have little validation to argue with me senselessly.
I don't really care that you point out that I am not intelligent but if you believe that it discredits you, as you have tried to point out, I am richer and more successful than you. (not that I am or in fact that I care as I don't).

What I do care about is that within the last 10 years over 600 people have been employed because of my risk in starting business. I have never been declared bankrupt, always paid tax which runs into tens of millions and done my bit for the local community.
I am happy being me, the fact that you dislike me means very little, I can assure you that not a seconds sleep has been lost because of it.

nathancom

Great, ok there are Welshmen married to Outer Mongolians but that does not make them a statistically relevant economic fact.

And you just made a point about your wealth in the post I replied to clearly trying to indicate you have been more successful in your life. The trouble is you seem to score your life by how much money you have and then think you are better than others because of choosing that route in life. A lot of people have different priorities and they are richer than you for it.

I don't dislike you, I just think you are a bit of an idiot and don't realise when people take the pi55 out of you. Unfortunately you post voluminously in these types of posts when there are much more interesting posters from your political standpoint, eg Florerider, with whom you can have a meaningful discussion.

Anyway I am glad you are happy to be you, but maybe try stop human centipeding yourself a moment.

ballysmate

MisterMuncher wrote:

Indeed. Wouldn't a higher minimum/living wage put paid to the supposedly huge problem of the "benefit trap" at a stroke as well? Then again, getting people off benefits is apparently a stick-only job, no carrots required.

I work with people who flatly refuse to work more than a given amount of hours, as it impinges on their benefits. They would rather sit at home and claim as much as possible from the state rather than earn their wage through their own endeavours.
That would appear to be a case of all carrot and no stick.

nathancom

Ballysmate wrote:

MisterMuncher wrote:

Indeed. Wouldn't a higher minimum/living wage put paid to the supposedly huge problem of the "benefit trap" at a stroke as well? Then again, getting people off benefits is apparently a stick-only job, no carrots required.

I work with people who flatly refuse to work more than a given amount of hours, as it impinges on their benefits. They would rather sit at home and claim as much as possible from the state rather than earn their wage through their own endeavours.
That would appear to be a case of all carrot and no stick.

Mainly because they lose out financially if they do more work. If the state stops subsidising wages then it needs to ensure people are paid enough in work. Interestingly we pay 19% less than Germany to the unemployed, clearly high benefit payments are not the problem.

ballysmate

nathancom wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

MisterMuncher wrote:

Indeed. Wouldn't a higher minimum/living wage put paid to the supposedly huge problem of the "benefit trap" at a stroke as well? Then again, getting people off benefits is apparently a stick-only job, no carrots required.

I work with people who flatly refuse to work more than a given amount of hours, as it impinges on their benefits. They would rather sit at home and claim as much as possible from the state rather than earn their wage through their own endeavours.
That would appear to be a case of all carrot and no stick.

Mainly because they lose out financially if they do more work. If the state stops subsidising wages then it needs to ensure people are paid enough in work. Interestingly we pay 19% less than Germany to the unemployed, clearly high benefit payments are not the problem.

I agree with your first sentence, but my solution would be somewhat different to yours. How about cutting benefits to those who refuse to work?
I fail to see how in this global economy, when we are trying to compete with suppliers in the far east who have even lower wage rates, the solution is to increase costs and make our goods more expensive, to the domestic market and more importantly, to the export market.

ballysmate

nathancom wrote:

VTech wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Yeah you don't like it when your blather meets facts.

Not at all, I just like to discuss and get to the bottom of matters, maybe thats why I am where I am in life and you are where you are ? I mean no offence by that, but it is life.

I made some great points and you reply with a daft line which answers nothing and yet you want to be part of a grown up discussion. I am sorry if this offends but I have answered with my business head on and not with my heart, the facts are quite simple and I'm yet to see where any point I've made is unjust.

"No offence but I am considerably richer than you so I am right".

Great argument there.

You made some point about 3-4 generation non working families when they are less than 1% and then moan when someone checks the fact. You also went on some Ayn Randish rant about the need for struggle. I can assure you that people on minimum wage know more about struggle than you.

Strangely enough you are not suddenly an expert or even particularly intelligent just because you have run a business. A desire to be rich doesn't make you more intelligent or worthy than you fellow human beings, whatever you tell yourself in the mirror.

Perhaps so.
But it does give him an insight into how business works.
I would also acknowledge his contribution in job creation and generating taxable income, thereby helping to finance the benefit system.

nathancom

Ballysmate wrote:

nathancom wrote:

VTech wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Yeah you don't like it when your blather meets facts.

Not at all, I just like to discuss and get to the bottom of matters, maybe thats why I am where I am in life and you are where you are ? I mean no offence by that, but it is life.

I made some great points and you reply with a daft line which answers nothing and yet you want to be part of a grown up discussion. I am sorry if this offends but I have answered with my business head on and not with my heart, the facts are quite simple and I'm yet to see where any point I've made is unjust.

"No offence but I am considerably richer than you so I am right".

Great argument there.

You made some point about 3-4 generation non working families when they are less than 1% and then moan when someone checks the fact. You also went on some Ayn Randish rant about the need for struggle. I can assure you that people on minimum wage know more about struggle than you.

Strangely enough you are not suddenly an expert or even particularly intelligent just because you have run a business. A desire to be rich doesn't make you more intelligent or worthy than you fellow human beings, whatever you tell yourself in the mirror.

Perhaps so.
But it does give him an insight into how business works.
I would also acknowledge his contribution in job creation and generating taxable income, thereby helping to finance the benefit system.

Most businesses owners claim to have built their companies from nothing, the truth is the majority rely on significant capital beyond the means of most people to set up and run. Simply, most people do not have the opportunity to create hugely successful businesses and anecdotes to the contrary don't diminish that fact. I an sure Vtech has built up a great company, but it's financial success relies on it being a very niche market with a largely price insensitive clientele, making it a poor example from which to generalise.

finchy

Ballysmate wrote:

I fail to see how in this global economy, when we are trying to compete with suppliers in the far east who have even lower wage rates, the solution is to increase costs and make our goods more expensive, to the domestic market and more importantly, to the export market.

We can't compete with China and India for wages. If we did, workers would be on starvation level wages. We need to be competing with other highly industrialised nations, and that means a highly skilled workforce and higher spending on research and development.

Unfortunately, neither of these is likely to happen because the government still treats vocational education as a second rate education (paying lip service with ridiculous initiatives such as the Technical Baccalaureat while not actually providing schools and colleges with the budgets to provide for the qualifications) and R&D spending in this country has been lower than our competitors' for decades.

ballysmate

nathancom wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

nathancom wrote:

VTech wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Yeah you don't like it when your blather meets facts.

Not at all, I just like to discuss and get to the bottom of matters, maybe thats why I am where I am in life and you are where you are ? I mean no offence by that, but it is life.

I made some great points and you reply with a daft line which answers nothing and yet you want to be part of a grown up discussion. I am sorry if this offends but I have answered with my business head on and not with my heart, the facts are quite simple and I'm yet to see where any point I've made is unjust.

"No offence but I am considerably richer than you so I am right".

Great argument there.

You made some point about 3-4 generation non working families when they are less than 1% and then moan when someone checks the fact. You also went on some Ayn Randish rant about the need for struggle. I can assure you that people on minimum wage know more about struggle than you.

Strangely enough you are not suddenly an expert or even particularly intelligent just because you have run a business. A desire to be rich doesn't make you more intelligent or worthy than you fellow human beings, whatever you tell yourself in the mirror.

Perhaps so.
But it does give him an insight into how business works.
I would also acknowledge his contribution in job creation and generating taxable income, thereby helping to finance the benefit system.

Most businesses owners claim to have built their companies from nothing, the truth is the majority rely on significant capital beyond the means of most people to set up and run..

Does this apply to VTech? If not, why mention it?

I an sure Vtech has built up a great company, but it's financial success relies on it being a very niche market with a largely price insensitive clientele, making it a poor example from which to generalise

I wasn't generalising, I was giving credit where it is due.
Having thought about what you say, surely it is even more impressive that he saw a niche in the market and built a successful enterprise, thereby creating wealth, not just for himself, but the people he employed?