Honestly i couldn't say how much it should go up by I'm not an economist, but i do remember similar foretellings of doom and cries of think of the small business's when the minimum wage was first introduced. From my layman's point of view i would think business's small and large alike would welcome a rise in the minimum wage, after all if every working person now has more money that means they have more of it to spend. Instead of having just enough to pay the bills and all the other necessities, they now have enough to treat themselves to a morning cup of coffee on the way to work each day. By keeping wages low in effect you exclude a (large) proportion of the population from being able to afford anything but the bare necessities. Hey it's HMRC that lumps both terms into one pool, not me. It's way to early in the morning for me to go looking for a break down, if one even exists.
Just to clarify Nexxo Im not blaming Britains problems on Immigration and I don't buy its as big as the media make it out to be but it is still an issue I think that needs tighter control. I'm a strong believer in a free-market employment force - its a global economy and I think if a foreigner is better qualified than a local and more hardworking thats the locals own fault. As the topic is "On immigration" I voiced my concerns with where the cracks are with this; that sometimes you have influxes of the wrong type of people that are simply here to abuse the system and benefit tourism. This isn't to ignore the fact that we probably have british nationals abroad doing the same or our own british people don't do this either.
Except "Mobile EU citizens are less likely to receive disability and unemployment benefits in most countries studied." The "non-activity" rate among EU nationals in Britain is 30%. For UK nationals it is 43%. The unemployment rate among EU nationals in Britain is 7.5%. For UK nationals it is slightly higher, at 7.9%. The employment rate (for those age 16-64) among EU nationals is 77%. For UK nationals it is 72%. Approximately 4% of JSA claimants in the UK are EU migrants, although they represent well over 5% of those in work. Like i said before the trope of benefit tourism is nothing more than political rhetoric used to demonise the benefits system, to make it more acceptable to the general public when cuts are made, it's easier to blame people that seem different. I would say a certain person done a similar thing many years ago but i don't want to invoke godwin's law.
If you are an EEA national you need to show that you have a ‘right to reside’ (can legally live here) and are ‘habitually resident’ (this is the place you normally live) in the UK. From 1 January 2014, before you can claim income based Jobseekers Allowance you must have been living in the UK for the three months immediately before making your claim. From 1 April 2014, EEA jobseekers are unable to claim Housing Benefit. Sure, immigrants who are actually working here are entitled to the same child support benefits, health care and pension arrangements as UK citizens, but since they are contributing to the economy, why should they not be? Many people whose moral entitlement to benefits is being questioned, are legally on benefits. Same difference. It is more complicated than that. One franchise company in the States decided to significantly increase staff pay while getting rid of in-store staff surveillance technology. Turns out, if staff feels valued and paid appropriately, they are much less likely to misbehave or steal and require surveillance. The bottom line was that the company saved money; the cost of higher staff wages was significantly outweighed by the savings in redundant surveillance technology. I put it to you that decent staff pay increases productivity and therefore profits, and reduces cost. Just because it's a cliche doesn't mean it's not true.
Well... This is a fun thread... I am an empiricist; or perhaps put another way, a skeptic (yes, I'm spelling it with a k deliberately). This means that I respond to observation and evidence; if Idea A already has plenty of evidence in its favour and you're claiming that Idea B contradicts Idea A, then you'd better have some pretty good evidence to back that up. Everything I've read so far - including the links already cited in this thread - tells me that immigration has a net positive effect on our economy: immigrants, on the whole, pay in more than they take out. Isn't this a good thing? This could go on all day, so I'll close with one of the best comments I've ever seen from a politician on the subject of immigration: EDIT: Damn, I could watch that video all day . Sure. Multi-national megacorporations like Amazon, Google, Starbucks, etc, are under no legal obligation to pay their multi-billion pound tax bills because there are loopholes in place that allow them to legally avoid having to pay the tax. Why, you'd almost think that the rules and laws are written specifically to help such massive corporations avoid their tax bills! Meanwhile public services are being slashed in the name of cutting spending and reducing the budget deficit. Perhaps if megacorporations paid their tax once in a while we might actually be able to give our nurses and doctors a meaningful pay rise once in a while. Or perhaps be able to afford to pay pensions to firefighters and not force them to keep working in a dangerous occupation when they're not physically up to it any more. Sorry, I know that wasn't really your point and I took that off on a bit of a tangent, but this is something that everyone should bear in mind when they're choosing their political opinions/affiliations and whose name they put their 'X' next to in May.
Indeed, if you are just a regularly employed person or a small business the tax law is clear and free of loopholes, but if you are a millionaire or multi billion company you can pretty much pay whatever tax you want.
yeah because all of the 240,000 odd people who came here are all highly skilled people who could contribute to the country. around here i have 5 scrap vans come around ever other day, slavics window washers at red lights and more ****ing £3 car hand car washes then i can count. i don't know what part of the uk you live in but i can guarantee these ****ers arent contributing.
They aren't living off benefits either. They are uneducated illiterate people from the poorest former Communist countries trying to eke out a living in any way they know how, drawn here by our fancy tales of a prosperous capitalist West that offers opportunities and rewards for those prepared to work hard. Some are menial slave labour imported by organised criminals. I wonder what the British uneducated population is doing? EDIT: I just watched a programme where a morbidly super-obese couple get £2000,-- a month in benefits, plus housing benefits, plus a carer at £600,-- a month because the gentleman is too obese to wash himself; in total just a bit more than I earn per month. It's a good thing that immigrants like me come over to the UK to take your jobs, so that our taxes that fund this couple's lifestyle.
Ah, I see you used the old media gambit when you quoted my post: only quote half of what someone said and completely miss the point of what they were saying. Notably this point: If you want me to be swayed by your argument then present the evidence. Rhetoric, propaganda and anecdotal evidence won't cut it.
The problem is certain types of business can't grow any more without an increase in population (doesn't matter if its immigration or a breeding frenzy). How are mobile networks supposed to achieve growth once everyone has a mobile phone? How are supermarkets supposed to achieve further growth once they have shops all over the country? Simple, the population needs to grow to increase the number of consumers.
If that was the case business would raise wages without regulation. It does spontaneously happen and is universal for some sectors (high end shops and restaurants, banks) because its proven to be effective. It also largely because paying above minimum wage lets you attract higher calibre employees. If the minimum was nationally raised that's not going to be the case. Public companies are obligated to maximise shareholder value. Not growth. Investor would quite happy to own a non growing company as long as it provides a decent dividend yield.
Isn't that part of the problem, most people always want more. Companies expect to sell more than they did last year, investors expect higher dividends than they had last year, everyone seems to expect growth, if this doesn't happen aren't companies seen as being a failure ?
That would assume that the market behaves rationally. It doesn't (I refer you to the 2007 credit crunch as an example). Higher wages do not only attract higher calibre employees, but also makes employees perform better. Wouldn't you make an effort to hang on to a well-paying job? Wouldn't you feel more valued? If the minimum is nationally raised that may also create job stability --there is lower turnover in staff looking for better pay elsewhere, which reduces recruitment and training costs.
Higher wages lead to higher prices and at the end of the month the balance of your bank account will still be zero.
Did you read what I wrote? Some sectors have rationally realised its beneficial. The macroeconomic of a financial crisis is in no way comparable to the micro and business management of wage decision. I said largely. Calibre accounts for most but not all the difference. The effect of feeling more valued (and hence productive) would probably also disappear once someone who once felt valued at £10/hour is now clumped in with every checkout worker in the country following a minimum wage rise. It will also create unemployment although they're plenty of debate to be had over the exact scope.
They convince you you need more than one phone contract ... Your tablet needs a contract, your car needs a contract (e-call, anyone?), your fitness-bracelet needs a contract, your dog needs a contract (for his GPS-Tracker to phone home)... *continue with arbitrary mobile device here* It's called competition, snatch customers away from other supermarkets. Theoretically, the end used benefits.
The macroeconomic of the financial crisis is a direct cumulative result of many irrational micro-decisions made at the ground level, so to speak. Some of those did in fact have to do with commission incentives. Similarly a corporation may focus on maximising profits by shaving a dime off the salaries of the menial shop floor workers without appreciating the hidden costs of having a less motivated or less capable workforce. Most managers have no understanding of people, even though their job is managing people, not just resources or processes. Not if their salary increases accordingly. But again, what makes people perform well in their job is not related to pay once they don't have to worry about making a living. If they do however, that becomes the focus of their motivations. Basically: pay people above a certain level, and they are largely motivated by other factors to do their job well. Pay them below a certain level, and performance becomes very closely linked to pay. Please elaborate.
So are you saying people only feel valued if they are earning more than someone else ? It seems very shallow to judge your value or productivity based on how you compare to people you view as lower than you on the socioeconomic scale.
I actually admire people like that and my parents were one of them, working hard so their children have better prospects - They are not abusing the system and are actually getting out there to try and work through being productive. My issue is with those that come here specifically to abuse the system be they foreigners or local brits. From my experience there is far more Brits that abuse the welfare system than foreigners with a sense of entitlement that they deserve their "benefits" - for doing what exactly? They haven't worked ever in their life, nor has most of their family members. Generally I've found if foreigners are willing to uproot and travel to a totally different country with little more than faith and a suitcase (as my parents did) they are willing to graft for work too and more times than not my experience with immigrants has fallen into this attitude. The problem I would say is bigger at home than from those coming abroad although those cases exist too.
Business are rational. There's no free lunch on the table for supermarkets to just raise wages and watch their staff become more productive and stores more profitable. And if that was the case. Productivity times number of man hours = x Where x is the number needed for a store to run. Jobs and hour are going to be cut. All managers are penny pinchers remember. http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_br0IEq5a9E77NMV I'm not necessarily disputing the idea of a minimum wage rise. Just the idea that business are somehow missing an opportunity and a minimum wage rise would benefit them. I was responding to this Is a worker going to feel more valued by their employee after a government mandated wage rise? No. If it was on the employers own initiative? Yes.
