UK workers are too lazy - bosses want more migration

[Guest Andy]

I wouldnt expect a pay rise if the minimum wage earners were put on £10 an hour,its not my money thats too low,its that theirs are too low

 

Nail, head :daydreaming:

[pablo]

And when the minimum wage goes to £12.50 what do you think will happen to the price of everything? And yes, before you say it, I agree prices shouldn't go up but you and I both know they will.supply and demand, as people can afford more demand will go up, as demand goes up so do prices. It's happening slowly in our industry now.

 

I haven't said £12.50,i said £10,prices dont "have" to go up in every case,in some cases it could just mean less profit for the company they work for,if they had a conscience that is!!.

I think we'd adjust anyway,we were told prices would go up when the last pay rise was given,i didnt notice anything out of the ordinary.

Maybe our taxes might come down to compensate a bit if prices "did" go up,because if the tax payer wasnt subsidising big multi nationals like Walmart there would be more money in the treasury

Plus more money in circulation thru higher wages might have a knock on effect for us all,more money means more goods and services could be afforded by those who couldn't afford it before.

[wakeboard1980]

I am saying it is irrelevant to what I was saying re minimum wage, my point is that the minimum wage is far to low regardless of what anyone else earns.

 

And my point is if you lift the minimum wage in the way you suggest I don't think it will work.

[wakeboard1980]

I haven't said £12.50,i said £10,prices dont "have" to go up in every case,in some cases it could just mean less profit for the company they work for,if they had a conscience that is!!.

I think we'd adjust anyway,we were told prices would go up when the last pay rise was given,i didnt notice anything out of the ordinary.

Maybe our taxes might come down to compensate a bit if prices "did" go up,because if the tax payer wasnt subsidising big multi nationals like Walmart there would be more money in the treasury

Plus more money in circulation thru higher wages might have a knock on effect for us all,more money means more goods and services could be afforded by those who couldn't afford it before.

 

I've said £12.50 because Andy said it needs to be doubled.

 

you are right, prices don't 'have' to go up, but I know your not that stupid to think they won't.

 

people who ultimately get more money can only afford products if said products don't go up in price.

 

Its a vicious circle.

[wakeboard1980]

So whats your suggestion then, the last few rises to minimum wage have been insulting to say the least and would not even cover the extra cost of keeping warm?

 

I would like to hear your whole spin on things, not just the line you have peddled before about doubling the minimum wage.

 

So the people on minimum wage get their wage doubled. The people on 10-12 p/h who supervise these people don't get a pay rise, how well do you think that will work. I know this will come across as rude, but, you are an intelligent bloke Andy I'm sure you can work it out?

[pablo]

I've said £12.50 because Andy said it needs to be doubled.

 

you are right, prices don't 'have' to go up, but I know your not that stupid to think they won't.

 

people who ultimately get more money can only afford products if said products don't go up in price.

 

Its a vicious circle.

 

Some things might go up,but there will come a tipping point if that happens,imo anyway,for instance if Asda put the price of steak up by 30% i would simply buy less steak,Asda then has a choice,sell less steak with a higher profit margin,or sell more steak with a lower profit margin,simple analogy i know,but its more or less what i would be thinking if i was running a business.

Plus im not even sure what % of a company's overheads wages are anyway(on average)? the lower the % wages are of a company's overheads the less impact a wage rise would have on that company anyway.

 

What about my other points about the treasury(us)saving money not subsidising some company's who are earning billions etc etc

 

A vicious circle if you believe scaremongering from the likes of the CBI,i dont believe them

Edited December 10, 2013 by pablo

[wakeboard1980]

Some things might go up,but there will come a tipping point if that happens,imo anyway,for instance if Asda put the price of steak up by 30% i would simply buy less steak,Asda then has a choice,sell less steak with a higher profit margin,or sell more steak with a lower profit margin,simple analogy i know,but its more or less what i would be thinking if i was running a business.

Plus im not even sure what % of a company's overheads wages are anyway(on average)? the lower the % wages are of a company's overheads the less impact a wage rise would have on that company anyway.

 

What about my other points about the treasury(us)saving money not subsidising some company's who are earning billions etc etc

 

A vicious circle if you believe scaremongering from the likes of the CBI,i dont believe them

 

What about your points about subsidising some companies? the treasury subsidise a lot of companies. A hell of a lot of companies, who as a percentage of profit compared to turnover may earn just as much as the big guys. The treasury subsidise every company that pays minimum wage, in one way or another.

[pablo]

What about your points about subsidising some companies? the treasury subsidise a lot of companies. A hell of a lot of companies, who as a percentage of profit compared to turnover may earn just as much as the big guys. The treasury subsidise every company that pays minimum wage, in one way or another.

 

Exactly,the tax payer shouldn't be subsidising shareholders profits,thats my point

[wakeboard1980]

Exactly,the tax payer shouldn't be subsidising shareholders profits,thats my point

 

You always mention the companies 'making billions'. I'm pointing out that its smaller companies as well. It's the way it is all around th world and the way it always will be. How long has public housing and benefits been around for?

[Guest Andy]

I would like to hear your whole spin on things, not just the line you have peddled before about doubling the minimum wage.

 

So the people on minimum wage get their wage doubled. The people on 10-12 p/h who supervise these people don't get a pay rise, how well do you think that will work. I know this will come across as rude, but, you are an intelligent bloke Andy I'm sure you can work it out?

 

Who said those who supervise dont get a rise? If you pay Fred who at the moment is on minimum wage for stacking shelves £12 an hour then Fred's supervisor Reg who is currently on £12 an hour could be paid £14 an hour so he is still getting more money than Fred for the extra responsibility, you are an intelligent bloke, whats wrong with that?

[pablo]

You always mention the companies 'making billions'. I'm pointing out that its smaller companies as well. It's the way it is all around th world and the way it always will be. How long has public housing and benefits been around for?

 

I know what you're pointing out,and the size of the company doesn't matter to me,the tax payer shouldn't be subsidising them,lets put it this way,the whole system of us supporting company's profits needs looking at urgently,especially when, to compound matters, a lot of company's profits,some of which is uk tax payers £ goes out of the UK to offshore accounts!

 

Public housing has nothing to do with the thread to be fair,if there was more of it tho,we wouldn't be paying out fortunes to private landlords,but thats another thread,simple fact is public housing is mainly used by those who maybe cant afford a mortgage,and they pay for it if they're working.

 

Anyway,forget about benefits claimants for once if you can,we were talking about minimum wage,you're arguing against it,buying the CBI line,but i knew that would be your stance anyway tbh

[wakeboard1980]

I know what you're pointing out,and the size of the company doesn't matter to me,the tax payer shouldn't be subsidising them,lets put it this way,the whole system of us supporting company's profits needs looking at urgently,especially when, to compound matters, a lot of company's profits,some of which is uk tax payers £ goes out of the UK to offshore accounts!

 

Public housing has nothing to do with the thread to be fair,if there was more of it tho,we wouldn't be paying out fortunes to private landlords,but thats another thread,simple fact is public housing is mainly used by those who maybe cant afford a mortgage,and they pay for it if they're working.

 

Anyway,forget about benefits claimants for once if you can,we were talking about minimum wage,you're arguing against it,buying the CBI line,but i knew that would be your stance anyway tbh

 

You are the one that bought benefits into it when you mentioned subsidising companies, that's always your argument in discussions like this, I wouldn't expect anything less. I'm asking how long people have been claiming to live in public housing, that is linked to not earning enough to buy or rent privately. So in at regard it is relevant.

 

i have said many times that the minimum wage is too low, and especially when you get minimum wage for weekend work as well. I'm certainly not arguing against a rise, but to say double it, what I initially said wouldn't work, is what I'm talking about.

Edited December 10, 2013 by wakeboard1980

[wakeboard1980]

Who said those who supervise dont get a rise? If you pay Fred who at the moment is on minimum wage for stacking shelves £12 an hour then Fred's supervisor Reg who is currently on £12 an hour could be paid £14 an hour so he is still getting more money than Fred for the extra responsibility, you are an intelligent bloke, whats wrong with that?

 

Im saying that, yes, they will want a rise as well, so where does it stop? That's what I have been trying to say from the beginning. Can you not see this going full circle?

[pablo]

You are the one that bought benefits into it when you mentioned subsidising companies, that's always your argument in discussions like this, I wouldn't expect anything less. I'm asking how long people have been claiming to live in public housing, that is linked to not earning enough to buy or rent privately. So in at regard it is relevant.

 

i have said many times that the minimum wage is too low, and especially when you get minimum wage for weekend work as well. I'm certainly not arguing against a rise, but to say double it, what I initially said wouldn't work, is what I'm talking about.

 

And your argument is to always bring it back to benefit claimants and the low paid in social housing,my point is the UK tax payer subsidising company's who are sometimes earning billions is ridiculous,its not "welfare" is it,and it shouldn't be a benefit to a company,im not talking about Chardonnay getting £20 a week for baby Chelsea off the DWP,cba with all that,"scroungers" threads are all over the place on here,sick to bleedin death of them tbh,but thats PIO for yer,they love a scrounger thread on here!

[wakeboard1980]

And your argument is to always bring it back to benefit claimants and the low paid in social housing,my point is the UK tax payer subsidising company's who are sometimes earning billions is ridiculous,its not "welfare" is it,and it shouldn't be a benefit to a company,im not talking about Chardonnay getting £20 a week for baby Chelsea off the DWP,cba with all that,"scroungers" threads are all over the place on here,sick to bleedin death of them tbh,but thats PIO for yer,they love a scrounger thread on here!

 

No that's where you are wrong, I'm not bringing it back to benefit claimants. I'm certainly not blaming them. You keep banging on about these big companies being subsidised, I'm making a point that its jus not the big companies.

 

you can be sick to death as much as you want with your scrounger threads tbh but it's not going to change the situation and the fact that's its nit a easy as you make out. I'm sick to death of people thinking it just as simple as doubling th minimum wage. If it was that easy why hasn't it been done already?

 

but you are right, your way is he right way and as usual someone who disagrees with you are the ones that 'love the scrounger threads' typical! You always say you are not going to get involved but can't help yourself.

[pablo]

No that's where you are wrong, I'm not bringing it back to benefit claimants. I'm certainly not blaming them. You keep banging on about these big companies being subsidised, I'm making a point that its jus not the big companies.

 

you can be sick to death as much as you want with your scrounger threads tbh but it's not going to change the situation and the fact that's its nit a easy as you make out. I'm sick to death of people thinking it just as simple as doubling th minimum wage. If it was that easy why hasn't it been done already?

 

but you are right, your way is he right way and as usual someone who disagrees with you are the ones that 'love the scrounger threads' typical! You always say you are not going to get involved but can't help yourself.

 

You mentioned benefits and social housing,i dont class subsidising Walmart(for instance)as "benefits".

I dont understand what you mean by...

"its not going to change the system,and its not as easy as you make out",benefits/scroungers,or minimum wage?

I haven't said "you" love the scrounger threads,just that PIO does,nor i have i said im "right",im just debating something with you,if you want to take it personally that's up to you

If you also want to throw in little digs like "your way is the right way and as usual" etc etc,thats your choice as well,but if you want to carry on the debate without getting upset or defensive,then box on

[gpo1971]

Domino's are getting a bashing but, presumably, the jobs that they can't fill are paid at minimum wage or more. If that's not a liveable wage, that's not Domino's fault.

[Guest]

Domino's are getting a bashing but, presumably, the jobs that they can't fill are paid at minimum wage or more. If that's not a liveable wage, that's not Domino's fault.

 

Domino's aren't legally obliged to pay the minimum. They could show some care towards their employees by paying above the minimum wage.

 

Hell could be good for business.

[gpo1971]

I didn't realise that organisations in the UK could offer wages lower than the statutory minimum wage. Is that a loophole in the legislation or is there no actual legislation to cover it?

Either way, that needs addressing.

[Petals]

I guess the question is why do some people think that they are owed a living. I think welfare systems are fine as long as they do not make work optional and unfortunately the benefits paid in the UK as compared to wages has made a lot think its optional.

 

I never wanted to live on benefits and certainly here in Aus it would not be enough for me to have the life I want, so that also comes into it.

 

The unfortunate thing is that of course they are going to employ the new EEC migrants or other migrants because these new migrants are grateful to come to a country, be able to get a job and get on. Its their children once they become entrenched in the welfare state that then think work is optional. So the governments are responsible and the public is responsible also for demanding more welfare.

 

I am amazed that even people who migrate to Aus which is completely different to UK want to know what is free. We have to stop thinking we need everything for nothing.

 

Co-payments in health help to free up the system from people who use it for every little thing. Ambulances being used as Taxis, emergency rooms over crowded with a lot of patients that could go to the GP the next day. Its the same here to some extent especially with emergency, why anyone would sit there for hours in an uncomfortable waiting room to see a doc when round the corner in the same hospital the medical after hours clinic is open is unbelievable to me, but its because they may have to pay.

 

We reap as we sow.

 

What we need is more jobs for unskilled workers even if they do cost a company money they pay tax and contribute to society and that is what is lacking now in our countries, we should look at Asia they all work and want to.

[Paul1Perth]

Sounds very similar to much of Australia's immigration policy:laugh:

 

Sounds very similar to what the immigration policy would be if people like Gina Reinhardt, Twiggy Forest and the bosses at Rio Tinto had their way. Abbott would like it to head that way too. Luckily Unions are pretty strong here and expect decent wages when big companies are earning massive profits.

 

Sure they will always use the argument of "it's unsustainable" but it doesn't seem to matter whether the unions get good money for their members for a few years or not. Boom and bust seems to happen anyway everywhere, so the blue collar workers may as well have some of the good money while it's on offer. for a change.:cool:

[Paul1Perth]

I can recall watching doco.It was based in Lincoln.Alot of the locals were whinging that the polish community were taking their jobs (mainly picking fruit and veg).The reporter stood outside the jobcentre one morning and asked the people coming out of the building if there were any jobs.When most of them said no,the reporter then gave them the info of local jobs veg and fruit picking.All of them said they would'nt do and that they would rather sit on the dole.Ok fine but I'm sure if the polish community are able to do it,why not the natives?The polish community seem to do ok on the wages.

 

The polish "community" are probably living 4 or 5 to a shared house, no mortgage to pay, surviving on cheap food and sending the money back to their families in Poland. That's how.

[Paul1Perth]

I haven't said £12.50,i said £10,prices dont "have" to go up in every case,in some cases it could just mean less profit for the company they work for,if they had a conscience that is!!.

I think we'd adjust anyway,we were told prices would go up when the last pay rise was given,i didnt notice anything out of the ordinary.

Maybe our taxes might come down to compensate a bit if prices "did" go up,because if the tax payer wasnt subsidising big multi nationals like Walmart there would be more money in the treasury

Plus more money in circulation thru higher wages might have a knock on effect for us all,more money means more goods and services could be afforded by those who couldn't afford it before.

 

That would be a first.

[Guest Andy]

No that's where you are wrong, I'm not bringing it back to benefit claimants. I'm certainly not blaming them. You keep banging on about these big companies being subsidised, I'm making a point that its jus not the big companies.

 

you can be sick to death as much as you want with your scrounger threads tbh but it's not going to change the situation and the fact that's its nit a easy as you make out. I'm sick to death of people thinking it just as simple as doubling th minimum wage. If it was that easy why hasn't it been done already?

 

but you are right, your way is he right way and as usual someone who disagrees with you are the ones that 'love the scrounger threads' typical! You always say you are not going to get involved but can't help yourself.

 

It's called having an opinion, i have said in my opinion that the minimum wage needs to be raised signifigantly regardless of what others above that earn so that those people feel that working is the best option and they are rewarded with a livable pay packet, if you are sick to death of reading it then i suggest you don't bother as thats my opinion.

[flag of convenience]

I guess the question is why do some people think that they are owed a living. I think welfare systems are fine as long as they do not make work optional and unfortunately the benefits paid in the UK as compared to wages has made a lot think its optional.

 

I never wanted to live on benefits and certainly here in Aus it would not be enough for me to have the life I want, so that also comes into it.

 

The unfortunate thing is that of course they are going to employ the new EEC migrants or other migrants because these new migrants are grateful to come to a country, be able to get a job and get on. Its their children once they become entrenched in the welfare state that then think work is optional. So the governments are responsible and the public is responsible also for demanding more welfare.

 

I am amazed that even people who migrate to Aus which is completely different to UK want to know what is free. We have to stop thinking we need everything for nothing.

 

Co-payments in health help to free up the system from people who use it for every little thing. Ambulances being used as Taxis, emergency rooms over crowded with a lot of patients that could go to the GP the next day. Its the same here to some extent especially with emergency, why anyone would sit there for hours in an uncomfortable waiting room to see a doc when round the corner in the same hospital the medical after hours clinic is open is unbelievable to me, but its because they may have to pay.

 

We reap as we sow.

 

What we need is more jobs for unskilled workers even if they do cost a company money they pay tax and contribute to society and that is what is lacking now in our countries, we should look at Asia they all work and want to.

 

It depends how you define work in Asia. A lot of folk in fact scrape by on very small money. It is wrong to compare Asia with Australia in any shape or form when it comes to social policy. The society is structured in a totally different way. For example the individualism of western societies would need to be curtailed. Support would need to be sought from within the family. They certainly do not all work and those that do care for those that don't.

Those with a disability, or mental illness or infirm or some how outside the norms of society are the family's responsibility regardless of ability in financial terms to care for.

 

Many Asian folk must work far from home, perhaps rarely seeing their family. Hence many Indonesians work (exploited) in Malaysia in the building area, as are many Indians, Pakistanis, Nepalese in The Middle East. Many women work abroad as amahs, (child carers in Singapore, Saudi Arabia, etc in order to win a little extra money and endure great hardship doing so.

 

The collective approach to live would hardly work in an individual western focused country at this time. No the government has a responsibility more than just to manage an economy it has a responsibility towards the best outcomes for its people as well.

 

As much as I love being in Asia and much of the culture and related issues, it is doubtful if there is much to be learnt in the work place. Probably more ba case of the contrary.