A great day for Britain

[sasguru]

No it doesn't.

OK but what do you think about baking your own cake?

[Doggy Styles]

Who are you to decide that companies ought to be able to enjoy the benefit of other people's labour without paying them a living wage? Or to decide that my taxes ought to be used to subsidise companies who won't pay their employees enough to live on?

DA isn't deciding anything. He just seems saying that:

• An employee who wants the job will stay.
  
• An employee who doesn't want the job is free to go.
  
• If the company can't get staff they'll have to improve their offer.

What's wrong with any of that?

[gingerjedi]

DA isn't deciding anything. He just seems saying that:

• An employee who wants the job will stay.
  
• An employee who doesn't want the job is free to go.
  
• If the company can't get staff they'll have to improve their offer.

What's wrong with any of that?

The last bit... have you heard of bob?

[DodgyAgent]

Exactly. So you can understand why the 9 people who benefit to the tune of 10p in my example aren't terribly "incentivised" can't you.

I am not sure sure you get this capitalism business. You seem to work from the basic premise that employers are basically unscrupulous.

[sasguru]

You really are a prat. You are forever going on about people not understanding numbers and not looking at data then when it suits you you personalise everything and reach for the anecdotal evidence. The true picture is that in general the additional wealth accrues to the already wealthy.

Instead of resorting to personal abuse, why don't you address the point I make that wealth is not a zero sum game?
Are you suggesting there is a conspiracy by the rich to stop other people getting rich? How do they do that? Is that how you justify your personal lack of success?
If you had an original idea (say a software product) that would generate wealth are you suggesting a cabal of evil rich people would come and steal most of it?

You really are a sad, ridiculous man.

[original PM]

I am not sure sure you get this capitalism business. You seem to work from the basic premise that employers are basically unscrupulous.

Well in general a lot of them are - they will try to get away with making the most profit even if it means bending the odd law - greed is a very powerful motivator.

[gingerjedi]

I am not sure sure you get this capitalism business. You seem to work from the basic premise that employers are basically unscrupulous.

Agent speak No. 2

[DodgyAgent]

Ok so that is actually two things you are saying, and one of them is that taxes should not subsidise business, which is exactly what happens when you allow employers freedom to set wages as low as they like and the benefits system has to make up the shortfall. The minimum wage is a mechanism for ensuring that doesn't happen. Abolishing it amounts to nothing more than subsidising the cost of labour for businesses.

Quite,

And whilst we are busy hiking the costs of employing people with excessive taxes and rules people find it hard to understand why no one in the private sector wants to start a business. The minimum wage is a blunt political concept that serves one purpose - to encourage employment to go elsewhere.

[gingerjedi]

Quite,

And whilst we are busy hiking the costs of employing people with excessive taxes and rules people find it hard to understand why no one in the private sector wants to start a business. The minimum wage is a blunt political concept that serves one purpose - to encourage employment to go elsewhere.

If the government were to stop employers bringing in cheap foreign labour (along with their spouse and 6 kids who all need housing) and raised the personal tax allowance to say £15k then we may have a basis to remove the NMW.

Until then society needs a base wage.

[doodab]

Instead of resorting to personal abuse, why don't you address the point I make that wealth is not a zero sum game?

I don't need to, because I'm not arguing that it is. Did you not notice that in my example the amount of wealth doubled? Or that I talk about wealth creation? Do you even know what a zero sum game actually is? Are you starting to understand why I might think you are a prat yet?

Are you suggesting there is a conspiracy by the rich to stop other people getting rich? How do they do that? Is that how you justify your personal lack of success?
If you had an original idea (say a software product) that would generate wealth are you suggesting a cabal of evil rich people would come and steal most of it?

I'm pointing out that a measurable characteristic of the current system is that the additional wealth created accrues disproportionally to the already rich. I'm not attributing it to a "conspiracy" although one can certainly imagine that those who currently benefit have little interest in changing the system.

I think your basic problem is that you struggle to step back and look at things in the abstract, therefore you assume that others suffer from the same myopia.