Reply to: Get on your Hoe and look for work

[vetran]

I think some would pay less and some would pay more. Probably on balance it's better but I think there are far fewer restaurants, etc, who pay more for better people - they all default to NMW rather than trying to figure out what they should pay.

Especially for younger people... when I did that kind of work they didn't offer the same job paying less for 20yo than 21yo whereas now the employer will just say "it's NMW, that's the law"

While there are more suitable applicants than there are jobs then wages will fall. NMW provides a safety net.

We already subsidise NMW with tax credits so employers make more profit.

[d000hg]

And you think they would pay them more if the NMW didn't exist?

I think some would pay less and some would pay more. Probably on balance it's better but I think there are far fewer restaurants, etc, who pay more for better people - they all default to NMW rather than trying to figure out what they should pay.

Especially for younger people... when I did that kind of work they didn't offer the same job paying less for 20yo than 21yo whereas now the employer will just say "it's NMW, that's the law"

[vetran]

And? How does that change anything?

someone will need to pay extra to fund that profit and employee benefits.

Its simple if you want benefits and you have been unemployed 6-12 months you do some work for the good of the country to keep your hand in.

[SpontaneousOrder]

you realise if that we give it to private firms they will want to make a profit?
If they employ them then they will need to factor in things like holiday & sick pay?
-

And? How does that change anything?

[vetran]

Because you suggested that benefits cost more than minimum wage.
So if the state was to hire litter pickers for minimum wage - as many as was needed to provided a job for everyone who needed one - then that would be cheaper than paying them benefits instead.

So why don't they do so?

you realise if that we give it to private firms they will want to make a profit?
If they employ them then they will need to factor in things like holiday & sick pay?
-

[xoggoth]

Clearly the wrong sentiment - but maybe he should give some more thought to his statements before going public

I would suggest that someone of his age and experience will have fairly defined views on such issues by now. Maybe we need more honest speaking and less filtration of comments in accordance with what is supposed to be acceptable.

How can we have proper debate on anything if our views are moderated by perceptions of others' opinions before they even leave our mouths?

<xoggoth ramblings>
PS Tebbit, that reminds me that we briefly saw his bum after the Brighton bombings. Only other politician I know whose bits we have seen is Glenda Jackson. Bloody hell, can you imagine what Milliband's arse looks like? Much like his face probably.
</xoggoth ramblings>

[SpontaneousOrder]

why do you believe it would cost less money (overall) to create jobs in the private sector? The first thing the private sector do is shed jobs or pad budgets.

The Fraud within A4E was a clear indication of this.

Because you suggested that benefits cost more than minimum wage.
So if the state was to hire litter pickers for minimum wage - as many as was needed to provided a job for everyone who needed one - then that would be cheaper than paying them benefits instead.

So why don't they do so?

[vetran]

However the counter-argument to NMW is that now, loads and loads of employers automatically pay NMW; it's become almost a standard rate for low-end work and I don't think that used to be the case. Similar with zero-hour contracts.

Which is a shame because in principle I'm in favour.

And you think they would pay them more if the NMW didn't exist?

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Gizza...03956259679799

How self-employed are Addison Lee's 2,400 cab drivers? - Investigations

Self-employed trade plater who "never touches minimum wage" - Investigations

[d000hg]

it is illegal for an employer to pay less than the minimum wage.If you removed it then large supermarkets and online book sellers would pay £2 an hour and urge the government to import people from Mars because they are the only ones willing to take the jobs. They do this already by hiring self employed drivers then ripping them off with deductions.

However the counter-argument to NMW is that now, loads and loads of employers automatically pay NMW; it's become almost a standard rate for low-end work and I don't think that used to be the case. Similar with zero-hour contracts.

Which is a shame because in principle I'm in favour.

[vetran]

Unless I'm missing something really obvious, you've not addressed the bit I put in bold - that being this:

Given the choice between
1) creating jobs in the 'private' sector by spending government money on litter picking contracts where employees earn minimum wage
or 2) paying MORE government money in benefits to have people do the exact same (or less) work.

then why would anyone choose option 2? Same result for more money.

why do you believe it would cost less money (overall) to create jobs in the private sector? The first thing the private sector do is shed jobs or pad budgets.

The Fraud within A4E was a clear indication of this.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Not confused if you allow large companies leeway they will push until they make more money at the expense of anyone they employ. Sorry if I confused you with a joke about race to the bottom globalisation.

I thought I had answered it a while ago, obviously too subtle for you. You have a choice between paying additional tax to fund it or agreeing that the money we pay them already is enough for them to do uneconomic jobs to encourage them back to work.

Are you willing to pay significantly more tax to pay for makework and to make multinationals offshore bank balances bigger?

Unless I'm missing something really obvious, you've not addressed the bit I put in bold - that being this:

Given the choice between
1) creating jobs in the 'private' sector by spending government money on litter picking contracts where employees earn minimum wage
or 2) paying MORE government money in benefits to have people do the exact same (or less) work.

then why would anyone choose option 2? Same result for more money.

[vetran]

So is you problem with 'exploitative' wage levels? Or immigration? It all sounds very confused.
That was a rhetorical question.


But what I would (honestly) like you to answer was my question above which was this:

Not confused if you allow large companies leeway they will push until they make more money at the expense of anyone they employ. Sorry if I confused you with a joke about race to the bottom globalisation.

I thought I had answered it a while ago, obviously too subtle for you. You have a choice between paying additional tax to fund it or agreeing that the money we pay them already is enough for them to do uneconomic jobs to encourage them back to work.

Are you willing to pay significantly more tax to pay for makework and to make multinationals offshore bank balances bigger?

[SpontaneousOrder]

so you are a tax evader then?

Barter for services or goods is taxable.

A Fair Exchange?

Your post might be better targeted at SueEllen. I didn't think I needed the <sarc/> tags

[vetran]

Yeah. I'm getting my current clientCo to do the same. Makes a big difference to my tax bill - doing favours rather than working.

so you are a tax evader then?

Barter for services or goods is taxable.

A Fair Exchange?

[SpontaneousOrder]

it is illegal for an employer to pay less than the minimum wage.If you removed it then large supermarkets and online book sellers would pay £2 an hour and urge the government to import people from Mars

So is you problem with 'exploitative' wage levels? Or immigration? It all sounds very confused.
That was a rhetorical question.


But what I would (honestly) like you to answer was my question above which was this:

Quote Originally Posted by vetran View Post
cost of doing that can either be significant i.e. you put them on training, or medium : you put them on workfare or low : you pay them benefits and let them languish at home.

You've just emphasised my point.
It could read like this instead:

cost of doing that can either be significant i.e. you put them on training, or medium : you put them on workfare or low : let private employers employ them at minimum wage.
Why is it that the government is not happy to pay private companies to pick litter - thereby crating needed jobs, but they are happy to pay more in benefits for the same or less amount of litter picking?