camk

DAVIDRB,
To take your darwinian theory to the next level. Companies that cannot remain solvent without paying starvation level wages should not be in business. Therefore there is less business competition and more work for efficient companies.
Minimum wages do NOT make more unemployment in the long run as the cost of goods associated with these businesses adjusts to overall Supply and Demand. The issue with trying to pin down an issue like this is in the timing(long and short term impacts) and focus on General trends not crappy specifics like crappy mcnuggets going out of business and 50 people laid off due to having to pay the minimum wage. The core issue in that example is that the business is not viable and SHOULD go down. So that Fabby McNuggets can get more customers as their enterprise is better run.

Regards
Camk

[Edited by camk - 10/1/2002 3:04:25 PM]

rik1471

Why do under people under 22 receive £0.60 per hour less than those who are over 22? At minimum wage for an 8hr a day job, 5 days a week, an under 22 year old receives approx £1200 less per year (before deductions).

Does this mean under 22 year olds are expected to perform 15% less work than those over the age of 22? I don't think so.

It appears to me to be ageist, and there is no real political representation for under 22 year olds to speak out.

Maybe i'm wrong, can anyone explain why there's a difference - and if you find it fair or not.

jasey

You're right !

bashful

I could be wrong, but I think there was a notion that younger folk don't have to support families. (Not that I personally endorse this concept.)

rik1471

That's a pretty general assumption??

Little Miss WRX

I am 23 and I have no intention of starting a family for quite a while yet, if at all!!!!

DavidRB

The more important question (and the one that is missed by the Trades Unions) is how many under 22's will lose their jobs if their minimum wage is put up to the level of those over 22.

rik1471

That would be an even more obvious case of ageism which, in my opinion is no different from racism or sexism.

TurboKitty

Maybe they expect older people to have developed more skills, either life skills or job skills or both, and therefore be worth more money?

rik1471

There's too many assumptions and expectations based on very weak ideas for my liking.

Just think it's unfair, and people are being taken advantage of.

rr_ww

To be fair if you earn Minimum wage then your job SHOULDNT be all that demanding so to say that its due to experience or the like is daft. E.g. Anyone can work in a fast food place and get min wage cos its no brainer stuff.
IMO

p.s. The minimum wage doesnt apply if your on a training scheme (Modern Apprenticeship or the like) So you could be doing complicated job for even less!

rik1471

I can't see many under 22's being in a union either.

jasey

This two faced lame excuse for a government is big on spin and small on honesty - We have delivered a minimum wage for the poor down trodden people of Britain - except the ones we can get away with taking the **** out of [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

We have commenced the biggest spending program on hospitals in 5 million years - lining the pockets of the directors of the 10 PFI companies in the meantime (and not having built any yet - as far as I know)

We will be tough on crime & criminals - just ask the driving public how they've clamped down on criminals.

Education, education, education - MY AR$E (see previous David Plunkar$e thread - Spinmeister extraordinaire).

Apart from that I'm having a great Tuesday

NotoriousREV

Because youth is wasted on the young. If you had that extra money you'd only spend it Pokemon cards and Alco-pops.

Thinking from an employers point of view, who would you rather employ (on the same wages):

20 year old with little experience (either work or life)
25 year old with job experience and better life skills

The reduction in pay rate for under 22's is an incentive to employers to employ young people and is true of most jobs.

Another example:

You have a vacancy for a Network Technician. Your 2 applicants are similarly skilled, however one is 20 and looking for his first job, the other is 25 and has been working in a similar job for 12 months. Would you pay them both the same?

rik1471

In that situation maybe not, but it's a pretty general assumption that everybody over 22 deserves 15% more pay than somebody a year younger for example.

Take the fire service for example. They have women working for them as fire officers, doing the same job as men. The average woman isn't as physically strong as their male counterparts and may therefore be less apt at say carrying victims or moving heavey debris etc.

I don't think it would stand if the government set the salary for women fire officers a few thousand lower than that of a male, as an incentive to employ women, do you?
It's generalising and insulting to the younger population that they have different minimum wages.

Equal Opportunities.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Added to this, why don't kids from 16 to 18, working evenings/weekends to have some spending money while going through, say, a sixth form college, qualify for minimum wage??
OK, I know it's only spending money to them, but they have to have some money, so their parents end up having to shell out.
That doesn't seem fair?
Alcazar

DavidRB

OK, devil's advocate time. Why should anyone be guaranteed a minimum wage? A free market will set wages at a point that the market can support. Govt. interference by setting a minimum wage achieves nothing other than increased unemployment, spiralling wage demands and ultimately inflation.

For example. A company can afford to employ 100 people at £3 an hour. The govt. comes along and forces the company to pay £5 an hour. There are two outcomes, either the company has to get rid of 40 people, or gradually slip into debt and go out of business.

Experiences in France and the US have shown that setting artificial minimum wages (particularly a wage above the market rate) does nothing but harm to the economy.

bashful

DavidRB,

That's basically the hard-core libertarian/anarchist position, that the government shouldn't interfere at all. It's simple enough to make work, as long you don't mind people literally dying of poverty on the streets. You're looking at a straight Darwinian competition for limited resources; it could be argued that, if there is less than full employment, the population of the country is too great. If you don't pay people to work (or support them out of work) they'll die.

DavidRB

Well, yep. I'm not suggesting that we get rid of unemployment benefit, or social welfare. If someone is ill, or out of work, they should be looked after.

What I'm arguing against is the simple-minded approach that if you make employers pay everyone more money, that everyone will live in happiness. It's classic Labour spin because it sounds wonderful and it alienates the "fat cat bosses".

Firstly, if you force up wages, some companies will simply be unable to pay all their workers. This will increase the number of unemployed, so it make things better for some and much worse for others. Not very fair or very socialist. Bit of a strain on the economy and doesn't do much for export prices either.

Secondly, if you increase the wages of the workers at the bottom of the tree, then everyone else will demand increases to maintain wage differentials. Big strikes.

Thirdly, if everyone's wages go up, then effectively, there has been no increase and the subsequent inflation will erode any real gains, so we're just back where we started.

rik1471

FAT CATS

Tiggs

people under 22 get less to entice them back into education, learn something usefull come out and get a proper job.

if you pay them the same as the older lot the they'd be flippin burgers for ever.

T

ps- Tiggs for primeminister!

rik1471

They should be offered an incentive to go into education, not less pay if they don't.

Tiggs

why? sod em. no one gave me anything to get my butt into school at 9am every day.

every now and then i go through a drive through in town where one of the kids from my school works (he was year below me, my brothers year)

anyway, he was always bunking off, thought he was a real lad...now he serves me my diner. ha bloody ha!

T

marty_t3

The incentive is already there.... a better job and more money when they finish their education.

The lower pay rate will maybe cost a 20 year old say 2 grand over 2 years... get some further education and that 2 grand will easily be made up again in the first year of work after the qualifications have been gained...

<off to top myself cuz i'm sounding like my dad>

MarkO

I reckon they should raise the level of the min. wage for under 22s. That way, the losers who think that's enough money would stay in those jobs rather than retraining, which would continue to exacerbate the skills crisis and make the rest of us more valuable (and hence more wealthy).

Tiggs

Marko for vice primeminister!

T

bashful

DavidRB,

I think you've hit on the right thing, but indirectly. The socialist principle at work here is to force capitalists to run their businesses at less than optimum efficiency. This provides a benefit for the mass of people (the workers) at the expense of the few (the owners/shareholders). This is a fine old principle that can be traced way back. The reasoning has to be that only businesses on the verge of unprofitability will go under.

The point about inflation is well made. Bear in mind, though, that ideally the better-off are taxed disproportionally more, to reduce the inflationary effect and reduce the disparity in lifestyles between the top and bottom of society (another fine old socialist principle).

BTW, can I make it clear that I'm no expert on socialist theory, and would welcome challenges on this from anyone who is.

jonny gav

iTrader: (1)

bet them loogy burgers taste real good !!!

camk

Aye but what Tiggs doesn't say is that that Lad took his girl in 3rd year as he was a wild lad and Tiggs spent his time in the library Thats why he's bitter and twisted. He probbaly ripped him for his lunch money too...LOL