Westminster Politics

The effect of the minimum wage increase in April will be interesting. From the point of view of our company, it's the first ever minimum wage increase that will mean the salary of some staff will be greater than their productive value.

Previously minimum wage levels were irrelevant as they were lower than what would be offered in a free market.
 
finneh said:
The effect of the minimum wage increase in April will be interesting. From the point of view of our company, it's the first ever minimum wage increase that will mean the salary of some staff will be greater than their productive value.

Previously minimum wage levels were irrelevant as they were lower than what would be offered in a free market.
Click to expand...

Doesn’t sound like a particularly well run company. I’d be looking for a new job.

calodo2003 said:
'Their duty.'

Christ almighty.
Click to expand...

Wonder how they’ll magic up those completely flexible jobs with understanding employers (who have to pay sick when their employee is temporarily ill) for people with little employment history or skills.

They want to depress uk productivity even more.
 
finneh said:
The effect of the minimum wage increase in April will be interesting. From the point of view of our company, it's the first ever minimum wage increase that will mean the salary of some staff will be greater than their productive value.

Previously minimum wage levels were irrelevant as they were lower than what would be offered in a free market.
Click to expand...

Yep, it will be interesting. The business I'm at (retail) will have some significant impact, so it'll be interesting to see what the government ease in the background. Tomorrow's budget will still need some reversal on corporation tax back to 19% otherwise I can see a lot of small businesses struggling and I'd be surprised if we don't see an increase in job losses over the coming period. Certainly cost bases aren't reducing, and demand in the market is flat to declining.
 
finneh said:
The effect of the minimum wage increase in April will be interesting. From the point of view of our company, it's the first ever minimum wage increase that will mean the salary of some staff will be greater than their productive value.

Previously minimum wage levels were irrelevant as they were lower than what would be offered in a free market.
Click to expand...

Unemployment is below 5% anyway; Tory rhetoric aside, increasing productivity/health has to be the aim, as the economy is pretty full. Employment inflation is natural in this inelastic state anyway, and isn’t the biggest inflationary input.
 
owlo said:
Unemployment is below 5% anyway; Tory rhetoric aside, increasing productivity/health has to be the aim, as the economy is pretty full. Employment inflation is natural in this inelastic state anyway, and isn’t the biggest inflationary input.
Click to expand...

Firstly demand for staff has already reduced considerably with vacancies down a third from around 1.3m to 950k.

Secondly the amount of people deemed economically inactive has increased by around half a million people over the last four years. Bearing in mind the definition for this is simply someone who hasn't looked for a job in the last 4 weeks or can't start employment within the next 2 weeks. Literally someone out of work who is going on holiday for a fortnight isn't counted within the official figures. There are also 5m more people on disability benefits than 20 years ago (rising from 18 to 24%).

It's of course in the government's interests to make out unemployment figures are very low, but a quick look under the bonnet and you find the true picture to be less rosy.

My view is this aggressive minimum wage increase, if not mitigated with cuts in corporate taxes, is going to throw petrol on that trend, particularly at the younger and more inexperienced level. Why employ a junior member of staff when you can employ someone with 10 years experience for the same salary? Why build a balanced team with junior, mid-level and senior staff when you can simply increase the hours of the more senior people by 10% and cut the jobs of the least experienced. That young person then quickly ends up part of those increasing disability statistics.
 
I wonder if the thresholds for benefits like nhs charges exemptions etc will rise, otherwise lots and lots of people will be taken out of nhs support with dentistry etc. Its one way of reducing nhs dentistry crisis..
 
finneh said:
Firstly demand for staff has already reduced considerably with vacancies down a third from around 1.3m to 950k.

Secondly the amount of people deemed economically inactive has increased by around half a million people over the last four years. Bearing in mind the definition for this is simply someone who hasn't looked for a job in the last 4 weeks or can't start employment within the next 2 weeks. Literally someone out of work who is going on holiday for a fortnight isn't counted within the official figures. There are also 5m more people on disability benefits than 20 years ago (rising from 18 to 24%).

It's of course in the government's interests to make out unemployment figures are very low, but a quick look under the bonnet and you find the true picture to be less rosy.

My view is this aggressive minimum wage increase, if not mitigated with cuts in corporate taxes, is going to throw petrol on that trend, particularly at the younger and more inexperienced level. Why employ a junior member of staff when you can employ someone with 10 years experience for the same salary? Why build a balanced team with junior, mid-level and senior staff when you can simply increase the hours of the more senior people by 10% and cut the jobs of the least experienced. That young person then quickly ends up part of those increasing disability statistics.
Click to expand...
Are you saying 24% of the UK population is on disability benefits?
 
Patient privacy fears as US spy tech firm Palantir wins £330m NHS contract
Awarding of contract to create new data platform prompts immediate concerns about security of medical records


The NHS has sparked controversy by handing the US spy tech company Palantir a £330m contract to create a huge new data platform, leading to privacy concerns around patients’ medical details.

The move immediately prompted concerns about the security and privacy of patient medical records and the suitability of Palantir to be given access to and oversight of such sensitive material.

Patient privacy fears as US spy tech firm Palantir wins £330m NHS contract | NHS | The Guardian
 
finneh said:
Firstly demand for staff has already reduced considerably with vacancies down a third from around 1.3m to 950k.

Secondly the amount of people deemed economically inactive has increased by around half a million people over the last four years. Bearing in mind the definition for this is simply someone who hasn't looked for a job in the last 4 weeks or can't start employment within the next 2 weeks. Literally someone out of work who is going on holiday for a fortnight isn't counted within the official figures. There are also 5m more people on disability benefits than 20 years ago (rising from 18 to 24%).

It's of course in the government's interests to make out unemployment figures are very low, but a quick look under the bonnet and you find the true picture to be less rosy.

My view is this aggressive minimum wage increase, if not mitigated with cuts in corporate taxes, is going to throw petrol on that trend, particularly at the younger and more inexperienced level. Why employ a junior member of staff when you can employ someone with 10 years experience for the same salary? Why build a balanced team with junior, mid-level and senior staff when you can simply increase the hours of the more senior people by 10% and cut the jobs of the least experienced. That young person then quickly ends up part of those increasing disability statistics.
Click to expand...

There's only 2.4m on disability benefits now, whereas the number entitled to it has gone up to 6.3m.
 
finneh said:
The effect of the minimum wage increase in April will be interesting. From the point of view of our company, it's the first ever minimum wage increase that will mean the salary of some staff will be greater than their productive value.

Previously minimum wage levels were irrelevant as they were lower than what would be offered in a free market.
Click to expand...

What is often overlooked with 'minimum this and maximum that' is the basics.
Unless they are a co-operative, most businesses are not run for the benefit of the workers, but the owners and investors. Once the investment/successful running of a business disappears, through poor management or government regulation, price or wage fixing, or a market place collapse (e.g horse drawn taxis) then the business disappears and so do the jobs.
Most of the time the situation is stacked against the workers, the best they can hope for is a 0-0 draw, occasionally if the workers have specialist skills that are in short supply etc. then for a short period they might take a 1-0 lead, but in the second half the owners and managers pull it back to 1-1 then overtime, to survive, they have to get to a 1-2 winning position.

Conflict, e.g. strikes/ go slows/overtime bans etc. may gain a slight advantage for the workers, but it wont last, if it does, they eventually lose their jobs.

Government intervention e.g. with minimum wage etc. can improve things for certain groups of workers, for a short time, but for the vast majority of workers above this figure it doesn't work, and can under certain circumstances become detrimental, pricing out of markets

We need a complete overhaul of the economy, including employment opportunities and developments as well as new areas of business that cover our strengths, and also give opportunities to workers to participate in shaping their employment situations. There will be, as in business matters already; high risk jobs, medium risk jobs and low risks jobs, pay and conditions will follow. Jobs provided in essential services will have their own risk levels, but there must be safeguards for the individuals.

Everyone leaving formal education should have job identified (not an offer) for them before they leave, the trick will be to identify the range of jobs required and assess the needs including pay required. Many of these employment opportunities will need to be identified especially where individuals have problems of a personal nature, but they cannot be left out, everyone gets a job of some kind, this is not a job offer, but a legal requirement to be employed...a bit like national service use to be!

Sir Keir Starmer this is your big chance to make Labour, in the future seen as 'the natural party of government' by changing the lives of millions of your people, to give everybody a chance... and by the way housing, (and other basic needs want seeing too as well) when the massive Labour majority is returned at the next GE.
 
Maticmaker said:
What is often overlooked with 'minimum this and maximum that' is the basics.
Unless they are a co-operative, most businesses are not run for the benefit of the workers, but the owners and investors. Once the investment/successful running of a business disappears, through poor management or government regulation, price or wage fixing, or a market place collapse (e.g horse drawn taxis) then the business disappears and so do the jobs.
Most of the time the situation is stacked against the workers, the best they can hope for is a 0-0 draw, occasionally if the workers have specialist skills that are in short supply etc. then for a short period they might take a 1-0 lead, but in the second half the owners and managers pull it back to 1-1 then overtime, to survive, they have to get to a 1-2 winning position.

Conflict, e.g. strikes/ go slows/overtime bans etc. may gain a slight advantage for the workers, but it wont last, if it does, they eventually lose their jobs.

Government intervention e.g. with minimum wage etc. can improve things for certain groups of workers, for a short time, but for the vast majority of workers above this figure it doesn't work, and can under certain circumstances become detrimental, pricing out of markets

We need a complete overhaul of the economy, including employment opportunities and developments as well as new areas of business that cover our strengths, and also give opportunities to workers to participate in shaping their employment situations. There will be, as in business matters already; high risk jobs, medium risk jobs and low risks jobs, pay and conditions will follow. Jobs provided in essential services will have their own risk levels, but there must be safeguards for the individuals.

Everyone leaving formal education should have job identified (not an offer) for them before they leave, the trick will be to identify the range of jobs required and assess the needs including pay required. Many of these employment opportunities will need to be identified especially where individuals have problems of a personal nature, but they cannot be left out, everyone gets a job of some kind, this is not a job offer, but a legal requirement to be employed...a bit like national service use to be!

Sir Keir Starmer this is your big chance to make Labour, in the future seen as 'the natural party of government' by changing the lives of millions of your people, to give everybody a chance... and by the way housing, (and other basic needs want seeing too as well) when the massive Labour majority is returned at the next GE.
Click to expand...
Have you woken up yet?
 
So what do you think about the Autumn Statement.
One of the key things I noticed was that growth has been downgraded.... again.
After 13 years in government, they can not even get the UK economy growing by a minimum of 1%.
 
Buster15 said:
So what do you think about the Autumn Statement.
One of the key things I noticed was that growth has been downgraded.... again.
After 13 years in government, they can not even get the UK economy growing by a minimum of 1%.
Click to expand...

They can't. Labour won't either, and for the exact same reason.

Both are wedded to the idea that growth is natural. It isn't, it is driven by investment or asset inflation.

Neither party will invest, in fact both are talking about reducing government spend.

This was OK for blair, who simply inflated assets to compensate (house prices tripped between 1997 and 2010). The asset increases and cheap borrowing meant growth was fuelled by value extraction - people borrowed against the increase in value of their homes, and then spent it in the economy.

But since 2008 that doesn't work. People can't afford to borrow any more, and government are not investing.

The world changed at the crash, and our politicians, with the exception of corbyn for a while, have spent the last 12 years trying to hammer the square peg of what they did before into a round hole to achieve the same results.

It cannot work. Ever.

And whether you agree with corbyn or not is irrelevant. He at least understood that 2008 meant we had to change direction. Not one of the 'adults in the room' before or since had the sense to see it.
 
Anything on inheritance tax? (The one tax I’d do everything possible to avoid paying)
 
Buster15 said:
So what do you think about the Autumn Statement.
One of the key things I noticed was that growth has been downgraded.... again.
After 13 years in government, they can not even get the UK economy growing by a minimum of 1%.
Click to expand...

In summary the Tories know they're losing the next election. Give Starmer the hot potato for five years and be back in 2029 by which time Starmer will probably wish he'd never entered politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.