National Living Wage


#1

What are your thoughts on the National Living Wage being rolled out by the Conservatives? It’s predicted that 12% of the work force will be covered by it by 2020 (see below).


#2

If it’s welfare-improving through higher incomes and reducing unskilled labour market churn? Good.

If it’s welfare-reducing through disemployment effects? Bad.

No idea which it is, though


#3

I dislike it. As soon as the living wage was implemented, the company I work for scrapped basically all of the benefits we used to get, and reduced hours so I barely get any overtime now, all to reduce the impact a higher wage had on their profit margins.

We used to get double time on Sundays and bank holidays, no more. We used to get unsocial hours money for working Sundays and evenings, that’s also no more. I also used to get 35 hours a week on a 16 hour contract, now I’m lucky to get 25.


#4

It is yet another patronising example of governments making like more unequal. Luckily I live in a company committed to equal pay for equal work. It has to compete with companies that pay equally skills 18 yrs less thanks to government proposed discrimination.


#5

Higher minimum wage laws have bigger disemployment effects among the young. Young people are less likely to have the skills and capacity for work to justify as high a wage floor as anybody else.

But no, instead of trying to understand the reasoning behind a certain state of affairs, let’s just throw around phrases like “government proposed discrimination”.


#6

Really interesting point. I am from an area of the country with very low youth unemployment but that I accept that it is a almost unique bubble. (Poor south coast tourist town with lots of low wage jobs done by young people around school and university). From my limited perspective the idea of larger dis-employment effects among the young seems laughable. Do you have any stats to show that is the case as it would be interesting to look at?

I have tried and failed to understand the reasoning behind this particular idea, although as I have said I may be clouded by my own experience as we all are. Having attempted to understand I have come to the conclusion that age related pay is government proposed discrimination. Simply put it is paying one person less to do exactly the same job. If this was racially/sexually the case there would be outrage yet screwing the young over is somehow acceptable?


#7

best way for low paid workers is to cut down unskilled immigration


#8

Not strictly true. Best way is to increase the education level. Cutting unskilled immigration is certainly the easiest way however.

The question we face as a country is should we educate/train our citizens to improve our nation and living standards or should we stop low wage immigration to stop living standards decreasing?

Personally as an optimist for our country I vote education to improve. I fully understand why someone who has no faith in our nation would vote for less immigration to stop the decline.


#9

yeah right, like that worked out so well in the Blair yrs,you know 50% going to uni, so well in fact that we ‘needed’ open door immigration, have a think


#10

Under the Blair years we had an unprecedented increase in average incomes, pensioner poverty was nearly eradicated and we had close to full employment. Generally that seems ok?

The issue is the other 50%. if you don’t go to university you have no alternative, we have no technical education system like the Germans and that could change. I also believe in lifelong education rather than just one huge chunk at the beginning of life which becomes outdated leaving people behind. I think those who have been made structurally unemployed should have up-skilling provided by the government to help them falling out of the system.