Society

[Beanz]

Wages aren't some arbitrary amount. Doctors get paid well b/c they go to school for 8-10 years to obtain a marketable and technical skill and then spend another 2-5 being worked to the bone as a resident. Sure it would be great if more unskilled jobs paid better but these things don't happen in a vacuum. I have no idea what a fair market wage is for a cleaner but I know what I'm willing to pay for my dry cleaning. Increasing the wages for unskilled labor results in higher costs of living for all of us. So basically you could raise the cleaners wage but then both you and him's income won't go as far as it used to.

It circles me back to if you are planning on a career in a blue collar job and/or depending on a govt pension you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

I view income tax as theft so I applaud anyone that attempts to circumvent giving up a portion of their income simply b/c they breath.

There is nothing unskilled about being a carer and yet they are often only paid the national minimum wage to play an important role in society. There are many underpaid but essential roles carried out by people that enable society to function and the gap between blue and white collar skill sets is constantly changing. There are plenty of skilled labour jobs that require much more dedication, concentration and problem solving skills than those employed by administrative white collar data entry clerks. Most people in this country do not share your view of income tax being theft and would be better served by a less top heavy pyramid where government service pay grades are concerned.

I don't know what a "carer" is. Skill and hard work are irrelevant if they aren't marketable. I can be a very skilled widget maker and do it tirelessly but if there isn't a market for widgets than I made a poor choice in careers. My poor choice shouldn't be shouldered by anyone other than myself. Minimum wage is means politicians pander to the lower rung of the socio-economic ladder. It is discriminatory against young and unskilled labor and does nothing to raise anyone else's wage. I'm not informed on the UK tax system or your government service pay grades; more importantly I don't think you care what my opinion would be in the first place.

Then you think wrong. If I was not interested in your opinion then I would not have quoted your post. A carer is somebody who cares for and nurses disabled or elderly people in their own homes or a retirement home. We are all living longer and will be in need of care at some point in our lives and not everyone has relatives willing or able to give it, so I don't think it is a skill with a diminishing market, quite the opposite. The point I was trying to make is that such a skill should be more valued and better rewarded by society as a whole. The idea of a decent and fare minimum wage being a way of pandering to "the lower rung of the socio-economic ladder" seems a bit cold, and heartless and not a little inaccurate. Surely people at any pay grade deserve enough respect to be given a wage that enables them to eat, clothe and house themselves ? or are you suggesting that employers should be free to pay pennies and treat employees with a derisory sum that is tantamount to slavery ? The minimum wage makes allowances for young people and apprentices so they are not discriminated against. The whole idea is to encourage people off welfare and stop employers treating staff as commodities. That is not communism that is common decency.

[VictorCharlie]

That is strange. There are a variety of levels that nurses and health care providers can be certified at in the US. Your basic nurse doesn't make a whole lot but it is more than minimum wage that being said once they get a higher license the money is pretty damn good and then it gets REAL good if they get a specialty like neo-natal. My buddy run's an in-home care providing services and he pays his people a pretty decent salary. There is no shortage of demand for medical care so something is skewing the market value of their work in the UK. I'm happy to talk these topics in generalities but unlike Miles I'm not going to espouse about a nation's public policy I am not familiar with much less tell you how to "fix" any perceived problems.

A person's wage comes from a negotiation between them and an employer over a fair compensation for a skill or service provided. One is looking to get the best wage for the least amount of work and the other is looking to get the most work for the lowest wage. A government floor on this wage does nothing to improve one's wage but they do increase the cost of living. There are a plethora of jobs that do not need and shouldn't provide a living wage. Just about every job I had through highschool and college were low paying jobs tailored for young unskilled labor. A high minimum wage would have made them unavailable to an unskilled kid looking for part time work.

If I make $10/hr doing a semi-skilled job in a widget factory and the minimum wage was $5 but is then raised to $8 a couple things are going to happen and not happen. For starters anyone making more than $8 is NOT getting a raise because the floor got raised; the young kid that was getting paid $5/hr to sweep out the factory is getting laid off and I'm being handed the broom and told to make sure the place is swept out before I leave; and to make sure shareholders (to include myself since Widget Inc. is part of my 401K) don't get pissed at low quarterly earnings the corporation makes up any losses from higher wages and more benefits through raising prices on goods and/or decreasing other wages/benefits .

If you have a marketable skill then someone will pay you a fair price for your work and employers may be willing to pay for more unskilled jobs (ie floor sweeper) at a lower price. Once the floor is raised it may not be worth it to pay a menial labor job $8 leading to higher unemployment. Minimum wages don't improve the "living" wage for everyone else, push out unskilled labor from the work place and raise the cost of business but they are an easy sell to the labor class. Arguing that w/o a minimum wage people would be paid pennies is a slippery slope argument. Your worth to your employer doesn't change in relation to a minimum wage but the availability of jobs and price of goods do. I'm rambling and these guys say it better.

A Minimum Wage Equals Minimum Jobs - Reason.com

[Gandalf]

My issue is with equality of opportunity which on the whole I don't think that exists to a sufficient degree. If you are the average child of a rich person you have more opportunities than the average child of less well off parents. The statistics exist and show that children from less well off backgrounds tend to struggle in ways that wealthier offspring won't. Children of poor origins have a harder time making a fair go of things. These things are not absolute and exceptions will always exist, but the trends are there. If you are better off higher connections are more easily made and you get ahead plus a decent allowance from Daddy. If you don't have the smarts to use the system then you will most typically get a job that won't help you get ahead materially. And like Beanz says, there are valuable jobs where workers really are not valued enough. You will never see Paris Hilton washing old people and that is more significant than anything she has done in her life.

My concern is that the means of creating equality of opportunity is being dismantled and the idelogical belief in fighting for that is in some ways being decimated. Investment in public schools in the UK is lagging behind in real terms and thus if you are being privately educated and have a place in public school then you have it all in your court from day one. It is yours to screw up in that situation, whilst you are half screwed already in the former.

[TitoFan]

My issue is with equality of opportunity which on the whole I don't think that exists to a sufficient degree. If you are the average child of a rich person you have more opportunities than the average child of less well off parents. The statistics exist and show that children from less well off backgrounds tend to struggle in ways that wealthier offspring won't. Children of poor origins have a harder time making a fair go of things. These things are not absolute and exceptions will always exist, but the trends are there. If you are better off higher connections are more easily made and you get ahead plus a decent allowance from Daddy. If you don't have the smarts to use the system then you will most typically get a job that won't help you get ahead materially. And like Beanz says, there are valuable jobs where workers really are not valued enough. You will never see Paris Hilton washing old people and that is more significant than anything she has done in her life.

My concern is that the means of creating equality of opportunity is being dismantled and the idelogical belief in fighting for that is in some ways being decimated. Investment in public schools in the UK is lagging behind in real terms and thus if you are being privately educated and have a place in public school then you have it all in your court from day one. It is yours to screw up in that situation, whilst you are half screwed already in the former.

Miles, I think if you look at the short term you are probably right. Equally qualified children from wealthy parents and from less well off parents..... the wealthy ones get most of the breaks to start off. But look at it as a marathon. Eventually, the "wealthy children" advantage wears off and you're left to fend for yourself and on your own. Many times these kids are ill equipped to handle life's "curveballs", and sometimes fall flat on their faces. Children from struggling or less well off parents, on the other hand, learn how to adjust to life and overcome its hurdles. In the long run, they become better professionals, better people, better parents, etc.

I've seen this enough times to believe that it is more common than one might think.

[Gandalf]

To a degree social mobility can and does exist, but I would love to know how many Eton Schoolboys end up working in Tesco's. It is common sense to assume that people who have significant material support are more likely to find themselves access to more possibilities than those who do not. Inherited wealth and expensive education are significant factors. If you are raised in council housing, from a broken family, and have no money then you are far more likely to struggle in life. Of my schoolfriends who weren't well off pretty much all are doing menial jobs such as bar tending, bouncer work, retail and the like today. None of these people were ever able to get ahead and though you could argue that they just didn't make the right decisions, in many ways the paths were already set as that is the path most follow. You don't work in a supermarket after Eton and with parental connections.

And I see it is a declining state of affairs with everything being made harder for ordinary people. Public education is sliding, higher education will saddle you with lifelong debt, and jobs for young people simple are not there. There really is very little to aim for.

[VictorCharlie]

Obviously one's starting point in life is going to affect one's ending point. I don't know how or even if you should rectify this. Parents are going to attempt to give their children the best life they can. How do get the lower socio-economic parents to demand more of their children, push them, explain to them that they will have to worker harder and longer to have a better life? How do you get wealthy people to instill a greater sense of service, responsibility and work ethic?

[Gandalf]

Obviously one's starting point in life is going to affect one's ending point. I don't know how or even if you should rectify this. Parents are going to attempt to give their children the best life they can. How do get the lower socio-economic parents to demand more of their children, push them, explain to them that they will have to worker harder and longer to have a better life? How do you get wealthy people to instill a greater sense of service, responsibility and work ethic?

It is a very complex issue, but I think the worst place to start is to make higher education expensive or to reduce spending on education. I happen to think this modern age of both parents having to work automatically makes life harder for middle class people too. The parents are tired, the child doesn't really see the parents enough and has to fend for himself and thus you see another person being raised without the support they truly deserve. Elizabeth Warren showed the stats, both parents pretty much have to work in this day and age. We are in an age that only cares about economic growth and personal growth has to fall by the wayside as a consequence.

People always say to me here that I have a lot of opinions and that I don't do enough to back it up, but I think I make a very big statement in simply refusing to have children and therefore not contribute to any of this. I think the system is a sick one and it isn't fair to raise children in a lottery of the future. I am not a rich man and so won't get drawn into a silly game of governments simply wanting people being born for their own ends. They do not consider the life of the child and their emotional wellbeing.