cdd wrote:I just don't get why it's necessary to directly interfere with the labour market by setting an actual minimum, which (surely) robs some people of rights.
The right to what?
We work to live. To survive. To eat. To put a roof over our head. To have heat and light.
What right are does the NMW rob people of? The right to be exploited?
cdd wrote:If we lived in a welfare less country, I would say their motivation was to survive.
But we (rightly) live in a country where there is a benefit for those who are out of work, in the form of the jsa.
The jsa effectively sets a minimum wage, since firms will have trouble hiring if they undercut it.
JSA isn't an alternative to a job (or it certainly shouldn't be), its the social insurance payment for you to survive if you don't have a job. By definition, a NMW should exceed that figure, as no one can be expected to survive on less. Well, perhaps in the third-world, but not in Britain in 2012.
You just argued that people have the right to sell themselves short of a survival figure - but if their JSA is cut off if they refuse such a job (which of course happens) then it becomes a race to the bottom. Firms wouldn't have issues undercutting JSA if people have it removed if they refuse a job.
And never in my life would I offer to pay someone less than JSA or the NMW.
But not everyone is decent like me.
