Metropol

Not the same though, is it?

Petrol, council tax and utilities are unavoidable.

Chocolate, soft drinks, crisps, after shave, takeaways, etc. are not.

If paying an extra 0.9p on a can of Coke or 75p on a pair of jeans is going to kill you then don't buy them. No one's forcing you to.

Wouldn't want to start letting facts get in the way of this pissing contest about who has the most 'life experience', but the minimum wage rose by 61% in real terms between 1999 and 2009, or 33% above the consumer prices index and 25% above the retail prices index. So prices haven't been going up at a faster rate than the national minimum wage by any means.

Anyway, this is for Martin: http://www.eef.org.uk/policy-media/rele ... ormula.htm

Manufacturers reiterate call for National Minimum Wage formula
EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation, has re-iterated the need for a formula to determine future rises in the National Minimum Wage (NMW) to provide companies with some form of certainty about its potential impact. Whilst the majority of EEF members pay well above the NMW, they are concerned about the impact that future increases in the NMW will have on the costs of many of the outsourced services that they use.

And for Gavin: http://www.lowpay.gov.uk/lowpay/lowpay2 ... ter2.shtml

2.16 ... On that calculation, we define a minimum wage job as one that is held by an adult aged 22 and over paying less than £5.63; by a young person aged 18−21 paying less than £4.69; and by a 16–17 year old paying less than £3.47. In April 2008, there were about 1.13 million minimum wage jobs defined in this way,

2.22 More than half, about 55 per cent, of minimum wage jobs are in large firms (those with 250 or more employees) although large firms employ two-thirds of all workers. Micro firms (those with 1 to 9 employees) employ fewer than 8 per cent of the total workforce but provide more than 15 per cent of all minimum wage jobs. Fewer than a fifth of all jobs are in small firms (those with fewer than 50 employees), but nearly a third (32 per cent) of all minimum wage jobs are in small firms.

Plus: http://www.britishchambers.org.uk/zones ... -year.html

The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) is urging the Low Pay Commission to recommend maintaining the National Minimum Wage (NMW) at its current level next year and until economic conditions have significantly improved.

The BCC has calculated that another increase in NMW, at the same amount as in 2008, would cost businesses £300 million.

The BCC argues that hard-pressed businesses will be unable to afford a wage increase anywhere near that sum, and as a result, a zero per cent rise in the NMW should be adopted next year.

The business group is stressing that any increase above zero per cent risks adding to unemployment, which the BCC has already forecast to reach 3 million by 2010.

So make of that what you will, but I'm really not bothered anymore.

Morning Chie.

*MORNING!*

Oh, he's still asleep. Shame. All the best jobs at those kiosks in the job centre go pretty quickly - as I recall from my brief 3 month period unemployed in the course of my working life.

Anyway, I'm not sure what you thought I would learn from these stats.

"1.13 million minimum wage jobs in the UK measured against the entire workforce". That's what I mentioned some time ago - that its a small proportion of the workforce, but a proportion that really do need help.

But I wasn't calling for an above zero % rise to their pay this year. Hell - I didn't get a rise either last year. I think minimum wage ought to remain static until we really see some positive growth in those sectors.

What would be dreadful though is having the minimum wage dismantled like the tories did before. Then those struggling on £5 odd an hour would have to really struggle on £3 an hour.

In that event, many would think they're better off on benefits rather than work for the same low money.

Chie wrote:Not the same though, is it?

Petrol, council tax and utilities are unavoidable.

Chocolate, soft drinks, crisps, after shave, takeaways, etc. are not.

If paying an extra 0.9p on a can of Coke or 75p on a pair of jeans is going to kill you then don't buy them. No one's forcing you to.

Wouldn't want to start letting facts get in the way of this pissing contest about who has the most 'life experience', but the minimum wage rose by 61% in real terms between 1999 and 2009, or 33% above the consumer prices index and 25% above the retail prices index. So prices haven't been going up at a faster rate than the national minimum wage by any means.

Typical Tory response. If you can't afford luxuries, don't buy them. This from the party that charged duck houses and moat renovations to the tax payer.

Chie, not all of us buy jeans to keep up with the fashions. My current two pairs are 5 and 3 years old respectively, and (when I lose a couple of stone) I'll be able to fit into another, 8 year old pair later. However, if I only had one pair, which were ker-knackered beyond repair / reasonable use, then I'd have to buy a new pair. What happens then when I can't afford a new pair? Steal them? Go out in just boxers? I'd be arrested (for both!)

Cans of Coke are supposed to be 50p. End of. Not 60, not 65 and certainly not 80p. Yes I know you can get water free from the tap but where's the fun in that? Similarly a bar of chocolate is supposed to be 40p. Not 50, not 60p and certainly not 65p. Yes I know you can get apples free from the tree but where's the fun in that? Are you really telling me that progressive Tory ideals involve limiting our ingestive fun to fruit larceny and sticking our head in the kitchen sink?

Aftershave... hmm well that's true... oh wait, hang on... someone gave me a bottle for Christmas in that Lynx funpack they got for a quid from Boots. Sorted.

Oh... and petrol is avoidable. Walk. Bus. Train. You know, get out there, experience public transport. You meet all sorts of interesting people.

Utilities are not avoidable, but for a level-headed young internet savvy man like yourself you should be able to a) comparethemeerkat.com or b) gocompare... I did and I'm now on a dual-fuel contract for £15 a month. Easy.

Chie wrote:Not the same though, is it?

Petrol, council tax and utilities are unavoidable.

Chocolate, soft drinks, crisps, after shave, takeaways, etc. are not.

If paying an extra 0.9p on a can of Coke or 75p on a pair of jeans is going to kill you then don't buy them. No one's forcing you to.

Wouldn't want to start letting facts get in the way of this pissing contest about who has the most 'life experience', but the minimum wage rose by 61% in real terms between 1999 and 2009, or 33% above the consumer prices index and 25% above the retail prices index. So prices haven't been going up at a faster rate than the national minimum wage by any means.

You can't just discount the cost of food, petrol, council tax and utilities as an entirely separate issue just because they aren't the 'luxuries' that you'd VAT at 20%. They ARE outgoings and they ARE increasing at a faster rate than my wages are. That IS a fact. Which leaves me with less and less disposable and so I cannot afford to pay for a VAT increase on 'luxuries'.

And as for these 'luxuries' which I can supposedly do without, I hardly live a flamboyant lifestyle but by the same token I don't work 50 hours a week to live off bread and water and sit in my flat staring at the walls nor do I see why I should be expected to. I cannot subscribe to your view that as long as I'm in no danger of starvation then I have nothing to moan about and should be willing to fork out even more of my (allready heavily taxed) hard earned income to the government.

Your arguments smack more and more of 'the lower orders should be grateful for what they have' every time I hear them.

Gavin Scott wrote:Morning Chie.

*MORNING!*

Oh, he's still asleep. Shame. All the best jobs at those kiosks in the job centre go pretty quickly - as I recall from my brief 3 month period unemployed in the course of my working life.

Morning Pauline.

I don't need to step foot in a job centre - all of the vacancies are available 24/7 on the directgov website.

Well so far tonight, I've discovered a full-time dispensary job in an opticians that pays £12,000 per year, which sounds great. However, experience is essential. Essential - for a job picking up glasses off a shelf and giving them to people. And it only pays £12,000 a year. If I already had worthwhile experience as a 'dispensary assistant', I think I'd expect to be paid a bit more than that.

It's not as bad as it used to be though. When I first started looking for a job, you'd often see anger-inducing things like 'a minimum of 2 years experience in a similar role is preferred' (the word preferred being a synonym for 'but don't bother applying if you haven't'), which, thankfully, I haven't come across for a long time.

Then you've got millions of costumer-facing sales and receptionist roles (I'd be a good receptionist) that aren't really worth applying for if you're a man because nine times out of 10 they're always going to hire a female candidate.

All of the jobs at the airport (where I'd love to work) require you to have your own transport due to the remote location and shift patterns, although I happen to know there's a bus that runs from 5am to midnight and personally I wouldn't mind hanging around for two hours waiting for a bus if my shift ended at 3 o'clock in the morning. But nooo, you *must* have your own transport.

The remaining jobs involve field marketing, skilled manufacturing, professional work and driving.

So, having weeded all that flim-flam out, we're left with a very mundane but probably quite therapeutic mail sorting role and a half-decent telesales role, for which I'm probably going to be competing with about 40 other applicants. Joy.

Might it be, and I'm no expert here, that you need some specific knowledge that we're unaware of to work in the dispensary?

Chie wrote:Then you've got millions of costumer-facing sales and receptionist roles (I'd be a good receptionist) that aren't really worth applying for if you're a man because nine times out of 10 they're always going to hire a female candidate.

Well there you go. In your rush to turn your nose up at the entire marketplace you've made a massive clanger.

The job I took (in desperation after redundancy) was dubbed "receptionist". Yes, females applied, but some people perceive a certain "authority" of having a man in that position. Perhaps you simply didn't know that.

21 months in to this "temporary" job (that's how *I* thought of it) and the role has been renamed "client services manager", and I'm responsible for premises, external supplier contracts, in-house IT and various other duties based on my experience in other businesses.

Now I have a certain amount of pride, and its not easy to go from running a team of technical salesmen turning over a million pounds a year to answering phones. But you have to start somewhere and try to make it something better than it is.

I'm prepared to lay it out there for everyone to see that I would apply for a receptionist job rather than be jobless. But you're not prepared to even apply for one.

I hope you realise that you're only allowed a certain amount of time in your *entire* adult life to dodge national insurance contributions - and you're knocking on the door of that limit already.

And FYI - your local job centre list positions first, before being put on a central database - so browsing directgov from your bed doesn't cut it.

As you say, there's "millions of customer facing and receptionist jobs" out there - so I don't know what your next excuse will be.

Our tax burden will be less if you start to pay in - so by all means, chie, get on your bike and find a job.

Gary Barlow on the campaign trail with Cameron?

Jebus H Crimminy.

when i saw that on the bbc news website, i had to double check it was right.

what the feck does gary barlow know about anything?

why gary barlow, anyway?

Dr Lobster* wrote:when i saw that on the bbc news website, i had to double check it was right.

what the feck does gary barlow know about anything?

why gary barlow, anyway?

He writes a catchy choon, but this is just preposterous.

Cameron is launching an X Factor talent thing in schools with the top prize being to sing a Barlow song.

Real substance there.

Alexia wrote:
Oh... and petrol is avoidable.

Not for those who drive for a living it isn't.