Metropol

To use a phrase oft-used by the opposition, surely opt-out is abolition of the minimum wage by the "back door" ?

Alexia wrote:To use a phrase oft-used by the opposition, surely opt-out is abolition of the minimum wage by the "back door" ?

Yep - its a thinly veiled plan to scrap it completely.

As soon as you introduce an opt-out system, doesn't it remove the minimum wage completely?

Jovis wrote:As soon as you introduce an opt-out system, doesn't it remove the minimum wage completely?

In essence, yes. Its a nonsense.

If you read the Bill it says that employees can opt back in, but by doing so forfeit their right to the job.

So far I see that the tories want to reduce inheritance tax for the wealthy, and remove the protections for the lowest paid in society.

Yep - that seems about right.

Yes, that's right Gavin. "Capitalist" models completely fail to take into account that workers face living costs. I just want to boost company profits because I'm the spawn of Satan. Damn, you got me. :roll:

If a person accepts a job paying £3.10 an hour, then guess what - they are willing to take it. They are not coerced into taking it - they've made a choice. That doesn't mean they're happy about it - only that they're willing to do the job given what's offered to them. That person might be willing to do it for £3 an hour, or for £2.50 an hour - but if you offered them £2.49, they'd say no and look elsewhere. Of course they'd prefer to get paid more - as would I, as would I suspect everyone on this site. We prefer more income to less.

The great ruse of the minimum wage is to draw attention to the people whose income goes up - those with jobs who now get 'protected' by a minimum wage - while completely ignoring the welfare of those who will lose their jobs (or won't be able to obtain jobs) because their services have been 'priced out of the market'. If you don't accept that production costs - including the cost of labour - affect output and employment, then why don't we make the minimum wage £100 an hour? We'd all be better off. Of course we don't do that because if you raise the price of something, the quantity demanded of it will fall. Anyone who denies that general observation must have rocks in their head.

marksi wrote:I'll repeat the question and be more specific.

If a hotel can employ 5 maids to clean rooms for £3.50 an hour instead of minimum wage, how does this benefit anyone other than the hotel owner? Why would they employ more people?

Maybe not that one hotel. But perhaps somebody else who had thought about opening a new hotel (or expanding an existing hotel) but chose not to because they perceived the costs to be too high might now be more tempted to pursue their plans. And with that, they will create new jobs.

Of course, these are decisions made 'at the margin'. Removing the minimum wage would not cause every business to reevaluate their employment plans. But it would cause some to. That's the effect we need to be looking at.

At what point in the pay scale do you consider the worker to be exploited?

To my mind, exploitation - as an objective concept - has nothing to do with pay scale. If people are coerced to work (ie. slavery) that's exploitation. People who make a choice to work are not exploited. Again, I absolutely accept that people on very low incomes will struggle. There are tremendous pressures placed upon them. And if they accept a job that pays £3.10 an hour, they have voluntarily entered the workforce, it doesn't mean they're suddenly out of poverty. I just don't think it can objectively be called exploitation.

Care to clarify your definition of "choice"? I am assuming it's quite a scientific one, like "not physically dragged to a loom and forced at gunpoint to work"

Sput wrote:Care to clarify your definition of "choice"? I am assuming it's quite a scientific one, like "not physically dragged to a loom and forced at gunpoint to work"

In a developed country with a welfare system in place to support those on low or no incomes, that's actually not far off it.

I didn't say it was a good choice - it's not a position I would ever want to be in. But yes, it's a choice.

Mr Q wrote:Yes, that's right Gavin. "Capitalist" models completely fail to take into account that workers face living costs. I just want to boost company profits because I'm the spawn of Satan. Damn, you got me. :roll:

Mr Q - we have very different ideas on this subject, clearly - but you've already accused me of calling you a Nazi, and now "spawn of Satan".

I assure you, if I want to use those terms, I can manage by myself.

Well, it would seem my return was a mistake. Thanks for the memories Metropol.

Goodbye.

Mr Q wrote:Well, it would seem my return was a mistake. Thanks for the memories Metropol.

Goodbye.

"Nazi" and "Satan" never passed my lips. You're leaving because I corrected you?

I don't think Mr Q was accusing you of doing anything, Gavin Scott. He was just paraphrasing his interpretation of what you said in a humorously exaggerated and therefore not entirely serious way. It was a joke.