Brylowes
Well-Known Member
There’s a word for when a company/corporation make vast profits ‘yet still
Fail to pay their employees a wage they can live on ......slavery.
There’s a word for when a company/corporation make vast profits ‘yet stillI think you need to read a basic economics textbook. Markets will clear. In fact, you're right in one way, minimum wages are artificially inflated and if they didn't exist the value of their labour would probably be lower!
This thread seems to have prompted a publication by the Institute for Fiscal Studies
How do other countries raise more in tax than the UK? -
Interesting. The thing is though, nobody can agree on whether we ought to be higher or lower on that list. Should tax revenue as a share of national income be higher and more in line with France, Germany and Italy; or, should it be lower in line with the US, Australia, Canada, Japan, Switzerland etc. What does it actually mean?
What don’t you understand? Labour will be paid the value that’s it’s worth...if it’s too low no one with do it. If it’s too high there I’ll be many people fighting for the position driving the price of labour down.There’s a word for when a company/corporation make vast profits ‘yet still
Fail to pay their employees a wage they can live on ......slavery.
What don’t you understand? Labour will be paid the value that’s it’s worth...if it’s too low no one with do it. If it’s too high there I’ll be many people fighting for the position driving the price of labour down.
If you want more pay, need more skill....
What don’t you understand? Labour will be paid the value that’s it’s worth...if it’s too low no one with do it. If it’s too high there I’ll be many people fighting for the position driving the price of labour down.
If you want more pay, need more skill....
But in that case why aren't we massively upping the wages of teachers and nurses, or even doctors? Massive shortfall in these positions but get very little. Meanwhile tons of people try and fight to be an MP, which requires no minimum level of knowledge, expertise or experience. They get huge payrises and remuneration/pension benefits? The economic logic would suggest we should be reducing the pay to thin out the competition and leave only those who genuinely want the job?
Give it a couple of years ...We don’t live in Mad Max
Standard right wing theory of pay:
Poor people: pay them less to keep competitiveness in business otherwise they’ll be lazy
Rich people: pay them more or they won’t want to work because they’re so talented and not at all lazy.
When you realise that most right wing political theory just goes as deep as “I’d like more money please” an awful lot makes sense.
See also trickle down economics, austerity in recessions, and the laughable Laffer curve. An entire economic theory based on fag packet maths and stoner thoughts.
So it’s ok that a Football Club can afford to pay a Footballer £200.000 P/WWhat don’t you understand? Labour will be paid the value that’s it’s worth...if it’s too low no one with do it. If it’s too high there I’ll be many people fighting for the position driving the price of labour down.
If you want more pay, need more skill....
So it’s ok that a Football Club can afford to pay a Footballer £200.000 P/W
Yet needs a Government subsidy to top up a cleaners pay to £250 P/W
Yep the theory was bang on I agreeI don't think anyone is saying it is OK, they're simply saying how and why it is.
A footballer earning 200K per week is also paying around 75K per week in tax. So the Government subsidy (I suspect you mean tax credits) is ultimately paid for by the wealthiest, given that 90% of tax revenue (income based) comes from the top 50% of earners.
The minimum wage should be looked at I agree. It is frustrating when you use certain examples, Tesco for example, because they could most definitely pay more. But you can't have different levels of minimum wage applied to different companies and many small businesses wouldn't be able to cope with a huge hike in minimum wage and would likely fail or shed jobs.
That was the whole point of tax credits, to help bridge this gap. It was just about the only good thing Gordon Brown did.
Standard right wing theory of pay? Behave, there's no such thing. Trickle down economics, who advocates that anymore anyway? It died in the 80s and is now just a left wing fantasy (but yes, I guess there are a few that do).
Any ideology can be dumbed down in a couple of paragraphs like this. It doesn't make you right, but it doesn't make you wrong either. I could easily post a soundbite or a couple of witty proverbs mocking socialism, but what does it prove? It's meaningless.
It's like when somebody asks the question of how many people fled from West to East Germany? All good knockabout stuff if we're trying to score points, but it doesn't really mean anything.
I don't think anyone is saying it is OK, they're simply saying how and why it is.
A footballer earning 200K per week is also paying around 75K per week in tax. So the Government subsidy (I suspect you mean tax credits) is ultimately paid for by the wealthiest, given that 90% of tax revenue (income based) comes from the top 50% of earners.
The minimum wage should be looked at I agree. It is frustrating when you use certain examples, Tesco for example, because they could most definitely pay more. But you can't have different levels of minimum wage applied to different companies and many small businesses wouldn't be able to cope with a huge hike in minimum wage and would likely fail or shed jobs.
That was the whole point of tax credits, to help bridge this gap. It was just about the only good thing Gordon Brown did.
What on earth are you talking about?That’s not true though. The cost of labour is the cost of living. Just because you can exploit others doesn’t make it right. I can run a “business” stealing all my stock from you and selling it cheap. But we accept that’s morally wrong. We don’t live in Mad Max and markets aren’t truly free.
Because, rightly or wrongly, people are still willing to work and pick up the slack for the same shitty wages.But in that case why aren't we massively upping the wages of teachers and nurses, or even doctors? Massive shortfall in these positions but get very little. Meanwhile tons of people try and fight to be an MP, which requires no minimum level of knowledge, expertise or experience. They get huge payrises and remuneration/pension benefits? The economic logic would suggest we should be reducing the pay to thin out the competition and leave only those who genuinely want the job?
Because, rightly or wrongly, people are still willing to work and pick up the slack for the same shitty wages.
If they weren’t, and every teacher quit or went into other professions because the money wasn’t good enough, the wages would go up.
Healthcare is different
Well then wages or incentives will go up won’t they..The problem with that argument being that it's well known that there is a chronic shortage of teachers and there are lots of teaching positions left unfilled. Teacher turnover and retention of young teachers just after finishing training is extremely poor. I agree that there are a lot of diligent teachers who are picking up the slack and are essentially being exploited for their commitment.
Well then wages or incentives will go up won’t they..
Was it the CT that tipped them off?This thread seems to have prompted a publication by the Institute for Fiscal Studies
How do other countries raise more in tax than the UK? -
Oh god I feel a bit bad...You really don’t understand do you?So why haven't they gone up in line with MP pay and incentives, a job which is massively oversubscribed in terms of applicants? Despite numerous calls from within the sector and in general from the public to remunerate teachers better?
If the government are using the same criteria, and favour a market based system, teachers wage increases should be massively outstripping MP's.
What market for MPs are you referring to?Oh god I feel a bit bad...You really don’t understand do you?
It’s not something the government are “using” or they “favour”...it’s just how markets naturally work....
Does the fact there are around 650 MPs, but over 500,000 teachers explain that one?
Oh god I feel a bit bad...You really don’t understand do you?
It’s not something the government are “using” or they “favour”...it’s just how markets naturally work....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?