Search This Blog

Tuesday, February 21, 2012


not had a wanker post for awhile. that isn't because there hasn't been wankers. dr. adam marshall, director of policy at the british chamber of commerce, called for the youth and development rates of the national minimum wage to be frozen this year. "the simple fact is that britan cannot afford to price people out of work." "the minimum wage cannot simply be a one-way bet, rising inexorably regardless of wider economic conditions.” let's look at the national minimum wage currently for adults it stands at £6.08 an hour (£5.93 in 2010, £5.80 in 2009) for 19-20 year olds (the development rate) it is £4.98 an hour (£4.92 in 2010, £4.83 in 2009) for 16-17 year olds it is £3.68 an hour (£3.57 in 2010, £3.53 in 2009). three things to note here. firstly these are not exactly princely sums we are talking about - which is why there are campaigns for living wages as opposed to minimum wages. secondly the rate of increase of the minimum wage cannot be said to be steep. thirdly dr. marshall, and the british chamber of commerce, have form when it comes to the minimum wage as petty much each time it has come time to improve it they have complained. dr. marshall and the british chamber of commerce see the minimum wage as a reason for why businesses are not employing youth, and by extension of this it would mean that employers are not employing anyone because of the minimum wage. for dr. marshall the preferred outcome would not only be the freezing of the national minimum wage but the eventual removal of it. after all why pay a decent wage if you don't have to. an unintended consequence (or is it) of dr. marshall's desire is to make the poor poorer. less money for workers - less spending power - less spending power - less purchasing - less purchasing - less profit for business. ooops. not that it matters to dr. marshall because he won't be affected -- he will still get paid, and no doubt will get a raise or a bonus that is above the rate of inflation. the other unintended consequence is that if wages are so low then there is less incentive for the young to look for work and even more reason for them to go onto the dole and stay there. more on the dole - higher social services spend - higher social services spend - less money to go to other areas and the possibility of more tax. but that is fine by dr. marshall and his ilk because he is also campaigning to make sure that tax fall on the poorest. brendan barber of the trades union congress argues that rather than it being a worry over the national minimum that is causing firms to be wary of hiring new staff because they lack the confidence that the economy is on a solid road to recovery. guess who i believe.

No comments: