Minimum wage has gone up, lifting many of us from mediocre wages to slightly less mediocre wages. Previously I was on minimum plus about 8%. Now on a higher minimum plus about 5%. Despite the overall increase I can't help but feel like that is a bit of a snub. AIBU?
I guess it all depends how profitable the company you work for is, if they're raking it in, then it's piss poor, if they barely break even, it's a bit different.
Most companies will pay the bare minimum to retain staff, some aren't even bothered about that.
I worked for the same company for 16 years, I was promoted multiple times, they ran out of superlatives to add onto my job title. By the time I left, accounting for inflation, I was scarcely better off than when I took the entry level position in the first place. The only time I've seen a remotely significant pay hike is when changing companies.
That's the problem with the minimum wage rather keeping the cost of living under control. We had a pot of money for pay rises this year. Those at the bottom got a lot more % than those further up. Understandable but people on higher salaries are seeing their real terms earnings drop. Trouble is the better managers will move on for a pay rise, the bad will suck it up with bad grace and continue to manage badly. It's not very sustainable long term but its easy for thus terrible government to dump the problem on employers rather than govern.
Those at the bottom got a lot more % than those further up.
If the minimum wage hadn’t gone up, do you think that the increase to the pay bill would have been distributed differently? Lower increases for those on the lowest wages, and higher increases for those on the higher wages?
Times are tough and always tougher for those who earn the least. The minimum wage isn’t enough and there needs to be a fairer distribution of wealth. I’d happily take a pay cut if it meant people on lower wages where I work could get a bit more. Trouble is that everyone else at my level would need to too and that would never happen.
'We'd like to pay you less, but we're not allowed to.'
Minimum wage went up nearly 10% this year, folks at my works got between 1 and 3% depending on their performance review. We're a £35 million company making pretty decent pre-tax profits.
Previously I was on minimum plus about 8%. Now on a higher minimum plus about 5%. Despite the overall increase I can’t help but feel like that is a bit of a snub.
I wouldn't see it like that. The minimum wage increase was a pretty sizeable jump, and they've increased your salary by more than they had to.
do you think that the increase to the pay bill would have been distributed differently?
Yep, in my company everyone would have received the same % increase so relative income went up by the same amount. Believe it or not there is a reason some people earn more than others and it's not down to entitlement, privilege and luck in most cases.
Aside from that continuing to increase the minimum wage isn't sustainable, we operate in a global economy. What we need to do is bring the cost of living back down, don't forget the bloody Tories increased the cost of living by over 15% in the last couple of years and its still going up. Renewable energy to escape the whims of the international energy market and a wholesale reform of housing provision from regulation around private rentals, limiting what people can borrow to buy (a big cause of house price jnflation) and of course a big increase in social housing provision. All things the Tories seem to be moving in the opposite direction from whilst they mess aroind with their irrlevant Rwanda policy.
Minimum wage should be set at a level where people shouldn’t need in-work benefits to get by, but it’s just a ruse by politicians to pretend they’re interested in little people whilst ensuring that the wealth of business owners is protected. Tesco makes a 160% increase in profit amidst a cost of living crisis, whilst thousands of employees are on minimum wage + UC. Since 2008 the standard of living and earnings for most has declined, primary due to a stagnant economy, Brexit and a failure to address the UK’s woeful productivity but the Tories want to blame a few thousand desperate people who arrive on boats…
Despite the overall increase I can’t help but feel like that is a bit of a snub. AIBU?
One way of looking at it would be - if you can now earn enough on minimum wage with less hassle/stress you could switch to the even wider range of jobs which are now in the sort of range of your previous salary expectations! If "everyone" does that your employer will pay more to keep people. If "nobody" does that next time round the employer will probably just let your post become minimum wage posts.
Believe it or not there is a reason some people earn more than others and it’s not down to entitlement, privilege and luck in most cases.
Is it cos they are men?
One thing that hasn't risen is the tax threshold, meaning that my 82 year old mother who's worked all her life, is now paying tax on her private pension.
Is it cos they are men?
Not in the business I work for, 50:50 female:male in the board positions, heads of department are pretty much 50:50 As well.
Those at the bottom got a lot more % than those further up.
My heart bleeds for those at the top, must be so tough.
Minimum wage should be set at a level where people shouldn’t need in-work benefits to get by
Ideally companies should just pay people a fair wage and not have to be told the minimum they're allowed to.
I wouldn’t see it like that. The minimum wage increase was a pretty sizeable jump, and they’ve increased your salary by more than they had to.
Their hand has been forced and then they’ve paid a bit more on top. A sizeable increase on **** all is still **** all. What’s minimum wage now with contributions, about £13 odd. How far does that get you if you have a family to support. Not very is the answer.
I’m of the opinion that if a business can’t afford to pay the real living wage as a minimum then it shouldn’t be operating. That, or those higher up are on inflated earnings.
I want to live where you are @funkmasterp because where I am the minimum wage is £11.44
Funkmaster - it’s a sentiment I can get behind BUT
one day you will likely need carers (at home or in a care home), someone you or the state has to pay those carers, one way or another that means you have less to spend today (tax or saving). Repeat across all the other essential services. If we pay an unqualified carer £16/hr (or whatever we think they should get paid) then a band 5 nurse starts to question if they should really have the responsibility, professional risk, etc. and repeat across every job….
there are no quick fixes, go to Scandinavia and the salary differential between a cleaner and a police inspector will be nowhere near so stark, so it’s not absolute but it does require a change of mentality - that people are paid well because they deserve it, or that any policy which tries to manage this is some evil form of socialism - preferably sail through the bitter, twisted mouth of a US republican.
If employers really have limited headroom for pay rises, than absolutely those on the lowest, minimum or near minimum wages, should be prioritised. People gotta eat before other people get their status enhancing extras.
I want to live where you are @funkmasterpbecause where I am the minimum wage is £11.44
I could be wrong but the actual cost to a business for employing someone on minimum wage is £13 something. I had the cost to hand the other day whilst working out a channel analysis for the handling of a stock line.
@poly I sadly agree with you. Most people think of themselves and themselves only. It would take a huge shift in thinking for people to support the less fortunate to the degree that is needed for a fairer society. I’ve lived hand to mouth and done back breaking work for minimum wage and even cash in hand when I was younger. I’m quite fortunate now compared to a hell of a lot of people.
After an evening spent feeling slightly bitter about it; the time comes that a CV needs dusting off, updating, and putting out in the world again.
As an admin colleague remarked, it's taken her 35 years in the civil service to get down to the minimum wage.
It makes me very angry and militant on their behalf.
If employers really have limited headroom for pay rises, than absolutely those on the lowest, minimum or near minimum wages, should be prioritised. People gotta eat before other people get their status enhancing extras
Lovely sentiment, but in the real world, we prioritise those who deserve it the most, regardless of their position, or current salary.
we prioritise those who deserve it the most
Mostly we prioritise those with the most market power... leaving behind those that are more easily replaceable at a low cost. How "deserving" they are normally has little to do with it. That's why we have a minimum wage, to prevent those in roles that can be easily refilled being taken advantage of to the point of falling into poverty, leaving only those who are expensive to replace to use that to bargain for a larger chunk of any pay rises.
Minimum wage should be set at a level where people shouldn’t need in-work benefits to get by
The counter argument is that doesn't work in the real world.
If a supermarket can pay a cashier minimum wage and it be cheaper than having a computer do it, then they will, and the government may have to top that up.
If you set the minimum wage at a higher level then they'd just get a computer to do it and there'd be be no cashier jobs, there might be a couple of well paid IT/automation jobs instead (which would be described as increased productivity on a macroeconomic scale) , but probably hundreds lost to one gained.
It's an example of where ideological politics fail in the real world.
Either that or you allow automation to take over, increase corporation tax massively, and deliver a universal basic income. The trouble with that is Tesco might be able to eliminate it's wage bill by automating a supermarket and end up in net the same position. Other industries probably not so you'd just drive them away (e.g. your local village shops would just cease to be viable because they couldn't afford the investment, or other larger labour intensive but not-viable to automate industries like construction). Or if you apply MMT economics to it then you pay everyone UBI, but still need to manage inflation somehow (high interest rates, which means lower investment, which means things don't get automated, or high taxes which is the same but different), there's no free lunch.
Lovely sentiment, but in the real world, we prioritise those who deserve it the most, regardless of their position, or current salary.
I’ve been party to these sort of decisions in a number of companies. “deserve” is the sort of word that will see you never invited to join the discussions again! You are only allowed to be entitled if you are private equity owner not the staff! The decision was almost invariably based not on anything so egalitarian but on who would be most likely to leave and easy to replace if they did. Sometimes spoken out load, sometimes implied, sometimes a manager fighting a corner on behalf of someone who “deserved” it. Occasionally I’ve been involved in solutions which did disproportionately boost the lowest paid - there are two factors in that 1. The market it overtaking us and hiring more worker bees is getting harder; 2. Looking round the senior managers there’s not one you think is really earning their crust. Now that gets sold as “leveling up” of something - but it’s really “years of shit coming home to roost”.
You're supposed to lift yourself, not rely on the government to do it for you...
We live in a market economy which means that you need to be in the marketplace and offering your labour to the highest bidder. If you continue to sell yourself cheap because you're too lazy/scared of the change, then, after a while, you will find yourself suffering due to inflation. If people took the initiative and made and effort to improve their situation, then supply would tighten and wages would increase. There's certainly no shortage of jobs for the past few years.
Case in point is my sisters' boyfriend who had, since leaving school, been stuck in a rut as a car mechanic earning ~22k. After a bit of chivvying and encouragement, he has now taken a new job as a tradesman with a metalwork installation company and is earning around 50% more. The garage where he worked will either hire a young lad/lass to train up on minium wage, or they will have to pay more for a more experienced mechanic.
If the minimum wage hadn’t gone up, do you think that the increase to the pay bill would have been distributed differently? Lower increases for those on the lowest wages, and higher increases for those on the higher wages?
This is pretty much what has actually occurred over my 40 years of working.
the actual cost to a business for employing someone on minimum wage is £13 something
yes:
£11.44 wage
13.8% eer NI
3 % pension
0.5% apprentice levy (employers with a salary bill over £3m)
= 13.42 / hr direct cost of actually employing someone on min wage; in the vast majority of cases that difference is recycled back through tax credits / universal credit etc
I presume someone in a think tank will have asked the question - if we raised minimum wage to say £15/hr, how many people would that lift out of tax credit:UC etc, so that the employers NI could be reduced? There could be an argument for having employers NI not simply one tarrif but on a scale where the better they pay people the less the state requires the employer to contribute for the welfare mechanisms?
Minimum wage is rapidly approaching my hourly rate and not much chance of major wage rises.
I'm 56 now and In a couple of years I can easily see me thinking 'sod this' and getting a job (or two) with less responsibility.
You’re supposed to lift yourself, not rely on the government to do it for you…
We live in a market economy which means that you need to be in the marketplace and offering your labour to the highest bidder. If you continue to sell yourself cheap because you’re too lazy/scared of the change, then, after a while, you will find yourself suffering due to inflation. If people took the initiative and made and effort to improve their situation, then supply would tighten and wages would increase. There’s certainly no shortage of jobs for the past few years.
I love this way of thinking. If everyone did as you suggest how would you ever receive your Amazon parcels and go grocery shopping. If those some deem to be deserving of being paid a pittance pulled themselves up you’d be ****ed. No cleaning being done, no cheap goods being delivered at the drop of a hat. They don’t seem so deserving of low pay when you stop and think about it.
gordimhorFull Member
I want to live where you are @funkmasterp because where I am the minimum wage is £11.44
Go read their post again, they were highlighting the cost to an employer.
I love this way of thinking. If everyone did as you suggest how would you ever receive your Amazon parcels and go grocery shopping. If those some deem to be deserving of being paid a pittance pulled themselves up you’d be ****. No cleaning being done, no cheap goods being delivered at the drop of a hat. They don’t seem so deserving of low pay when you stop and think about it.
I presume he was replying to Cougar and the problem that unless you move companies you generally don't get the best pay rises.
The same does apply to minimum-ish wage roles though. It's why I don't think the judgement against Birmingham City Council was correct, there isn't an equivalence between carers, dinner ladies* and bin men*. One of those is clearly a rubbish job that needed to pay more to compete in the market. So there is an element of bootstrapping that can be done, either in upskilling (e.g. from school catering to working in a restaurant) or being prepared to do a job with less intrinsic value to the employee (if both were unpaid then cooking dinner in a nice warm kitchen during office hours is of a higher value to the employee than emptying bins at 5am in January and thus pays more).
*stereotypical gender roles retained as it was relevant to the case.
I love this way of thinking. If everyone did as you suggest how would you ever receive your Amazon parcels and go grocery shopping. If those some deem to be deserving of being paid a pittance pulled themselves up you’d be ****. No cleaning being done, no cheap goods being delivered at the drop of a hat. They don’t seem so deserving of low pay when you stop and think about it.
The outcome feels like it would be effectively the same. If everyone left those jobs, employers would have to pay more to recruit into those positions. That additional cost would no doubt be passed on to the end consumer.
I’m of the opinion that if a business can’t afford to pay the real living wage as a minimum then it shouldn’t be operating.
They probably won't last if they can't...
That additional cost would no doubt be passed on to the end consumer.
Up to a point but then the consumer would go you want me to pay how much! In reality delivery service would change, the model is already there an example of automation. You want free delivery, pick it up from an unmanned locker, you want door step delivery you can pay more for it. The increased costs would be offset by reducing them elsewhere, i.e. pay the driver more but make them more productive being delivering to fewer locations. In some business that isn't possible so the business model would collapse, e.g. coffee shops, the price of paying for coffee made by a highly paid barista would quickly out strip what people are prepared to pay. The alternative is use a vending machine or go without, most people would go for the latter option.
As I said above, wage inflation isn't the answer (nor is bringing everyone's wages closer together, that's not how our society works), we've got to get the cost of living in the UK down to a level more on a par with the current minimum wage. Constantly shoving the minimum wage up will mean the value generated from the employee is less than they cost and ultimately we will lose more jobs.
I’d be interested to know how many on here have worked for minimum wage or less whilst trying to support a family. We do appear to have something of a middle class bubble on here to some degree. I therefore, possibly incorrectly, assume people’s lived experiences aren’t reflective of the day to day lives of a lot of people.
Plenty of NBD, extensions, which Bitcoin to invest in, what holiday and what car/van threads. Not many regarding daily financial struggles and the difficulty of improving ones lot in life whilst working long hours, with a long commute in physically arduous jobs. I’ve lived on and below the breadline. I’m lucky that I’m now better off than some but still raise an eyebrow at some opinions in threads like this one.
funkmasterp, I think you're missing the point, many of us on higher wages have been through periods with low or no income, I certainly have and didn't have savings or relative to support us. We get the minimum wage is not a living wage. The problem is many cases the wage costs will out strip the economic return which results in no job.
I’m not missing the point at all and agree with your comments re: bringing basic living costs down. I simply disagree with some of your other thinking. We have a culture of under valuing those that actually do the work in a lot of jobs. There are also people on vastly inflated wages in a lot of sectors and putting shareholders above all. It’s a shitty system.
I still don’t have savings or relatives to support me and would be up shit creek quite rapidly if I lost my job. That’s earning a good wage. Some of the posts in this thread have a slight air of entitlement and a lack of empathy about them. Plenty of business do well, in fact thrive, by paying fair wages above the minimum. It works
The whole reason for the Government introducing the Minimum wage as to move the balance to the Employer rather than the state.
Wages + benefits have broadly been the same in total across the years, its just as the wages have become a bigger % of the total number.
There is a lot of wage compression going on, where you may only get 2% or NLW. Seeing it a lot in the industry I work in where people are wondering if its worth 10p an extra an hour for all of the extra responsibility above an entry level role.
Unfortunately you have to vote with your feet an move into other companies for wage progression.
I’d be interested to know how many on here have worked for minimum wage or less whilst trying to support a family
I have absolutely no idea how that is even possible....
I love this way of thinking. If everyone did as you suggest how would you ever receive your Amazon parcels and go grocery shopping. If those some deem to be deserving of being paid a pittance pulled themselves up you’d be ****. No cleaning being done, no cheap goods being delivered at the drop of a hat. They don’t seem so deserving of low pay when you stop and think about it.
Not everyone can be an astronaut, that's the world we've always lived in, but those who can pull themselves up, should put the effort in, not expect the government to do it on their behalf. We live in a country where you can still change jobs relatively easily, if you have the drive to do so.
As for minimum wage, it's there to stop those who preyed on the lower end of the market in the past, there's still lots of dodgy stuff going on, but not as bad as it was.
Some of the posts in this thread have a slight air of entitlement and a lack of empathy about them. Plenty of business do well, in fact thrive, by paying fair wages above the minimum. It works
Equally, the view could be considered that as a lower earner, just because you are a lower earner you are ‘entitled’ to a bigger increase.
We have plenty of lower earners in our business, who are often described as the plodders. They come in, do a job, to a level that just about keeps them off a PIP & go home. The ones who over achieve, tend to move up the ranks & earn more, and get better pay reviews.
We’re not going to devalue the over-achievers efforts, for the same reason we shouldn’t over value the others.
For reference, I say lower earners, our lowest paid basic factory worker & pickers/packers are on £15.50 an hour.
The ones who over achieve, tend to move up the ranks & earn more, and get better pay reviews.
Conversely I’ve worked in a lot of places that are the polar opposite. The ones who coast get promoted regardless of their level of ability. Promoted to their level of incompetence one might say. Lots of folk at the lower end putting in the hours and graft. Incompetence and laziness don’t have a pay grade. There is also nothing wrong with doing your job, clocking off and going home. We’d be screwed without the reliable plodder.
It’s a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. Want people to work harder, better, smarter then pay them more. Complain that the quality of hires isn’t great, pay more. PIP’s are a ridiculous thing in 99% of companies in my opinion. You pull someone up for not doing a great job when you pay them the absolute minimum you can. Want to incentive them, reward them by fostering a good culture. Pay, benefits etc. we seem to have reached this weird point where some employers expect employees to give their all with no return beyond a basic wage. I’m very thankful that I’m no longer in that sort of environment.
Well I applied for something else today. Whilst the pay is no better, the hours have the potential to suit us better.
Interesting reading the differing views on 'plodders' above. My wife exists in an utterly different stratosphere to me professionally, but is of the opinion that without the people who turn up and do their jobs, day in day out, most companies would be in a lot of trouble. In bike terms, I'm sure the product people at Shimano love XTR and Dura, but without Cues, there's no business. Maybe a bad analogy, but you know what I mean.
“ I’d happily take a pay cut if it meant people on lower wages where I work could get a bit more. Trouble is that everyone else at my level would need to too and that would never happen.”
Would you ? Really ? Or just an empty gesture because you know it won’t happen ?
If you are happy enough then pick a person who is struggling or a couple of people , and distribute what ever amount you are happy to take as a paycut to them. I’m sure they will be appreciative. Doesn’t need to be cash , could be food parcels , bus passes etc etc
“ but is of the opinion that without the people who turn up and do their jobs, day in day out, most companies would be in a lot of trouble”
100% . I know people who are marked down on their yearly appraisals because they have no ambition to better themselves. This costs them financially .
If I was going to employ people directly , they would be the ones I would headhunt as they are bloody good at what they do. And I would pay them properly too !
"Believe it or not there is a reason some people earn more than others and it’s not down to entitlement, privilege and luck in most cases."
Yeah that's not true tho is it. Who your parents are (i.e 100% luck) determines:
- your general upbringing
- your educational opportunities/ level
- whether you are subject to discrimination
- where you live
- the type of circles you move in / people you are exposed to
As a white middle class man, I'm intensly aware that no matter what effort I put in to my career I'm unlikely to be have been in the same position as I am if my parents werent a maths teacher and a physicist (and therefore spent a lot of time with me doing maths etc) , they didnt happen to live near London (giving me easy access to city jobs), provided a stable home environment, encouraged me and gave me a kick up the arse to get to university and study a stem course, and surrounded me with other professionals to act as role models.
Doubtless there are many examples of people have managed to succeed despite the obstacles put in their path, but at a population level the biggest factor is who your parents are. Aka luck.
Would you ? Really ? Or just an empty gesture because you know it won’t happen ?
Yeah I would and have done in previous jobs. Twice now I’ve fought for rises for those below me and forfeited my own as a result. Believe it or not were not all that self centred. I’ve been at the blunt end for most of my life and it’s not nice. I also work with charities and third sector businesses as part of my job and I’m heavily involved in fund raising for them.
I’d love to do more but as the sole earner in my family with two kids and a mortgage I’ve not got much spare. I’m not on that good of a salary but still better off than a hell of a lot of people.
Opportunity is the biggest factor in success, and a huge part of that is family.
My dad was the son of a ships stoker, brought up in a terrace in South Shields, the middle one of 9 kids. He was bright enough to go to grammar school but too poor to stay on after 16 and spent a couple of years in a factory before his national service gave him a chance to sign up, learn a trade and serve 22 years. Without that chance at grammar school, he says he would have ended up down a pit or in a shipyard with most of his brothers.
He and my mum then created an environment where I was able to do well at school and be the first to go to university (eventually). Unfortunately, my parents are the classic "we did it so everyone who didn't is a workshy skiver" Tories.
MrsSteve and I, as middle ranking public sector employees were able to support our kids in their interests, in and out of school, and eldest is about to graduate from Cambridge and has a graduate job with a big international lined up.
Governments/society need to be figuring out how to offer all kids/families the opportunity to develop their talents and achieve their potential, whether that's academically or vocationally, and reward/tax people appropriately, whether they are entrepreneurs or bin men. Opportunity will lead to productivity and growth.
That rambled. No idea what my point was.
