Forum menu
As Binners said why should you expect minimum wage contract employees to give a s**t but at what point do individuals start to benefit from the low wage economy I. E. Cheap delivery, cheap employees, cheap goods meaning your cash gors further?
The only people who benefit from the minimum wage economy are those who really don't need to worry about money.
i could go into great depth about short sightedness of the individual .....
but that will unravel in the debate and im quite happy to sit back and watch it develop rather than cover all the points this early on 😉
I bet the same people who see the OPs point as a pro are pro low oil price also ?
oh and what AP said as well.
Cheap oil, cheap interest rates, cheap goods, cheap delivery what's not to like... just need cheap houses now
I think there's an awful lot of us that buy 'stuff' and don't really put that much thought into who and how it affects those individuals in the supply chain, so long as we get our 'stuff' as cheap as possible. Maybe I'm wrong but that's the way society seems to be heading and there's little we can do about it. See Starbucks v local coffee shop, German bike shops v LBS, Amazon v everything, etc.
I am as guilty as the next person I suppose but I now think about this a bit more than I used to.
As Binners said why should you expect minimum wage contract employees to give a s**t
In a world of greater mobility of labour, not giving a shit is a pretty poor choice....but each to their own
There's a lot to be said for a higher minimum wage, but some jobs will always be the lowest paid. Hard to see how delivering parcels isn't one of them.
Piha has it - and I'm also as guilty as anyone.
The rush to the bottom needs a complete societal change to be reversed, and I don't know where you'd start.
The rush to the bottom needs a complete societal change to be reversed, and I don't know where you'd start.
Lower taxes and higher minimum wage.
Low wadges can frequently mean more proffit for the operating company, looks good on reports, looks good on goverment figures as industry seems to have grown, but people have less money and need their wadges to be subsidiced. So peolpe don't have much money and now require goods as cheap as possible. So the circle is completed.
I'm not a an economist but I suspect considering two ecomecies of the same size, with the same population. One with lots of low wadge work and more large corprate proffit vs one with higher wadge work but less corprate proffit. The one with the higher wadge would have a higher rate of movment of money (I think its called velocity of money) and allow more small buisness that offer business to the public to start and run and thrive.
I don't think that its the minimum wage in itself thats the problem. Or the zero hours contract. But its the message they send out to the 'employee' about their perceived value, and place as a part of wider society. And It just highlights the absolutely enormous, and still rapidly growing disparity between those at the top and those at the bottom.
Those at the bottom are offered the absolute bare legal minimum the employer can get away with - witness the below average wage rates of delivery drivers - and told they should be grateful for it.
Whereas at the top boardroom pay has mushroomed at an absolutely staggering rate, irrespective as to whether those individuals have delivered any results. A higher and higher percentage of profit is paid as dividends to share holders, and an ever decreasing percentage as wages
What the **** do we thinks going to happen? Seriously? With people viewed as little more than disposable serfs, while the lords and masters live lives of unimaginable wealth and privilege
So, if someone doesn't give a shit and blames that attitude on minimum wage, how much do you need to pay them for their attitude to change and how long will you pay them that amount before they go back to not giving a shit?
Maybe not giving a shit is why they're in a minimum wage job*
*not everyone in a minimum wage role displays the same attitude.
...and still growing...A higher and higher percentage of profit is paid as dividends to share holders....
I will refrain from the obvious question about source and links 😉
At least the bit about executive pay has supporting evidence not least the lady who has jumped from Aberdeen to M&G - short M&G and buy Aberdeen for a nice contrarian trad!
This was partly prompted by watching a few ex oil industry workers I know who are looking for work moaning about the minimum wage yet the same people had their cars washed, gardens sorted etc by minimum wage bods and never batted an eyelid ... oh the irony
I will refrain from the obvious question about source and links
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/26/capitalism-shareholders-greedy-stakeholders-change ]You really don't need too on my behalf[/url] 😉
None these businesses would exist if it wasn't for their customers buying their 'stuff'. Surely then it's consumer led? We do have choice but the majorities choice proves that cheapest is best for them.
I think it's disingenuous to lay the blame at big business or government. If we want greater social care we need to pay for it - i.e vote in a government that will raise taxes to support welfare. If we want people to earn a decent wage, then ditch Amazon et al and give your money to a company that cares. It's our money/vote and the way we use it can make a difference over time.
I don't think it's a great example by John Lewis/Waitrose appear to look after their staff better than others plus offer good customer service but despite their higher pricing seem to be doing OK in todays market.
Maybe not giving a shit is why they're in a minimum wage job**not everyone in a minimum wage role displays the same attitude.
As a youth I worked on a fruit farm picking apples, minimum wage stuff. The older guys doing casual work for minimum wage never gave a monkeys. They used to purposely drop and ruin the fruit. I NEVER understood this, I always tried as hard as I could. I just can't understand why you would break things on purpose? 😐
None of them ever lasted more than a few weeks and it was always, the fault of the f*g c* that got them sacked, never their own.
It's becoming the new norm, Uber, Amazon warehouses, Sports Direct....
Multinational parent company pays no tax on huge profits (all routed via a tax haven) and employs most of it's staff on insecure minimum wage (or below) jobs.
Welcome to the 21st Century....
There's a lot to be said for a higher minimum wage, but some jobs will always be the lowest paid. Hard to see how delivering parcels isn't one of them.
*pokes flame proof tory flag over the parapet*
At some point you have to agree with that. That a job requires so little skill that supply and demand means that the number of people that could do it outstrips the number of jobs and the price for that job hits rock bottom. At that point the minimum wage kicks in (see I'm not really tory). If you really wanted to earn more money, you should try harder (or have tried harder at school), dig yourself out of the hole, find a skill/niche that you're good at and can make the system work in your favor.
Then the number of people with few/no skill drops and the wages go up as demand grows for people still prepared to do crap jobs.
However organic the hummus is that you order, the delivery driver's still going to be paid minimum wage.
Which comes first through, the chicken or the egg*? Are waitrose staff paid more and therefore do a better job. Or does the no piercings, no tattoos, and put some effort into your appearance policy** mean that those that work there are the ones that put a suit on for the interview, thus putting themselves into a minority and getting out of the minimum wage job***?I don't think it's a great example by John Lewis/Waitrose appear to look after their staff better than others plus offer good customer service but despite their higher pricing seem to be doing OK in todays market.
*the egg, a chicken like creature obviously laid it, that's evolution.
**I've no idea what their policy is, but be honest they're better turned out than the staff in Tesco so I suspect there is one.
*** Do Waitrose pay the living wage, I've no idea, Lidl do.
In 1970, £10 of every £100 of profit was distributed to shareholders: today, under intense pressure from short-term owners, companies pay out £70.
Cheers binners, when Will opens with nonsense like this, you know you don't have to read too far!
Not only is the number wrong but extrapolating short term trends and ignoring the long term ones is rather silly. But nice dramatic numbers can be used to alter perceptions well.
As an aside, good to see dividends recovering in actual terms and as a means of rewarding investors - divis have to be paid out of cash and so much less room for distortion.
Anyway, no need to moan - just buy some high yielding stocks if its such a rip off then everyone's a winner
Low wages also mean you lot get more.
Things like the hospitality sector have awful wages - but we get cheap holidays and a meal out.
At some point you have to agree with that. That a job requires so little skill that supply and demand means that the number of people that could do it outstrips the number of jobs and the price for that job hits rock bottom. At that point the minimum wage kicks in (see I'm not really tory). If you really wanted to earn more money, you should try harder (or have tried harder at school), dig yourself out of the hole, find a skill/niche that you're good at and can make the system work in your favor.
The trouble is companies are avoiding minium wadges via the zero hours and "self employed" method of payment. On top of that I think wadges are not just about skill level, but also effort, stress, danger, resonsability. While delivering pasels is not particauly dangerouse, there is a fair amount of stress if the work is based on pasels delivered and you ar consantly in traffic and it reuire more effort than holding up a "golf sale" sign.
Since 2000 average wages are up 59% versus inflation of 39%. How has productivity compared over the period?
Cheers binners, when Will opens with nonsense like this, you know you don't have to read too far!
I will refrain from the obvious question about source and links
😉
Since 2000 average wages are up 59% versus inflation of 39%. How has productivity compared over the period?
I will refrain from the obvious question about source and links
Maybe not giving a shit is why they're in a minimum wage job*
*not everyone in a minimum wage role displays the same attitude.
and not everyone who is well paid gives a shit, so many people are well paid, well looked after, well supported and rewarded by their employer who take the piss, slack off, see sick leave as holiday etc.
Some people have a good work ethic some don't
Office of National Statistics - all there for everyone to see.
Linky? I'm boyctting Google 😛
The delivery cost issue is specifically the collective fault of all of us. We expect on demand delivery, complain if the charge is explicit and above £2.50, and know we can obtain our products from online retailers making the most of their tax status to keep costs down.
It's great except for the 50 year old self employed delivery driver, using his own car and getting 80p per delivery. Incidentally probably putting other road users inc cyclists at risk while he bombs around trying to fit enough drops in.
At some point you have to agree with that. That a job requires so little skill that supply and demand means that the number of people that could do it outstrips the number of jobs and the price for that job hits rock bottom. At that point the minimum wage kicks in (see I'm not really tory). If you really wanted to earn more money, you should try harder (or have tried harder at school), dig yourself out of the hole, find a skill/niche that you're good at and can make the system work in your favor.
It's counter productive though, if you have too many people earning too little, you don't have enough purchasing power in the economy to create domestic demand. A higher mininum wage, which means even the lowest skilled jobs have disposable income, is better for the economy.
teamhurtmore - MemberSince 2000 average wages are up 59% versus inflation of 39%. How has productivity compared over the period?
POSTED 6 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
Do these figures include the self employed & zero hour contracts etc?
From the UK parliament website.....
Most people who are self-employed have chosen to be so voluntarily and many value the freedom it provides. But the flexibility cuts both ways, and the growth in the numbers of self-employed, particularly at the lower end of the income distribution, raises questions about job security.Given that self-employed workers earn less, on average, than other workers, the growth in their numbers may also have implications for tax revenues and the welfare bill.
What the **** do we thinks going to happen? Seriously? With people viewed as little more than disposable serfs, while the lords and masters live lives of unimaginable wealth and privilege
Serious question: Who's going to change it?
We already know the country is just about full enough of people who are doing ok (hence the Tory government) so there won't be significant change through the ballot box.
Even if that weren't the case, Corbyn is making Labour un-electable to the majority of the country that aren't left wing activists. Are the Lib-dems going to bounce back with there sensible policies? I doubt they will ever govern again (even in coalition).
Which leaves what?
I think parliament acknowledges that self employment is great to provide a decent wage....
Those in self-employment earn less, on average, than other workers. Data from the Family Resources Survey shows that in 2012/13, the average (median) income for all people with income from self-employment sources was around £11,000.Incomes for the self-employed have also fallen faster in recent years than for other sorts of worker: adjusting for inflation, average income from self-employment fell by 22% between 2008/09 and 2012/13.
But at least we get cheaper goods delivered free to our homes!
Which leaves what?
[img] 
[/img]
Brilliant - better get that shotgun licence...
[img] 
[/img]
Which leaves what?
Photo of Yodel economy delivery model...
With respect to the delivery driver/minimum wage issue, I do wonder
- do posties deserve the minimum wage then? If anything their job requires less skill than a multi drop driver who is require to hit tight timescales in order to survive.
- do UPS/FedEx/DHL use drivers on zero hour contracts, 60p drops and so on? Or are they salaried? If so, why are they still competitive?
- do Amazon deliveries in other countries use service providers with the same/similar models of payment as here? Germany, particularly. If not, then why is their product pricing still competitive- are our labour laws so lax that they beg to be taken advantage of, rather than providing a delivery service at a price that the retailer NEEDS to deliver the product and still make a profit?
I used to have a really good work ethic, then I ended up working a places where I had no or little control over my time or tasks, got bonced round a lot like a resource. That killed my work ethic. I now work hard when its something for myself that I have control over, but for my employer, it fits and starts of perfectionn to desperation.
[i]It's becoming the new norm, Uber, Amazon warehouses, Sports Direct....
Multinational parent company pays no tax on huge profits (all routed via a tax haven) and employs most of it's staff on insecure minimum wage (or below) jobs.
Welcome to the 21st Century....
[/i]
I think you'll find that the 19th Century and before was no different, and tbh the 20th Century was only really a average-man 'utopia' between the end of WW2 and Mrs T coming in.
do Amazon deliveries in other countries use service providers with the same/similar models of payment as here? Germany, particularly.
All of my recent Amazon deliveries have been DHL-Deutschepost. But all have been Amazon UK orders, even though some have been shipped from UK and others direct from just up the road in Bad Hersfeld, even though it was the UK book at UK 0% VAT price.
All were delivered on a Saturday morning with an announced timeslot (even if the slot was "between 8am and noon") sent by email the day before.
Thought Amazon UK were using MyHermes?
I know it's TV and things are sensationalised, but that depot is exactly how imagine Yodel and Hermes.
[I] are our labour laws so lax that they beg to be taken advantage of, rather than providing a delivery service at a price that the retailer NEEDS to deliver the product and still make a profit? [/I]
Officers of a company are required to run their business to its most profitable, nevermind due to shareholder demand...
Therefore SHOULD take advantage of anything that exists, as they know that their competitors will - which is why we need laws to protect us.
As said we only have ourselves to blame. "Free" postage is simply passing the cost on to someone else. The hypocrisy is everywhere, you only need to scan through this site to see the amount of hand wringers who love to feel outraged about everything and anything and then in the next breath cream themselves over a PSA for cheap sunglasses imported from god knows where.
I think its fair to say that the majority on here are more than comfortably well off enough to pay their own way but people choose not to because at the end of the day they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. The amount of times I've heard the argument trotted out that "theres nobody else" is ridiculous. There is. It just doesn't suit your wallet or morals.
If we all care that much wheres the campaign to replace the site ads with non google alternatives? Or is it easier to sit on the moral high ground, ban Daily Mail links but happily accept offshore "taxed" money.
On work ethic - treat an employee like shit and they'll respond in kind. Its not hard, people very quickly get sick of working for no thanks and when effort fails to reward they'll divert their energies elsewhere.
The problem with the "devil take the hindmost" attitude is that these jobs need to be done by someone. It is no answer just to say that those on minimum wage should have "aspired" higher, worked harder at school, or in their job. Checkouts still need manned, shelves need stacked, bins need emptied, parcels delivered. Somone's got to do it. How should we treat these people, and why? Cleaning a hospital is an absolutely essential task, vital for hygiene.
FWIW the staff in the local booths are great, all really friendly, helpful, professional. Min wage or not, I don't know why. I assume there is more to a job than the salary alone.
they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing
Hence, why Planet-X and Sports Direct do so well.
The trouble is companies are avoiding minium wadges via the zero hours and "self employed" method of payment. On top of that I think wadges are not just about skill level, but also effort, stress, danger, resonsability. While delivering pasels is not particauly dangerouse, there is a fair amount of stress if the work is based on pasels delivered and you ar consantly in traffic and it reuire more effort than holding up a "golf sale" sign.
Yep, but all those things (stress, danger, etc) are things you could do to get out of minimum wage too. Or any other wage.
You could be a welder, and weld trailers in a nice warm shed somewhere.
You could be a welder, and weld bits of oil rigs back together in Nigeria and probably retire at 30something.
Any wage is going to be a function of skill, danger, stress, location, and even ethics/morals, hence why jobs in the oil industry generally pay more than the equivalents elsewhere, no one wants to work on an oil rig and live in Aberdeen, which is why the pay is probably 50% more than similar jobs even in the Oil industry in London. Then the oil jobs in London pay better than the charity jobs (you could drill water wells in Africa), because you lose something morally/ethically too.
It's counter productive though, if you have too many people earning too little, you don't have enough purchasing power in the economy to create domestic demand. A higher mininum wage, which means even the lowest skilled jobs have disposable income, is better for the economy.
I agree, but I don't necessarily think that a lowest common denominator raising of the minimum wage is the way to get there. A more skilled workforce get's you the same rise in wages, without shafting those who've already worked their way up the ladder. If you're earning £9/hour doing something involving a skill (or more stress, in a worse location, whatever justifies the minimum wage + a bit) and the minimum wage goes up to that level then you may well think **** it I'll go work for yodel rather than deal with this.