O/T. The Government's handling of Covid

[Andy_Faber]

Increase the income of the poorest 50% or more and watch growth leap out at you. Bubble up is the way forward.

by handouts or by increasing the incentive to work?

[ramAnag]

by handouts or by increasing the incentive to work?

How about, radical I know, improving the minimum wage, redefining ‘zero hours contracts’ and improving the public sector pay structure so that people are not expected to take on huge burdens of responsibility for very little extra reward?
A current example being of someone I know very well accepting the role of Assistant Head (that’s already a cheap version of Deputy Head) in a local primary school only to find that her monthly pay rose (in net terms) in September by a whole £50 per month. What is the point?

[Ramshank72]

The Minimum / Living wage increases every April, there is also a "Real Living Wage", not legally compliant and is above minimum, which increases every year, it went up a whole 10% this year. What do you like to see in this respect?
How would you redefine a zero hour contract? A flexible and handy little earner, particularly for people who can't commit to regular working, people who want a little extra on the side of their day job, retired people topping up their holiday funds... or fleecing someone vulnerable who can't find alternative work? Not a loaded question, but you raise a good point of "redefining".
Public sector pay is complex and IMO shouldn't be considered any different to the private sector, maybe forgiving the armed forces as an exception.
I know this is pointy, but your mate should've considered her new wage before accepting, as anyone in the private sector would.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Well said that man

[ramAnag]

I believe the minimum wage for adults currently stands at £10.90 per hour (or £11.95) in London...if you think that is reasonable then we’ll have to disagree.

I understand your point about zero hour contracts and I think you identify the problem very well. It is those in the latter category - the ‘vulnerable’ being ‘fleeced’ - I am concerned about. That’s why I wrote ‘redefined’.

My point about the Assistant Head position was that...the whole concept of Assistant Heads is, it’s already a cheapskate version of a Deputy Head because schools are so short of funding.
People in education (I’ll stick with that because I know about it) accept positions for a whole raft of reasons including it being good for their CV however, when I became a Deputy Head in the late ‘90’s I was given time off timetable to do the job properly and a proper salary increase to go with the significant responsibility involved in the role.
In the example I’ve provided it seems to me that there is a similar level of responsibility while the person concerned still has to prepare lessons and mark the work while a TA delivers the lesson...all for about £12.50 extra per week. Unacceptable imo.

Personally I wouldn’t do it and if that is being replicated throughout the public sector then no wonder there is so much unrest.

[Ramshank72]

That's the Real Living Wage, calculated independently of the Government, is totally voluntary, and is calculated based upon cost of living.
The National Living Wage (legal minimum for age 23+) is actually less: £9.50 per hour (no additional London weighting), and is calculated by the Government as 66% of median earnings.
That the legal minimums are less than what is independently calculated, is a valid point for discussion.
In the private sector, had your friend (and others) turned down the role, she would create a skills shortage, which would drive an increase in wage for that profession. By accepting the position at that rate, only devalues her own profession.

[MadAmster]

by handouts or by increasing the incentive to work?

Up the minimum wage. Decrease tax on the poorest. Increase the incentive to work. Any means necessary as it's the poor who spend all they get thereby increasing demand for goods and services, creating new jobs, increasing profits and tax revenue. Yer average banker will salt it away for a rainy day......

[Andy_Faber]

Up the minimum wage. Decrease tax on the poorest. Increase the incentive to work. Any means necessary as it's the poor who spend all they get thereby increasing demand for goods and services, creating new jobs, increasing profits and tax revenue. Yer average banker will salt it away for a rainy day......

Fine with upping minimum wage but not if it has an equal or worse impact on job availability

The poor generally don't pay tax so I don't see how that's worthwhile

Totally behind increasing the increase of incentive to work but IMO that should include decreasing the incentive not to

Not sure how this would be funded though

[Geoff Parkstone]

Increasing the minimum wage wont cost the government anything as it will be paid by employers (who will also have more tax deductions themselves but this wont be as substantial a cost of lost tax revenue). It will however reduce employment prospects and squeeze a lot of small business such that they may just shut down. It may also squeeze service levels in such sectors as care industry where many staff are on zero hour, minimum wage deals. Thus pushing up costs for the most vulnerable in society. Swings and roundabouts.

Its a delicate balance.

Decreasing the incentive not to work has been in progress a long time, but doesn't seem to get some idlers off their arses. With the flight of much of the eastern european workforce post Brexit and pandemic, you'd have thought there would be queues of the unemployed stepping up to take on the roles that brexit was supposed to free up for them, but it seems to me that workforce UK consider such roles beneath them - which is why EU source, african and caribbean immigrant workforces came in in the first place.

It truly is insoluble in my view

[Andy_Faber]

How about, radical I know, improving the minimum wage, redefining ‘zero hours contracts’ and improving the public sector pay structure so that people are not expected to take on huge burdens of responsibility for very little extra reward?
A current example being of someone I know very well accepting the role of Assistant Head (that’s already a cheap version of Deputy Head) in a local primary school only to find that her monthly pay rose (in net terms) in September by a whole £50 per month. What is the point?

Fine with increase in minimum wage if it doesn't have an overall adverse impact on the jobs market. Zero hours contracts have their place so that would be a nuanced change not a step change. I agree improve SOME public sector pay but in my world that would be folk in ACTUAL front line jobs NOT support/admin roles.

Agreeing with others, if your friend was that bothered she should have turned the job down, she's contributing to the demeaning of the role's value. Ironically, as we were talking about it recently, if there is sufficient demand for the services/expertise she is offering to supply (and if there's any leeway within public sector pay scales) she'd get a better deal anyway. If not, she's no as valuable as she/you thought she was.

You never mentioned incentive to work though, IMO there HAS to be a bigger gap between those who want to work and those who don't (note I don't mean genuinely can't). In the spirit of swapping anecdotes, I have an acquaintance who for many years held down a job but maybe a decade or so ago realised she could work the system, quit the world of employment and be better off financially. We (you and I, through taxation) currently pay for her to live in a really nice private sector rental, run a car, go out two or three times a week, clothe and feed her family (without foodbanks) and even buy a hot tub (last year) and have two weeks in Turkey (this year) 'on the council'. She also soaks up (my estimate but I've spent a lot of time in her company over the years) maybe fif**** hours a week of 'public sector' personnel time per week. She's a 'nice' person but her job for life is now to avoid having a job. That's got to be wrong, and she's doing nothing wrong, she's just working the system.

Would you agree that changing the basis of reward for idleness and rooting out the (my estimate) hundreds of thousands doing that and then using the money saved to up the minimum wage by, lets say, £3 an hour, would be worth it? Genuine question