Q: If you employ a three person workforce at £10 per hour each, how much do you pay all three for their hour's work?
Q: If you employ just two workers at £15 per hour each, how much do you pay the duo for an hour's work?
Q: If you can only afford to pay £30 per hour for your workforce, how many of your three workers will you need to sack after having jumped their pay from £10 per hour to £15 per hour?
These may sound like very basic Lower 4th Maths exam questions, and most of us would get the answers right. However, some don't seem to grasp the indications. If you increase basic pay by 50%, prices will invariably rise, and unemployment will also rise; of that there is no doubt.
Could someone please explain this to Sir Keir and The Labour Party; or are they simply very happy to be in opposition for the foreseeable future? We all know that The Labour Party is the party of high unemployment, and high taxes; but if they're looking for votes they should be a tad more caring towards those who traditionally vote for them.
I don't wish to knock Dear Angela Rayner (Deputy Leader, and The Shadow Secretary of State for The Future of Work), but she did leave school aged 16 without any qualifications. It's beginning to show!
Dontcha love 'em?
There is a suggestion that English pay for basic workers should be increased to £50 an hour? I might have guessed a 3% per cent increase PA might be close to right.ReplyDelete
Staffing costs will increase prices, and that has been consistent through history. But employment is surely matched to demand. I don't believe that increases in wages lead to unemployment. The demand for goods and services remains, even if such things cost a little bit more.
Economics is a very complicated subject.
£15 an hour not £50. I'm afraid that Labour's attempts at increasing living standards have ALWAYS ended with higher unemployment. They seem only to think so far, and fail to predict the consequences.Delete
Andrew, from a checkout point of view, increased wages does mean more unemployment, because, hard as it is to believe, there is a budgeted amount for checkout workers and if you go over budget, then surely you have too many working and must reduce their hours or let them go. This is why hiring juniors is so popular, they get paid less.Delete
that woman is vile.ReplyDelete
Andy Burnham loves her!Delete
Exactly what I said to hubby, so Labour is changing, they have learnt the lessons from their past history. I think not.ReplyDelete
They have real problems. Not only irresponsible policies, but constant in-fighting. They really do need to get their act together.Delete
And Scotland is where Sir Keir as until seats are won there again he has no chance… although I do agree with your sentiments on his deputy…ReplyDelete
Ms Rayner is loved by many on the hard left of her party, but feared by the voting public. She is NOT an advantage to their cause.Delete
My understanding is that Sir Keir was not in favour of the £15 minimum wage but the party voted for it.ReplyDelete
If the minimum wage is so low that workers are also on tax credit or other benefits in order to make ends meet, we all (as tax payers) end up paying for it anyway. If cheap food is at the expense of a decent wage that only the big corporations get richer as a result of paying low wages and, by nifty accounting, low tax as well. As usual, the rich get richer and the less well off are bumping along the bottom.
I believe Starmer has switched sides a few times. He's trying to please the voters, and at the same time hoping to keep his job. One thing that's sure, is that Labour always leave power with higher unemployment than they started with. It's part of Labour's strategy.Delete
So perhaps abolish the minimum wage completely?ReplyDelete
The minimum wage ensures that a certain standard of living is there for all. It needs to be kept at a reasonable level, but not used as a begrudging maximum.Delete
NEVER abolish the minimum wage. Look to USA where poor people work two-three-four jobs just to get food on the table and hope like hell their kids don't get sick.Delete
I didn't know until Sir Kneel told me that his father was a tool maker. The old boy certainly did a good job in Kneel's case.ReplyDelete
On a more serious note your analysis and conclusions are as bad as his. The solution is to let the market dictate wages without they being artificially influenced by public sector pay rates. It's cheaper to keep folk too stupid or idle for work on benefits.
This ignores the problems of indiscriminate immigration and all the green nonsense. It's gone too far and is certainly beyond my intellect to sort. Beyond politicians as well they can see the problems but have no ideas for a solution.
I fear that your theory is correct. Let the markets decide; the markets are very rarely wrong.Delete
No quite consistent with your previous comment Cro - you are flip flopping like a politician!Delete
Impossible to explain Maths to politicians of any party. They only thing they understand is pockets and how full they can get theirs, while the minions are told to 'tighten their belts'ReplyDelete
I don't get your point. Keir Starmer has sensibly chosen to show restraint before proposing a new minimum wage target. By the way no Tory bosses have ever shown willing support for minimum wage arrangements. They would rather have the workers living in relative poverty.ReplyDelete
This is untrue.Delete
Neil I suspect you are confusing Capitalists with Globalists.Delete