Liberals will always be a problem.....
Well, firstly unemployment didn't rise.
United Kingdom Unemployment Rate | 1971-2016 | Data | Chart | Calendar
As you can see unemployment was dropping from a recession in the early 1990, then unemployment dropped for the next 9 years more or less.
Benefit spending ROSE under Labour
As you can see the minimum wage came in soon after Labour got into power in 1997, welfare payments then increased from about 2000 onwards once they'd go what they wanted in place. So for the next 7 years of rising employment and rising welfare and the minimum wage rose throughout this time.
Benefit spending isn't entirely relevant to the discussion.
In the 1990s, the Republicans pushed welfare reform until it was passed. This forced millions of people off of food stamps and welfare, and into the work force. Unemployment unsurprisingly fell.
If you force people to work, they will work. So even if benefits increase over all, if you force people off welfare and food stamps, they may still collect subsidized housing, and other benefits, while still reducing unemployment.
Government benefits may go up or down, and not have a direct effect on unemployment.
Secondly, the minimum wage in this case, was not all that effective, for a number of reasons.
For one, the minimum wage is very low. When it was introduced, it was only £3.60, which is barely $4.25. In other words, in a country with a higher cost of living than the US, they had a lower minimum wage than the US.
However more importantly, the minimum wage has barely kept pace with inflation. £3.60 in 1999 converts to about £6 today. It was only this very year, that they bumped up the UK minimum wage from £6.70 to £7.20. It's it just barely ahead of inflation.
But likely the absolute most important aspect, is that every time the minimum wage gets high enough that it may actually affect employment, they introduce a new lower minimum wage.
From the beginning there was a lower minimum wage of just £3 an hour.
Then they introduced a lower 16-17 year old wage of £3, below the 18-21 wage of £3.20, which was below the top minimum wage of £4.50.
Then they added an apprenticeship wage that started out at £2.50.
And by the way, the new "living wage" they introduced this year, is only £7.20, which is about $8.80 an hour, and only applies to people over 25. Quite frankly I don't know anyone over 25, that is earning less than $8.80 an hour. I myself, have no degrees, no skills, no certification, nothing. I earn $12/hour.
And you think that proves the minimum wage doesn't ruin employment?
Do you see the problem? The specific people that would be most affected by a minimum wage, are exempt from the minimum wage.
Yeah if you exempt all the 16 to 17s, the 18 to 21, and all the apprenticeship laborers from the minimum wage.... if you exempt all the people who are the most likely to be earning minimum wage, from the minimum wage laws....... yeah it won't harm employment!
And if you wish to put in place a "living wage" like the UK, which is barely eight and half dollars an hour, knock yourself out. That won't hurt employment either.
But if you put in place a real massive minimum wage hike, like $15 an hour in Seattle, then yeah, that's going to kill jobs. And it does. And the proof is documented.
So, benefit spending isn't relevant to this discussion, so why did you bring it up then?
Yes, I agree, people should be forced to work if they can. But we're not talking about forcing people to work, we're talking about when they do work that they earn a livable wage.
Well minimum wage in the US wasn't exactly high at that time. It was about 5 bucks at the time, which was ridiculous even for then. At the time it was about 2/3 so, 3.60 would have been about the equivalent of about $5. However considering that people were earning 2.50 an hour in the UK, a hike of 1 pound an hour was actually quite a rise at the time. It was done sensibly, not simply just a "this is what we think they should get", they increased it over time.
Barely ahead of inflation is neither here nor there. The issue is whether it is a livable wage or not. UK house prices are actually quite high. In London this would definitely not be livable, elsewhere it might be.
What is the Living Wage? Living Wage Foundation
This page says the living wage is 8.45 an hour and 9.75 in London, hardly surprising that the minimum wage is lower than this, and that the Tories have been in for 6 years.
UK minimum wage is hardly $8 an hour. The currency has lost a lot of weight recently, like 10% on the Euro and more on the dollar, so it was more like $9 or $10 and hour, however the British people have fucked themselves over.
However the argument was that a minimum wage would cause problems. Has it? Not, it hasn't.
Well, firstly unemployment didn't rise.
United Kingdom Unemployment Rate | 1971-2016 | Data | Chart | Calendar
As you can see unemployment was dropping from a recession in the early 1990, then unemployment dropped for the next 9 years more or less.
Benefit spending ROSE under Labour
As you can see the minimum wage came in soon after Labour got into power in 1997, welfare payments then increased from about 2000 onwards once they'd go what they wanted in place. So for the next 7 years of rising employment and rising welfare and the minimum wage rose throughout this time.
Benefit spending isn't entirely relevant to the discussion.
In the 1990s, the Republicans pushed welfare reform until it was passed. This forced millions of people off of food stamps and welfare, and into the work force. Unemployment unsurprisingly fell.
If you force people to work, they will work. So even if benefits increase over all, if you force people off welfare and food stamps, they may still collect subsidized housing, and other benefits, while still reducing unemployment.
Government benefits may go up or down, and not have a direct effect on unemployment.
Secondly, the minimum wage in this case, was not all that effective, for a number of reasons.
For one, the minimum wage is very low. When it was introduced, it was only £3.60, which is barely $4.25. In other words, in a country with a higher cost of living than the US, they had a lower minimum wage than the US.
However more importantly, the minimum wage has barely kept pace with inflation. £3.60 in 1999 converts to about £6 today. It was only this very year, that they bumped up the UK minimum wage from £6.70 to £7.20. It's it just barely ahead of inflation.
But likely the absolute most important aspect, is that every time the minimum wage gets high enough that it may actually affect employment, they introduce a new lower minimum wage.
From the beginning there was a lower minimum wage of just £3 an hour.
Then they introduced a lower 16-17 year old wage of £3, below the 18-21 wage of £3.20, which was below the top minimum wage of £4.50.
Then they added an apprenticeship wage that started out at £2.50.
And by the way, the new "living wage" they introduced this year, is only £7.20, which is about $8.80 an hour, and only applies to people over 25. Quite frankly I don't know anyone over 25, that is earning less than $8.80 an hour. I myself, have no degrees, no skills, no certification, nothing. I earn $12/hour.
And you think that proves the minimum wage doesn't ruin employment?
Do you see the problem? The specific people that would be most affected by a minimum wage, are exempt from the minimum wage.
Yeah if you exempt all the 16 to 17s, the 18 to 21, and all the apprenticeship laborers from the minimum wage.... if you exempt all the people who are the most likely to be earning minimum wage, from the minimum wage laws....... yeah it won't harm employment!
And if you wish to put in place a "living wage" like the UK, which is barely eight and half dollars an hour, knock yourself out. That won't hurt employment either.
But if you put in place a real massive minimum wage hike, like $15 an hour in Seattle, then yeah, that's going to kill jobs. And it does. And the proof is documented.
So, benefit spending isn't relevant to this discussion, so why did you bring it up then?
Yes, I agree, people should be forced to work if they can. But we're not talking about forcing people to work, we're talking about when they do work that they earn a livable wage.
Well minimum wage in the US wasn't exactly high at that time. It was about 5 bucks at the time, which was ridiculous even for then. At the time it was about 2/3 so, 3.60 would have been about the equivalent of about $5. However considering that people were earning 2.50 an hour in the UK, a hike of 1 pound an hour was actually quite a rise at the time. It was done sensibly, not simply just a "this is what we think they should get", they increased it over time.
Barely ahead of inflation is neither here nor there. The issue is whether it is a livable wage or not. UK house prices are actually quite high. In London this would definitely not be livable, elsewhere it might be.
What is the Living Wage? Living Wage Foundation
This page says the living wage is 8.45 an hour and 9.75 in London, hardly surprising that the minimum wage is lower than this, and that the Tories have been in for 6 years.
UK minimum wage is hardly $8 an hour. The currency has lost a lot of weight recently, like 10% on the Euro and more on the dollar, so it was more like $9 or $10 and hour, however the British people have fucked themselves over.
However the argument was that a minimum wage would cause problems. Has it? Not, it hasn't.
To clarify, I said kicked them off welfare benefits. Not benefit spending. Those are not the same. There is benefit spending that doesn't harm specifically employment. And there is some that does.
I was asking if they rolled back welfare... not "benefit spending". Those are not the same.
Again, in the 1990s, we passed welfare reform. Benefit spending increased over all in the 1990s. But... welfare and food stamps were changed in a way that forced people to work.
For example. If you have 10 people on food stamps, and you dish out $20 per person, that's $200, and 10 people not working.
If you change the system so 8 of those people do not qualify, but the two that do get $110 in food stamps, that means benefits went up to $220, from $200.... but unemployment was reduced to 2 from 10.
"Benefit spending" doesn't mean much. I was asking if the UK might have done something like what we did in the 1990s, which reduced welfare and food stamp rolls dramatically, and thus reduced unemployment. Just pointing out that in raw numbers, benefits went up, doesn't indicate anything.
I said the UK minimum wage was $8.80. You pointed to a page that said $8.40. Then you said it's hardly $8 an hour. No one said it was $8 an hour.
NO, it's not $9 or $10 an hour.
And no £3.60 was not about $5. It was more like $4.25 an hour. And actually, it was less than that because taxes in the UK are much higher than here. So not only was the wage significantly lower than the US minimum wage, but you kept less of it.
No one who works consistently, is earning the minimum wage anyway. Those that don't, are not going to have a living wage, no matter what you make the 'living wage'.
You keep talking like "if they work a full time job, can they afford a house in London". If they work a full time job, and do so consistently over time, they are already earning far above the minimum wage to begin with.
tell you what since you seem to think everyone making less than 15 an hour gets some kind of government welfare why don't you put a link to that?
IOW you want to be paid for sitting on your ass at mommy's house
you get 12 years of free education once your'e an adult you're on your own
it's up to you to find out what skills will bring the best price in the marketplace and then get the training you need to perform those skills
The kid either does self study, or does the best he can with what is available.
yet, the cognitively dissonant right wing, claims we need nationalism and socialism when it comes to freedom of association and Contract in our at-will employment States when it comes to hiring people from out of State.
Clearly isn't enough if you have to work between 53 and 92 hours at minimum wage simply to be able to afford accommodation.
Not everyone that works a menial job is paying the rent. He's a kid hoping to build a resume, maybe save a few bucks. He's a student living with a bunch of roommates. Maybe it's an retired lady that wants to get out of the house and engage with people. It's also the simple man, uneducated and perhaps slow, but is fully capable of sweeping the floors.
Your minimum wage laws PREVENT those people from working at all.
Shame on you.
Sure, however there are those that are. In the UK there is a different minimum wage for those within certain years (like 16-18, then 18 to 20 something).
No, minimum wage DOES NOT prevent people from working. More people were working AFTER minimum wage in the UK than before. Shame on you for making up bullshit lies. This is why I demand evidence from people, too many people just make shit up.
Causation vs correlation....and the logical fallacy of anecdote.
Look at the unemployment rate among youth. Look at the number of people on the dole! Look at corporations installing machines the moment technology becomes more efficient than your minimum wage and other meddling in private matters of compensation.
Look at objective studies:
Let the Data Speak: The Truth Behind Minimum Wage Laws
Now I'm sure you can cite leftist economists that will swear minimum wage laws do not affect employment, despite logic and reason.
Fine, because here's the important part: You have no right to tell a man what he's willing to work for, you meddling ****.
that is what they said about Prohibition. only the right wing, never gets it.
Got to love those low cost of living welfare queen, red States.
Clearly isn't enough if you have to work between 53 and 92 hours at minimum wage simply to be able to afford accommodation.
Got to love those high costs of living deep blue States. LMAO
Only the right wing, never gets it. It is about privatizing costs not socializing costs.
Clearly isn't enough if you have to work between 53 and 92 hours at minimum wage simply to be able to afford accommodation.
Not everyone that works a menial job is paying the rent. He's a kid hoping to build a resume, maybe save a few bucks. He's a student living with a bunch of roommates. Maybe it's an retired lady that wants to get out of the house and engage with people. It's also the simple man, uneducated and perhaps slow, but is fully capable of sweeping the floors.
Your minimum wage laws PREVENT those people from working at all.
Shame on you.
Sure, however there are those that are. In the UK there is a different minimum wage for those within certain years (like 16-18, then 18 to 20 something).
No, minimum wage DOES NOT prevent people from working. More people were working AFTER minimum wage in the UK than before. Shame on you for making up bullshit lies. This is why I demand evidence from people, too many people just make shit up.
What evidence do you have to support this? Are you sure the minimum wage was not accompanied by a decrease in welfare benefits, forcing people who were living off the government, into the work force?
social services pays out around fourteen dollars an hour by market friendly comparison and market friendly contrast. only the right wing, never gets the point about market friendliness, if it is not about guns or lucre.
