This is what is wrong with this country ?

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I think what the problem is, EVERYTHING is going up, but wages have been frozen, so we are being hit both ways, IF a major companies moves out of the UK, then everyone suffers, the distributors cannot pay decent money to employees.

It is OK for the government to cut all these cuts, but then they don't think of what is going to happen at the bottom end of the scale, they states that everyone must make adjustments, but how can they, when they hands are tied.

[mertle]

Originally Posted by Traduk

I think that the situation regarding these jobs is simply being used as argument point to display an apparent workshy attitude amongst UK workers but without regard to facts. Fairly typical for this forum.

The article carrying the story was in the Daily Mail and stipulated that the jobs in question where 238 in number and all in London locations. It implied that they were managerial in nature but due to lazy reporting did not stipulate salaries beyond the broad spectrum of salaries paid to managers.

I think that for a newbie manager the lowest level can be safely assumed and that was stated at £26K p.a. London is just about the most expensive part of the UK to live, work or get to and £26K is an uneconomic salary to work in London.

I live 30 miles from London (within the commuter belt) and an annual season ticket (rail) is £4K p.a. which given a 1.5 hour (each way) commute plus the need for £4K net I would have wanted well in excess of £10K p.a. to even contemplate the stress of the extra pressure. It takes some incentive to get up at 06.00 and return home at 20.00 and national average wage isn't going to do it for me or I guess many others.

Living costs within easier striking distance of London are prohibitively expensive as Ignitionnet can attest but even if he over pays a more realistic but bottom end cost is that incurred by my niece who in her 7th year of a Phd course has regularly had to find (from the bank of parents) £12K p.a. to student share multiple occupied accommodation.

The reason why those jobs are unfilled is that they are not offered with regard to the economic costs for the area involved and that defies free market logic. Market logic dictates that for demand to meet supply price must attract supply and it this case it does not.

The question that arises from this situation is if locals find what is on offer uneconomic how is it that Slovakians will find it economic. The fact that they can live on paper round money in their home country has nothing to do with it as they can hardly commute so where does the extra cash come from that makes it viable for them but not for locals.

If there are loopholes that assist incoming migrant workers with cash payments it is a reasonable argument that companies are using such public money in an exploitative manner to the detriment of incumbents and getting around market forces.

If the maths do not work for locals they will not work for anybody providing there are no other factors in the equation. The story was printed to show a work shy Britain and without doubt appalled the chattering classes. It is the "why spoil a good story with facts" element where the truth lies and it may not be palatable.

When I owned businesses and directorships I had to pay market rates or above to secure the staff I wanted. If I advertised below the going rate, for the area I might just as well have put the advertising cost in a charity box. Market forces dictated where the bar was and I had to pitch above or end up with permanently unfilled positions.

It is imperative that regional differences in costs are factored into any thought process regarding pay. Inner and Outer London pay supplements are not given away out of largesse by companies and barely cover costs.

There lies the major issue while london and the belt inflate the issue and we have government who thinks all jobs should be in the belt of london then the situation wont get better.

How can we prevent expensive britain strangling the country.

I think we could consider devalue method as option other ways is to possibly Capping land/property prices so they dont get out of control. Would argue london and the belts already way too dear and likely already out of control.

The impact is wages have to reflect the region...

Something got to be done yes there is some workshy but there infernate more issues which needs addressing. Make britian a place companies want to invest.

ps wayfair wont name the company its not the wisest thing for my brother in law.

Hugh sadly H&S did bugger all despite complaints.

---------- Post added at 12:27 ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 ----------

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I think what the problem is, EVERYTHING is going up, but wages have been frozen, so we are being hit both ways, IF a major companies moves out of the UK, then everyone suffers, the distributors cannot pay decent money to employees.

It is OK for the government to cut all these cuts, but then they don't think of what is going to happen at the bottom end of the scale, they states that everyone must make adjustments, but how can they, when they hands are tied.

Well said.

People need to wake up that expensive britain is the issue.

There need to be incentives. A system in place before the whip cracked.

Cheaper properties/land costs or at least regulation to stop it accelerating out of control.

There needs to be some sort programme to encourage companies to provide a private sector job boom. If that means regulation process then so be it. Maybe some tax relief if they promise to invest and create jobs but by company by company. If dont invest and you can afford to then high taxasion. Provide a percentage to job creation then get a better tax deal.

Skills shortage programme not work schemes like we had in the past which was not reconised by industry merely a way to get people off the dole. Proper apprenticeship scheme. Lets go back to something which actually worked. The system would be for Youth mainly but for stop fill to get adults back then allow apprenticeships for upto 40 year olds.

Lets not go down thatcher lost generation on pretence we need cuts.

[Traduk]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

The trouble now is that were a couple of years ago a job salary was £22,000 a company looking for staff can now advertise it for £12,000.

In most cases with the rising costs of fuel, and public transport people living out side the job area cannot afford to live if they got that job.

I myself looked at a job that paid minimum wage against my out goings and it worked out that I would pay roughly £60 a month to work there.

There is a social engineering trend that has been under way for some time but will accelerate with austerity measures.

Apart from the very rich many\most people get trapped in the trade off between income and cost. It is entirely possible to be relatively poor on a fairly high income level due to location. It is when such a situation develops that the difference between gross and net income hits very hard and an individual realises they are trapped. They are exploited by the state and local housing plus living costs.

The trend towards cheaper costs for greater profits within companies has become too normal and migrated into areas where costs are relatively low but salaries are below economic levels. With the draconian changes in welfare support structures it can only lead to extreme hardship and in time the multiple prongs of social engineering will unravel in a generalised explosion of anger.

It happened in the late 70's when people generally had taken as much pain as they could endure. The "Winter of discontent" doesn't see justice in historic reports but the UK was just about to get flushed down the loo and people were so depressed that they didn't care. It will take some time to get there again but the ingredients are falling into line and without more U turns than is possible is unavoidable.

People will not be marginalised with no hope and pointed towards supposed jobs with no financial viability. They will become angry and at some point need to vent that anger. Democracy is based on the premise that via majority vote those elected govern in the interests of the majority. This thread highlights an anti democratic trend whereby migrant workers are pulling down wages\salaries to distorted market levels and to the disadvantage of locals. The longer it goes on the more Brits are marginalised the greater the tensions.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Traduk

Apart from the very rich many\most people get trapped in the trade off between income and cost. It is entirely possible to be relatively poor on a fairly high income level due to location. It is when such a situation develops that the difference between gross and net income hits very hard and an individual realises they are trapped. They are exploited by the state and local housing plus living costs.

True, true.

My rent on my flat would make many people's eyes bleed.

[Hom3r]

I thank god that we do have a minimum wage. Back in 1985 I left school and was waiting for a YTS placement (Youth Training Scheme) while I waited I got a job a a big fast food chain, and was paid £1.48 per hour.

I did get free food/drink at breaks, but not much good to a non meat eater.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I think what the problem is, EVERYTHING is going up, but wages have been frozen, so we are being hit both ways, IF a major companies moves out of the UK, then everyone suffers, the distributors cannot pay decent money to employees.

It is OK for the government to cut all these cuts, but then they don't think of what is going to happen at the bottom end of the scale, they states that everyone must make adjustments, but how can they, when they hands are tied.

The bottom end of the scale is getting income tax cuts at the expense of people higher up the scale.

Wages aren't keeping pace with inflation but were doing more than previously.

[Gary L]

Just think. at the next election Cameron will be saying I will reduce public services further. I will make more cuts to the police force. I will make more big funding cuts to most services. vote for me!

whilst the other parties just have to say we will increase support and funding that they know the voting public didn't like the cuts to, and they're in the door!

Here you go Arthur, a story to gladden your heart.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12733899

Migrants from outside the European Economic Area will no longer be allowed to work in the UK as chefs in takeaway restaurants, the government has said.[

A similar ban will apply to workers such as hairdressers, beauty salon managers and estate agents from April.

That'll teach all those hairdressers, coming in here and stealing our jobs.

It is a Tory initiative, but then you can't have everything, can you.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by martyh

whats wrong with companies earning money ? a fair wage is all a worker is entitled to ,he/she is not entitled to wages way beyond their skill level just so they can afford nice cars and big tellys, otherwise you wouldn't have any incentive to better yourself

A fair wage is a living wage not the minimum, far to many companies seem to have it as the default wage these days imo.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

A fair wage is a living wage not the minimum, far to many companies seem to have it as the default wage these days imo.

That's a good point really.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Gary L

whilst the other parties just have to say we will increase support and funding that they know the voting public didn't like the cuts to, and they're in the door!

Very true. How they pay for this support and funding is of course just a minor detail.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Very true. How they pay for this support and funding is of course just a minor detail.

I know. but it won't matter.

[Osem]

Surey you're not suggesting that Arthur's not the only one who'll vote for anyone who promises to spend, spend, spend. The 'Gain With No Pain' party...

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

If you go to a jobcentre, looking for a job, 9/10 it will be an agency (who make the money) advertising the job, A JC will nornmally advertise a job for 13.000 or 14.000 per year.

Who ever goes for that job, has to look at, hours, commuting, and what happenes after tax, to get tax credits, you have to be in the job for six weeks, to try and get help with travelling, is a no no, l have tried it.

Companies are moving out of the country due to costs in the UK, Companies are advertising for jobs as it will be mostly foriegn people will apply for it.

My whole point is that, You have to go for a job that pays the money. Over the years, l have worked for some right b's, and this is what is wrong, IF employers can get away with employing cheap labour, they will.

Arthur you seem to be under the illusion that companies are only in existence to give people a job ,they are not ,they are in business to make money so of course they will take the cheapest labour possible ,if a company could operate without staff then they would .Higher wages mean higher prices at the checkout .
One of the problems we are facing at the moment is that the cost of living is going through the roof but wages are being dropped or frozen so people have less or no disposable income ,bills will not get paid ,second cars will be sold and more people will elect to remain on the dole as it just isn't worth going to work ,why would anyone work at a loss when the state will pay rent/mortgage

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Osem

Surey you're not suggesting that Arthur's not the only one who'll vote for anyone who promises to spend, spend, spend. The 'Gain With No Pain' party...

That's what the voter will want. or do you expect every parties manifesto is going to say we promise to cut this and that, and the public will vote for the one with the most cuts planned?

it used to be the case that we voted for a party that said they we're going to put more police on the street. remember them days?