|
|
Post by stevek192 on Dec 12, 2014 10:30:30 GMT
Surely we do this already and if we do or do not,why shout it from the hillsides? Say some of our players are on £300 per week, thats £1200 per month and £14,400 per year.Surely that would be close to,if not above the "Living" Wage and I would say that would be the absolute minimum we are paying. I think you would find that a lot of players in our sq
|
|
|
|
Post by stevek192 on Dec 12, 2014 10:32:13 GMT
Surely we do this already and if we do or do not,why shout it from the hillsides? Say some of our players are on £300 per week, thats £1200 per month and £14,400 per year.Surely that would be close to,if not above the "Living" Wage and I would say that would be the absolute minimum we are paying. I think you would find that a lot of players in our squad are on well over that amount, There are many occupations on far less than £300 per week for doing a lot more than playing football!!!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 10:33:18 GMT
I guess the only people who might not get this are those working around the stadium, for example stewards, catering etc suspect a lot of these are casual / part time. Think there is also a difference between minimum wage which we have to pay and living wage that is a bit more.
|
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969 
|
Post by LJG on Dec 12, 2014 10:41:28 GMT
In the past many communities would use the Cowry shell as currency. One community in West Africa still does. It's a shell found mostly in the Indian Ocean and historically used as body ornamentation.
Let's say a cow costs 30 shells and a bag of corn costs an equivalent amount. Normally the guy buys a cow each month and the cow seller buys a bag of corn.
One night the guy figures out if he snaps his shells in half he has 60 shells, not 30. He can buy two cows. So he does and the cow seller, feeling flush, buys two bags of corn.
Now guy round the corner usually buys a cow and a bag of corn each month. He hasn't figured out he can snap the shells in half. His neighbour does the same and as cow seller usually has three cows for sale each month, everyone is happy. But today round the corner guy and his neighbour go to cow seller and see only one cow since snap shell guy bought two. Uh oh! They enter a bidding war and round the corner guy ends up paying 40 shells for the cow. The cost of a cow is now 40 shells. Last night one shell could have bought you 0.034 of a cow. This morning it only gets you 0.025 cow.
Next they go to the corn selling guy. He's only got the one bag left since cow selling guy got greedy. Corner guy has 20 shells left, neighbour still has sixty. Neighbour is about to buy the last bag of corn for the usual 30 shells when snapping shell guy's mate comes in with a load of snapped shells and wants to buy it too. They enter a bidding war and snappy shell idiot can go for it because he knows the shell snapping thing. Anyway, long story short Corner guy and neighbour have to go in together for a bag of corn at a cost of 80 shells. Woah! A bag of corn now costs 80 shells!!! Last night one shell would buy you 0.034 of a bag of corn this morning it only gets you 0.0125!!!! What the flip kind of shell buying power is that???
So this whole charade goes on for a while until cow selling guy needs to buy more cows from the guy who lives across the border in the neighbouring province. He hands over a bunch of broken shells and provincial guy is like "WTF is this, idiot? These ain't no shells. Ain't no broken shells not gunna buy no cows of mine". Cow seller has no cows for sale - he can't buy corn. Cow supply can't meet demand. Cow prices are now through the roof! The ordinary folk can't buy cows anymore! Snap the shells again!
Sadly there are only so many times you can snap a shell before it turns into dust.
Ever wondered why little run around secondhand cars were so expensive for a couple of years? The sort of car you buy your son for his 17th birthday? The scrappage scheme in 2008 got rid of them all. They became rare and pricey.
Anyway - best way to give money to low earners is stop taking money out of their pocket - match the income tax threshold to the minimum wage so that those people don't pay tax. Since if the government say it's immoral for you to earn less than that then don't make them earn less than that through taxation. Which is what the Autumn statement announced last week.
Blimey ... that was more long winded than one of SteveK's match reports.
|
|
|
|
Post by dickgherkin on Dec 12, 2014 11:06:35 GMT
If you've got the time (its a FAIRLY easy read), David Graeber's "Debt: The First 5,000 Years" explodes the cowrie shell inflation myth - too simplistic, similar to the "tragedy of the commons myth", and the Malthusian population myth - the three of which usually hang around together. As for the modern world - deflation is more of a pressing problem at the moment (see link below), partly caused in the last 7yrs by the biggest fall in wages in the modern era, and partly by the 'retooling' of our economy to a low wage, unskilled economy where consumer spending power is decreased. Wages have been going down in real terms (deflating) since the 1980's. The economic impact of this (less money to buy things) has been offfset by an increased availability of credit (we now have over £1 trillion of personal debt in the UK) and the introduction of 'in work benefits' like Working Tax Credits (these would not be needed if wages were not deflated). We can't borrow any more, and benefits are being cut, so the only way to keep the consumer demand we need to keep the economy running (and keep us all in jobs) is higher wages. So, the Living Wage will not lead to hyperinflation, it will rebalance the deflationary impact of 30 years of ever-smaller wage packets. I'll stop there, as i'm sure most have stopped reading (this is a football site, not an economic one) and those that have carried on probably reject every word i'm saying from an ideological standpoint ;0) www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/07/deflation-secular-stagnation-europe-economic-nightmare |
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Dec 12, 2014 11:16:47 GMT
Interesting that you think that anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion must do so on 'ideological' grounds. How patronising.
|
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Dec 12, 2014 11:23:39 GMT
If you've got the time (its a FAIRLY easy read), David Graeber's "Debt: The First 5,000 Years" explodes the cowrie shell inflation myth - too simplistic, similar to the "tragedy of the commons myth", and the Malthusian population myth - the three of which usually hang around together. As for the modern world - deflation is more of a pressing problem at the moment (see link below), partly caused in the last 7yrs by the biggest fall in wages in the modern era, and partly by the 'retooling' of our economy to a low wage, unskilled economy where consumer spending power is decreased. Wages have been going down in real terms (deflating) since the 1980's. The economic impact of this (less money to buy things) has been offfset by an increased availability of credit (we now have over £1 trillion of personal debt in the UK) and the introduction of 'in work benefits' like Working Tax Credits (these would not be needed if wages were not deflated). We can't borrow any more, and benefits are being cut, so the only way to keep the consumer demand we need to keep the economy running (and keep us all in jobs) is higher wages. So, the Living Wage will not lead to hyperinflation, it will rebalance the deflationary impact of 30 years of ever-smaller wage packets. I'll stop there, as i'm sure most have stopped reading (this is a football site, not an economic one) and those that have carried on probably reject every word i'm saying from an ideological standpoint ;0) www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/07/deflation-secular-stagnation-europe-economic-nightmareThe Keynsian qualitative model of inflation has been pretty conclusively shown to be erroneous. The Smithsonian model is widely accepted as the standard - the shell example is a great simplification of that but is still indicative. You, and The Guardian, jumped a step: You accept the lower paid need more cash at hand and accept that that can't come from credit but you don't explore the element of just not taking it off them in the first place through taxation. The net effect is the same without the stagflation (since the evidence of the living wage destroying small businesses is already there and if that happens unemployment rises) that would occur. You jump straight to "make more money slosh around in the economy" without fully appraising the impacts of that. Never mind hyperinflation - I'll tell you what would make me hyper: an Ellis Harrison hat trick on Saturday. |
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Dec 12, 2014 11:30:06 GMT
"The Keynsian qualitative model of inflation has been pretty conclusively shown to be erroneous." - Put your tin hat on. You'll have Oldie spitting nails !
|
|
|
|
Post by Gas Since 1957 on Dec 12, 2014 11:41:53 GMT
A whole topic dedicated to arguing about something we don't know anyway - i.e. do Rovers pay the Living Wage or not? Sack the Board!!
Anyway, for casual and part time employees it's the Minimum Hourly Wage not the Living wage which is only for full-time employees I believe. Why should the club publicise these things - it's just the latest political points scoring thing in my opinion. Put it this way, have you heard any of our players or full-time staff moaning that they don't have enough to live on? I haven't and you can bet with the forums etc. such complaints, if they existed, would have been shouted from the rooftops.
|
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Dec 12, 2014 11:48:00 GMT
A whole topic dedicated to arguing about something we don't know anyway - i.e. do Rovers pay the Living Wage or not? Sack the Board!! Anyway, for casual and part time employees it's the Minimum Hourly Wage not the Living wage which is only for full-time employees I believe. Why should the club publicise these things - it's just the latest political points scoring thing in my opinion. Put it this way, have you heard any of our players or full-time staff moaning that they don't have enough to live on? I haven't and you can bet with the forums etc. such complaints, if they existed, would have been shouted from the rooftops. Like one of the "Sainsburys at the Mem" threads. |
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Dec 12, 2014 12:50:37 GMT
A whole topic dedicated to arguing about something we don't know anyway - i.e. do Rovers pay the Living Wage or not? Sack the Board!! Anyway, for casual and part time employees it's the Minimum Hourly Wage not the Living wage which is only for full-time employees I believe. Why should the club publicise these things - it's just the latest political points scoring thing in my opinion. Put it this way, have you heard any of our players or full-time staff moaning that they don't have enough to live on? I haven't and you can bet with the forums etc. such complaints, if they existed, would have been shouted from the rooftops. I think it's mainly an economics lesson, not a debate on what Rovers do or don't do |
|
|
|
Post by Gas Since 1957 on Dec 12, 2014 12:57:06 GMT
You may be right - don;t think I've noticed belmontman post anything before!
|
|
|
|
Post by oviedista on Dec 12, 2014 13:05:41 GMT
A whole topic dedicated to arguing about something we don't know anyway - i.e. do Rovers pay the Living Wage or not? Sack the Board!! Anyway, for casual and part time employees it's the Minimum Hourly Wage not the Living wage which is only for full-time employees I believe. Why should the club publicise these things - it's just the latest political points scoring thing in my opinion. Put it this way, have you heard any of our players or full-time staff moaning that they don't have enough to live on? I haven't and you can bet with the forums etc. such complaints, if they existed, would have been shouted from the rooftops. If a member of the catering staff was "moaning" (or try airing concerns/ struggling with etc) how would anyone hear it? By wire tapping their mobiles? A pressure group have been campaigning for clubs to come out and declare they pay the living wage to help improve peoples lives. The more small clubs like Luton that do it the more pressure it puts on filthy rich Premier league clubs to do the same (Chelsea have just come out as the first Prem club to do so which proves it's working). What then happens is peoples lives are transformed, clubs come to represent and respect their local community and the local workforce (and not just playing staff) and everyone feels better off. What's not to like? Oh and it won't drive up inflation - why is it always the poor who can't have more money in case this happens? It's an old trick to convince people to accept the rightness of their inequality. |
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Dec 12, 2014 13:14:07 GMT
A whole topic dedicated to arguing about something we don't know anyway - i.e. do Rovers pay the Living Wage or not? Sack the Board!! Anyway, for casual and part time employees it's the Minimum Hourly Wage not the Living wage which is only for full-time employees I believe. Why should the club publicise these things - it's just the latest political points scoring thing in my opinion. Put it this way, have you heard any of our players or full-time staff moaning that they don't have enough to live on? I haven't and you can bet with the forums etc. such complaints, if they existed, would have been shouted from the rooftops. If a member of the catering staff was "moaning" (or try airing concerns/ struggling with etc) how would anyone hear it? By wire tapping their mobiles? A pressure group have been campaigning for clubs to come out and declare they pay the living wage to help improve peoples lives. The more small clubs like Luton that do it the more pressure it puts on filthy rich Premier league clubs to do the same (Chelsea have just come out as the first Prem club to do so which proves it's working). What then happens is peoples lives are transformed, clubs come to represent and respect their local community and the local workforce (and not just playing staff) and everyone feels better off. What's not to like? Oh and it won't drive up inflation - why is it always the poor who can't have more money in case this happens? It's an old trick to convince people to accept the rightness of their inequality. It's not about the poor having more money it's about interference with the market and directing value where the market says there is no more. The argument that this increased liquidity won't increase the rate of inflation has already been proven wrong by one of the proponents of it on this thread: The free availability of credit from mid/late 90s to mid-2000s meant greater liquidity throughout society. If that greater liquidity didn't drive up inflation we would have seen a fairly stable or low level of inflation over that period wouldn't we? Which is what 2008 and the last two years of the last Labour government was famous for; economic stability and low inflation ... wasn't it? |
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 12, 2014 13:25:23 GMT
If you've got the time (its a FAIRLY easy read), David Graeber's "Debt: The First 5,000 Years" explodes the cowrie shell inflation myth - too simplistic, similar to the "tragedy of the commons myth", and the Malthusian population myth - the three of which usually hang around together. As for the modern world - deflation is more of a pressing problem at the moment (see link below), partly caused in the last 7yrs by the biggest fall in wages in the modern era, and partly by the 'retooling' of our economy to a low wage, unskilled economy where consumer spending power is decreased. Wages have been going down in real terms (deflating) since the 1980's. The economic impact of this (less money to buy things) has been offfset by an increased availability of credit (we now have over £1 trillion of personal debt in the UK) and the introduction of 'in work benefits' like Working Tax Credits (these would not be needed if wages were not deflated). We can't borrow any more, and benefits are being cut, so the only way to keep the consumer demand we need to keep the economy running (and keep us all in jobs) is higher wages. So, the Living Wage will not lead to hyperinflation, it will rebalance the deflationary impact of 30 years of ever-smaller wage packets. I'll stop there, as i'm sure most have stopped reading (this is a football site, not an economic one) and those that have carried on probably reject every word i'm saying from an ideological standpoint ;0) www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/07/deflation-secular-stagnation-europe-economic-nightmareThe Keynsian qualitative model of inflation has been pretty conclusively shown to be erroneous. The Smithsonian model is widely accepted as the standard - the shell example is a great simplification of that but is still indicative. You, and The Guardian, jumped a step: You accept the lower paid need more cash at hand and accept that that can't come from credit but you don't explore the element of just not taking it off them in the first place through taxation. The net effect is the same without the stagflation (since the evidence of the living wage destroying small businesses is already there and if that happens unemployment rises) that would occur. You jump straight to "make more money slosh around in the economy" without fully appraising the impacts of that. Never mind hyperinflation - I'll tell you what would make me hyper: an Ellis Harrison hat trick on Saturday. LJG - your assumption about increasing inflation ignores the following: - Any inflation rise would be spread across the whole economy, so increasing the minimum wage to the equivalent of the living wage (allowing for tax bands changes) would disproportionately benefit the working low-waged. - benefits paid to working people would be reduced, diluting any inflationary effect. The money saved could be invested in companies in a more targeted way - eg, reducing the tax burden on small businesses. - we live in a deflationary environment, especially for essentials such as food - thanks to greater competition. Working tax credits and the genre were a terrible idea, created by a government that were too afraid to set the minimum wage at an appropriate level. The money should have been put into raising tax bands, targeted tax breaks for small businesses, education and training. Its a shame that these are the things that the lib dems have been campaigning for for years, but they are likely to be hammered in the general election. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 12, 2014 13:26:33 GMT
Lives "transformed" I doubt it by, what, a 50p an hour increase,? Anyway how many full time, on playing staff, does the club actually employ, less than a dozen?
There's always a price to pay for wage increases and bearing in mind we made numerous staff redundant in the summer can the club, which usually loses around a £1m p.a. afford to hand out high rises w/o making other employees redundant?
Given most of the jobs are probably catering/bar type roles are the local restaurants/bars paying the living wage in Horfield?
|
|
|
|
Post by oviedista on Dec 12, 2014 13:26:46 GMT
If a member of the catering staff was "moaning" (or try airing concerns/ struggling with etc) how would anyone hear it? By wire tapping their mobiles? A pressure group have been campaigning for clubs to come out and declare they pay the living wage to help improve peoples lives. The more small clubs like Luton that do it the more pressure it puts on filthy rich Premier league clubs to do the same (Chelsea have just come out as the first Prem club to do so which proves it's working). What then happens is peoples lives are transformed, clubs come to represent and respect their local community and the local workforce (and not just playing staff) and everyone feels better off. What's not to like? Oh and it won't drive up inflation - why is it always the poor who can't have more money in case this happens? It's an old trick to convince people to accept the rightness of their inequality. It's not about the poor having more money it's about interference with the market and directing value where the market says there is no more. The argument that this increased liquidity won't increase the rate of inflation has already been proven wrong by one of the proponents of it on this thread: The free availability of credit from mid/late 90s to mid-2000s meant greater liquidity throughout society. If that greater liquidity didn't drive up inflation we would have seen a fairly stable or low level of inflation over that period wouldn't we? Which is what 2008 and the last two years of the last Labour government was famous for; economic stability and low inflation ... wasn't it? Sorry can we just keep things simple. How is paying catering staff at Chelsea a living wage "directing value where the market says there is none"? Does the market insist in "its" wisdom that staff must/ should be paid the bare minimum? Baring in mind this works as an argument against the minimum wage as well so surely it would be better were they on less than that. |
|
|
|
Post by oviedista on Dec 12, 2014 13:32:11 GMT
Lives "transformed" I doubt it by, what, a 50p an hour increase,? Anyway how many full time, on playing staff, does the club actually employ, less than a dozen? There's always a price to pay for wage increases and bearing in mind we made numerous staff redundant in the summer can the club, which usually loses around a £1m p.a. afford to hand out high rises w/o making other employees redundant? Given most of the jobs are probably catering/bar type roles are the local restaurants/bars paying the living wage in Horfield? It's a fair bit more than 50p and yes, when you live hand to mouth that kind of figure can make a huge difference. Part time workers are usually working other part time jobs to make up full time work so the same argument stands. Most local bars and restaurants are probably not paying it no - so it would be good if the local football club could lead the way. |
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 12, 2014 13:36:48 GMT
If a member of the catering staff was "moaning" (or try airing concerns/ struggling with etc) how would anyone hear it? By wire tapping their mobiles? A pressure group have been campaigning for clubs to come out and declare they pay the living wage to help improve peoples lives. The more small clubs like Luton that do it the more pressure it puts on filthy rich Premier league clubs to do the same (Chelsea have just come out as the first Prem club to do so which proves it's working). What then happens is peoples lives are transformed, clubs come to represent and respect their local community and the local workforce (and not just playing staff) and everyone feels better off. What's not to like? Oh and it won't drive up inflation - why is it always the poor who can't have more money in case this happens? It's an old trick to convince people to accept the rightness of their inequality. It's not about the poor having more money it's about interference with the market and directing value where the market says there is no more. The argument that this increased liquidity won't increase the rate of inflation has already been proven wrong by one of the proponents of it on this thread: The free availability of credit from mid/late 90s to mid-2000s meant greater liquidity throughout society. If that greater liquidity didn't drive up inflation we would have seen a fairly stable or low level of inflation over that period wouldn't we? Which is what 2008 and the last two years of the last Labour government was famous for; economic stability and low inflation ... wasn't it? You are assuming that the market is rational. One of the roles of government it to provide long-term investment in people, as businesses can only be expected to think short-term. Lassiez-faire is dead old boy. Price inflation is low, and has been for 20 years. Are you referring to asset inflation? I don't understand the relevance of liquidity. Do you mean money supply? Not the same thing, you can increase liquidity without increasing the money supply. Personally I would like to see the minimum wage increased to the approximate level of working benefits. I can't see how that would significantly increase the money supply? Even the Tories have come to the same conclusion, as evidenced by the new universal state pension. |
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Dec 12, 2014 13:37:21 GMT
It's not about the poor having more money it's about interference with the market and directing value where the market says there is no more. The market gets directed a thousand different ways every moment. It's bizarre to suggest we shouldn't direct it over one issue, when we're directing it over any number of others. Also, the market isn't some sort of objective system that we should serve. It's a tool that should serve us. I love* the way that people are ready to say 'oh noes the magic market can't be touched!' when talking about something like their fellow Gasheads getting 50p more an hour. *and by love, I mean not love. |
|
