UK marks 15 years of success with minimum wage

[makapaaa]

[h=2]UK marks 15 years of success with minimum wage[/h]

August 2nd, 2013 |

Author: VD

Yesterday, the UK marked 15 years of its national minimum
wage, a policy that has not only won over all doubters across the political
spectrum in this country but was also voted by experts as the most successful
policy in the last thirty years.

From The Financial Times (do check out the Resolution Foundation
report as well):

Happy birthday, national minimum wage

By John McDermott

A few months into Tony Blair’s government, The Economist argued that “coming
up with a minimum wage that will not seriously harm the economy, and destroy
jobs, will require the wisdom of Solomon – or extraordinary luck”. Today the
National Minimum Wage Act is 15 years old. There are many cases of bad policy
making but this is a case of the good kind.

The minimum wage has been a success: all but ending exploitatively low pay
while having a minimal impact on overall employment, according to research. A
poll of political scientists by the Institute for Government found it to be the
most
admired policy of the past 30 years. The Economist was wrong. Why it worked
carries lessons for today, on both sides of the Atlantic.

For more on the economics, check out the Resolution Foundation’s excellent report. What I find equally interesting is the story
of how the idea of a minimum wage went from politically suicidal in the 1990s to
an accepted part of British life.

In the 1992 general election, Labour ran on a minimum wage – and was battered
by the Conservative government, which said that it would cost up to 2m jobs. (It
wasn’t until Michael Portillo became shadow chancellor in 2000 that the Tories
changed their position.) In 1995 the Confederation of British Industry said a
minimum wage would have “major problems” for wage structures. Two years later,
it was in favour. And these days most employers when surveyed say they support
the policy.

What happened? The Institute for Government has a case study from which two
aspects stand out.

First, supporters of the NMW spent time and effort winning the argument. In
part, this was about waiting for the embers of 1980s industrial relations to
cool. But it also involved a mixture of high-minded research and low politics.
The reality of low pay and the myths of the worst employment effects were
exposed, and (a decade before bank bashing became a national blood sport) the
Labour party went after the “fat cats” in businesses such as utilities to
increase public support for a minimum wage.

Second, the Low Pay Commission, the statutory body charged with setting the
minimum wage rates, has been a great success. That Britain has no German-style
economic institutions is an oft-repeated complaint. But the LPC has
representatives from unions and business, as well as academic experts. Its
mandate is simple and flexible. Much of the preparation for this was done before
Labour took power in 1997.

The LPC also did the hard work: commissioning pages of analysis and visiting
hundreds of businesses across the country. Political interference was minimal
and the chairman demanded unanimity on decisions. The LPC has been sensitive to
the broader UK economy, limiting NMW rises when the financial crisis hit.

The economy has changed since the mid-1990s. Yet there are still insights to
be gleaned from the tale of the NMW. In the US, the botched McDonald’s effort to
estimate a budget for employees has been criticised by people who can do
mathematics. But by highlighting ignorance of the reality of low pay, it is also
a reminder that the argument for a higher federal minimum wage has not been won
by its supporters.

In Britain there is a lot of wonkish talk on both side of the political
divide about “institutions”. This reflects academy vogue and the fact that there
is not a lot of money and public support for more state spending. In his new
book, Anthony Painter, the centre-left author, argues that the Labour party must
dedicate itself to building “sustainable” institutions. It is an idea that is
familiar to Conservative fans of Edmund Burke.

The minimum wage is a sign that lasting popular institutions can still be
built. But it also shows that this can take consent, evidence, time and an awful
lot of effort.

Happy birthday, NMW.
​

Void
Decker

* The writer is a born-and-bred
Singaporean currently residing in London with his lovely wife. Despite having a
rather solemn face and reserved disposition, he has much to say on
socio-political issues that continue to plague his beloved homeland. He blogs at
http://www.voiddecker.com.

 

[Leongsam]

You can set the minimum wage to whatever you want but it doesn't make any difference to the bottom line. The losers will still be losers no matter what. There is no fix for poor genes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22887005

One in six children lives in poverty, UK statistics show

By Angela HarrisonSocial affairs correspondent, BBC News

The government plans to change the way child poverty is calculated

Continue reading the main storyRelated Stories

• 'Wide differences' in child poverty
• Rethink urged on child poverty
• Poor kids 'more likely to be obese'

At least one out of every six children in the UK lives in relative poverty, according todata released by the Department for Work and Pensions.
In 2011-12, 2.3 million UK children (17%) lived in homes with substantially lower than average income.

This rises to 27% (3.5 million) if measured after housing costs are paid.

Children's campaigners say the true figure is higher and that 300,000 more children live in poor homes than in the previous year.
This is because there are two accepted ways of measuring poverty - relative and absolute.

The government prefers the measure of relative poverty - defined as when families have a net income that is below 60% of "median net disposable income" - as does Labour.

This amounts to £250 a week or less at the moment.

Using this, there was no change on child poverty and the number and proportion of working-age adults in relative poverty also remained at about the same level.
But the number living in absolute poverty is higher and on this measure, one in five children in the UK lives in poverty - a total of 2.6 million in 2011-12.
On this measure, 300,000 more children fell below the poverty line compared with the year before.

The absolute measure of poverty differs because it is adjusted for inflation.

Campaigners say the reason the headline figure has remained stable is because incomes are falling in the recession.

The government says the statistics show that compared with last year, 100,000 fewer children are living in "workless poor families".

The proportion of working-age adults living in relative poverty is also about one in six (5.6 million) if income is calculated before housing costs are paid - the government's preferred way of measuring relative poverty.

This rises to one in five (7.9 million) if the other measure is used.

A similar proportion of pensioners were living in relative poverty in 2011-12 - 1.9 million.

Working target
The coalition government has made a pledge to end child poverty by 2020. Between 1998 and 2011-12, the number of children in relative poverty in the UK fell by about one million.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said the government's aim was to get children out of poverty by getting more people in to work.
"While this government is committed to eradicating child poverty, we want to take a new approach by finding the source of the problem and tackling that. We have successfully protected the poorest from falling behind and seen a reduction of 100,000 children in workless poor families," he said.

"Today's figures underline the need for better measures of child poverty that are not so heavily dependent on where we draw the poverty line."

But children's campaigners say the true picture is worse than the government figures suggest and that the children moving in to the poverty bracket are in families where people are working.

Matthew Reed, the chief executive of the Children's Society, said the statistics painted " a depressing picture".

"There are now 2.4 million children in working households living in absolute poverty - an unacceptable truth about life in Britain today," he said.
"Latest figures also reveal that in the first full year of the coalition government, 300,000 more children faced a real fall in living standards that pushed them into absolute poverty. The entire increase is from homes where parents are working."

Liam Byrne MP, Labour's Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, said: "The devastating verdict is in - in just one year this government has pushed a million people into absolute poverty and progress in tackling relative child poverty has completely stalled.

"All of Labour's good work in tackling poverty is being washed away by a Tory cocktail of incompetence and indifference.

"What these figures show is living standards are collapsing to their lowest level in a decade, and that is forcing an extra 300,000 children to grow up in absolute poverty."

Fiona Weir, head of the single-parent charity Gingerbread, said it was alarming to see one in three children with a single parent who worked part-time was living below the poverty line.

"Government claims that work is the best route out of poverty are simply not ringing true," she said.

 

[AntiPAPunk]

Shame on u. Can't even do proper formatting of your post. Wait.. i think i know what your excuse will be. Edit : Ok u have got it done.

I have yet to see anyone else besides me in this forum who can do a single long post neatly with ease.

http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread....ed-in-Italy-coach-crash&p=1598979#post1598979