Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What most people want is for those people stuck on the lower strata to be paid a true living wage for the area they live in.

Outside some major authoritarian style government that just won't happen in the long run. Trying to control both the markets and individual desires is largely not conducive to a fairly free society. Prior to its collapse the Soviet union had the smallest income inequality by a significant margin, of all the major economies of the time; fat lot of good it did.

A living wage definition is almost invariably tied, directly or indirectly, to the average wage. A living wage is therefore almost guaranteed to have a good number below it.

Jobs with noticeably higher demand than supply and hence low pay are numerous, if you increase their pay by a noticeable amount then you create inflationary pressure and skew the average pay upwards, which in turn pushes up what the 'living wage' is.

Higher skilled/more in demand workers also look to a fair extent to having a 'relatively' higher wage. So when the low paid jobs become higher paid en-masse and/or by a noticeable amount you create a pressure to also push up higher paid jobs wages as they seek to maintain 'their' wage in line with the rest of society.

The average pay increases, and with it what constitutes the 'living wage'. To some extent after a lag period you are just back where you started, but after a period of inflation.

Contrary to a lot of people's opinion, it is not companies forcing you to take a low wage. The people forcing you to take a low wage are all the other people who are also competing for the same job, and will take it for less pay than you would like rather than them have no job. It often strikes me as bizarre that people think it is 'only fair' for someone to be paid a certain amount. But in what world is it fair that I cannot therefore come along and offer to take that job at a lower rate in order to try and get that one position?

If people think companies are paying to little, then instead of complaining that others should do something, those complaining should get up and do what they say others should be doing - start a company and pay a high wage. If it so 'right' and/or 'obvious' then why are they not just doing it?

Does the 25 days holiday include national holidays?

Uk law is 28 days holiday minimum (for most full time workers), but that can include the 8 days bank holidays (if you would get them off). 25 days + bank holidays is qute common, although 30 + bank holidays is not exactly uncommon.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
As an addendum to the above. The most commonly used UK version of the living wage (that doesn't come from the government) in the UK puts the (outside London) wage at just over £18,000 a year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I was surprised to find out how poorly GWS rules writers are paid. That's roughly equivalent to a full time job at McDonalds, despite the game design/writing one requiring a substantially harder to source and train skillset.

The problem is that it doesn't just come down to how much skill is required or how many people with that skill there are. It also depends on how much demand there is for said services. There are a damn sight more burger jobs available than there are for game writers.

It may be a very skilled job, with only a dozen other people who could do it. But if there is only 1 job for that skillset then those dozen need to compete against each other, and other things being equal the one who will do it cheapest gets the job.

Funnily that's often how we engage tradesmen - we get multiple quotes for what service we want, and barring some major discrepancy in quality/trust etc we take the lowest price. Odd that. We wish to pay lowest for services, look for bargains and sales and compare shop prices to get the cheapest. Yet when it comes to what we want to be paid we think that shouldn't apply?

Spoken like someone who has never been in the position you're criticizing.

Really? how would you know what position I have or have not had.

Spoken like someone who has no argument, so resorts to fallacies.

Or you know... start a union, organize themselves, and push the scale towards their benefits as a group instead as individuals, like Denmark?

That is possible, though unions already exist, at least here in the UK. But even unions are somewhat limited in fighting against some major overall discrepancy in demand and supply, at least outside of a specific company.

Any single worker is extremely underpaid in relation to the value of their work. Thats the objetive truth

hardly objective. The very definition of value is usually based on demand and supply and what salary you can negotiate in a free market. If someone else is prepared to do what you can but for less money, and there are no jobs left after that for you then you are over valuing your services. If that is not happening due to a lack of free market, then value is anything but 'objectively true'.

I always find funny this kind of arguments were corporations and multinationals have 0 power over peoples lives.

I'm not saying they have no power over your lives though.

The worth of your service, and therefore your wage, is based on simple demand and supply - therefore it is other people who are your enemy and not the corporation.

Most people would not get 3 quotes for new windows and take the highest if all else is equal, neither do they deliberately go to the most expensive shop to get the exact same thing they can get cheaper. Our services are exactly the same - if you are offering the same thing as a lot of others when there are not that many jobs around for that skillset then the corporation is not the problem.

You're right--I'm not making an argument against your position. I don't disagree with the point you are making. Nor do I assume what your situation is, that is you reading into my comment. I am pointing out that the language you are using sounds like judgement-from-afar without any real world experience as to what it is actually like for people in such a position. That's it.

Really, what language dictates that? I've flipped burgers in Macdonalds, worked 80 hours a week in a fish factory, I've had banks threatening bailiff over debts, I've watched what little money I had disappear as I tried to raise a child and worry about how to pay for the next car service etc.

I've also spent all my waking hours teaching myself new skills, and taking it on myself to improve my own life rather than whine that others are not doing it for me.

I just disagree with this idea where "free" means the jungle's law were everything goes.

The "free market" is an illusion.

I agree, with both of those.

However, I cannot agree with all the company bashing. They simply do what we do as individuals - get the most for the best price.

Whilst I also agree that there is not really a truly free market, the forces that drive our wages are basically described by that economics - supply and demand. Just because we know it isn't a proper free market doesn't mean we can just ignore the fundamental drivers of how the worth of our services are dictated. If people think that there is something wrong based on what they see then they should actually make an effort to understand why, and then solve that. Not just thoughtlessly jump on the anti-corporation bandwagon. Forcing companies to pay more than the 'market worth' for services provided (be it labor or whatever) isn't going to solve anything long term, as that isn't the underlying issue. If anything it will probably backfire in some way, as 'solving' the wrong thing is seldom a good idea.

I've had a similar argument elsewhere:

A: of course I should be paid more I have a degree?
Me: A degree in itself means nothing. How many companies want a philosophy post grad vs say computer science?

Maybe we didn't have a briefing, but (generally speaking) it doesn't seem too much to ask that some of the wealthiest countries in the world which house some of the wealthiest corporations in the world should compel said corporations to pay a living wage just because it's the right thing to do.

In the UK, and that is where GW is based, there are already definitions of what is minimum wage, either as a minimum or 'living'.

The statutory 'living wage' for an adult full time was, last year, 17,600. The non government organisation that is commonly referenced and a number of companies ascribe to makes it out as 18,700.

I don't know who people were talking about earlier, some ex employee, and didn't go back trying to find the original post, but it sounds like he was probably paid that or above if I understood the vague gist of time and salary.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trying to out what this ex-employee thing was about, this isn't it I don't think, but from earlier in the thread:

I turned down £18K for a studio role ten years earlier because even then it wasn't enough to move to Nottingham with my family

10 years ago (if that what 'earlier' means) also happens to be when the living wage foundation moved to campaigning outside London, and became a more national organisation. Back then it campaigned for a national living wage of slightly over £14,000.

So whilst £18,000 may not have been enough for someone to move etc, it was considerably above what was considered the living wage of that time. That was also quite a bit higher than what they were campaigning for as the London living wage 10 years ago never mind Nottingham.

The living wage is simply a level below which you’d be considered to be living in poverty.

No its not. Poverty is generally measured by household, not individual. Whether such a person is in poverty will depend on their own circumstances. If it is some one on their own they may very well be above poverty level, if they are the sole earner in a large family then they have problems that even a higher wage may not solve. If it is a teen/young adult living with working parents that household is now probably way over poverty level. Given poverty is household based it becomes pointless trying to say an individuals wage is poverty level. People (companies or individuals) pay for services provided, and not some varying amount based on family size etc. I'm not paid more just because I have a family compared to a single person doing the same job.

Further more, modern western poverty is almost always meaning relative poverty, i.e. relative to the median; which is defined in a way that almost requires that many people live in poverty. As I alluded to earlier the only way around that is a highly authoritarian government, as you need a form of governance which rejects the rights of individuals to seek to better themselves via higher paid work or to pay a 'market rate' to someone else.

The living wage foundation, who have probably done more to push wages at the lower end than any other group in the UK, define their living wage as "a wage which meets everyday needs - like the weekly shop, or a surprise trip to the dentist." (Quote from their site)

It is possible the Soviet Union avoided relative poverty, with its very low income spread, but I haven't looked at the stats that came out of there for a long time. But given the economic circumstances of the Soviet Union it is not exactly a place I would hold as a beacon of awesomeness.

The problem is that no matter what wages are a 'living wage' there will always be those who claim it should be higher, and no matter how some group tries to work out some mechanism for calculating it in practical terms there will always be those who say they've got it wrong.

So what this well written example really shows, is that due to the greed of Capitalism, some people will be destined to suffer the one life they get on this world, in poverty. They'll never be able to afford their 'widgets'/food/clothing/basic necessities.

It certainly has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism. Free markets and inflation are not the same as capitalism. Inflation has devastated nations long before the advent of capitalism. It is a simple concept that when there is more demand for something than there is supply the price will go up, because there is no other fair way of choosing who should get something. Everyone will of course claim some subjective 'need', but ultimately the owner of some resource, be it a piece of furniture you made or a 2nd hand object, or some natural resource can't be the judge of random people's need - they barter for what they want; and now a days that tends to be money.

I know someone who made collectible toys as a past time, and became quite popular. At which point she couldn't keep up with demand and became very stressed. Her partner used to go mad she that she wouldn't increase the price - because that would then reduce the demand to a point that she could cope. She would be better financially and less stressed. The price she sold at was an arbitrary price that had no link to reality. The market price is where the price would be too much for many and only leave those who wished to pay at a level where she could meet that demand. There is a clear and objective value to that product, and it is totally governed by supply and demand. It changes over time sure, and we may not know what it is at any moment in time, but the concept is pretty simple.

Wages etc are exactly the same. Capitalism is irrelevant. Given time, more money in people pocket fuels demand, more demand boosts inflation. Higher costs for employers over time causes them to increase prices to be more profitable, because like you they want the best for themselves as well.

In a liberal free society those who don't like that have a simple remedy, and it isn't demanding that others do stuff. They can go out and set up their own companies, or cooperatives etc and run them exactly as they think is right. If there are so many people who want to see higher pay then just go do it. I have a couple of family members who have run their own business, I know it ain't easy, but if they have the drive to do it then surely amongst the mass of people who don't like current wages their is some who have enough drive to actually go do it as well, pay what you think someone's worth rather than what the 'market' thinks?

Also, having read through that, they are using a very strange definition of "disposable income". They say that disposable income is what is left after Income Tax, National Insurance and Council Tax are subtracted. So before factoring in any living costs, such as rent or mortgage payments. That seems a very strange definition seeing as council tax is determined by the value of the property you live in, which will also determine your monthly rent or mortgage payments.

It's no stranger than any other term which has a technical meaning. For income and poverty calculations it is a fairly well understood term (but often calculated slightly different in various regions of the world to represent differences in economies or social norms etc).

It includes pretty much all income coming into the household (including benefits and tax credits) minus the major taxes/contributions. That last bit of course varies by country, as countries have different taxes. The UK includes council tax, as it is a major tax on a household and is fixed by the rateable value of the house and, contrary to your view, often has little relation to rent/mortgage. E.g. I pay the same council tax as most people down my street, as most houses on it probably fall in the same band, but I very probably pay a very different mortgage/rent on it given I've been here over 20 years and almost paid the mortgage off. someone renting a house like mine would pay a lot more, someone who just bought it this year on a 95% mortgage would be paying more. Most pensioners who own a place probably have no rent/mortgage at that point in their lives, but will still have council tax which relative to their pension could be significant (but likely offset by a rebate, which will count as income).

It is also looking at the household as much as the individual income. The income used is also 'equivalised' by house hold size, again following well recognised concepts, The euro version maths is different to the OECD one, but it is in essence doing the same thing. Therefore, any figure that would be given for an individual does not of necessity represent their actual income.

For example (and I may be overly simplifying here) if 2 people live together with no one else and they both earn 17k (after taxes and benefits etc) they will be considered to have an income for purposes of poverty discussion, I believe, of 22.6K. This represent that 2 earners in the same household are usually far better off than a lone person as they are sharing a lot of the household costs. On the other hand if only 1 of them works then that 17k is equivalised to only 11.3K representing that a single earner supporting an additional adult is in a worse position as someone on their own.

which goes back to what I said in an earlier post. You cannot simply look at what pay you were offered and say that is poverty level; as poverty is household based and not simply 1 persons salary.

The point here is to get to some notion of 'disposable' income that you then have available to spend on things like rent/mortgage/food etc after accounting for size of household.

However, note there are many ways of measuring poverty and there are versions based on post housing costs (usually just rent/mortgage, not usually energy, food, water etc), but they are, to best of my understanding or at least based on when I see them used, more commonly used when trying to measure relative poverty rather than absolute poverty.

If we take the above 9.9K as true (I didn't go and check) then I would assume it could represent something along the following lines (just very finger in the air to give a feel, and subject to late night maths failure).

1 person on their own on whose income is probably about ~10.5K.
1 person with a partner who does not work, earning about 18K. way above 9.9K but paying Income tax/NI and supporting the other person.
1 person living with someone else earning the same as them, 8K. they are each lower than the 9.9K, but sharing household costs mitigates.
The above person but with 2 children, they each earn 10k. The children alter the household factor against them, but offset by child benefit income.

They don't use that tag line though do they!

Trying to argue a salary is poverty level, when it isn't is just ranting for the sake of it. Yet people are saying just that.

GW pay a low wage compared to the average certainly. It is, however, at or above the minimum set by the successive governments of both left and right wing, and that is for the most part going to keep most people out of what would normally be accepted as poverty. It is, indeed, sort of the whole point of the minimum wage.

The median rent in Nottingham for a 1 bed place is 8,400 per year, but note that is median not the minimum you have to pay. There are places for 6000 or less per year in the area. If it is a young person in particular it is not uncommon to share a larger place to reduce the rent and council tax burden (My own child is currently looking to share with a couple of friends and looking at quite nice places that will be cheaper than a 1 person flat between 3 of them).

The lead designer you talk about wasn't a single person from what I understood, he was in a family of 3 and we don't know the rest of the details.

I noted the 1 person rent because that is what you referred to in a generic sense.

Where did he say he couldn't afford a place at 6000 a year?

Or am I confused between two people who were offered jobs.

To also note, if I followed correct, that was 20k in 2014 so comparing to todays rent is not really correct. Not sure what the salary today would be, but inflation generally would equate it to ~23k, or about 18k after income tax, NI and council tax.

If that isn't a poverty wage, it's a distinction without a difference.

I'd argue it a very important distinction, indeed one the person I thought you were talking about called out himself. The salary was low, but not poverty.

It matters because there are people who live in genuine poverty, not the sort of low wage you want to call poverty, and when you start to refer to any wage you don't like as poverty you distract from and devalue work being to done to help those who are a damn site worse off.

Nottingham is getting closer to London in cost of living etc so it’s hard to compare to like somewhere in Yorkshire or something, where the same job as a manager etc is getting that too..

Nottingham is no where near London in cost of living. Like not even close. London is somewhere between 55% and 66% more expensive than Nottingham depending on what stats you look at. It may be getting 'closer' over time but that doesn't say much.

Nottingham costs roughly the same to live in as Leeds (West Yorkshire) and York (north Yorkshire), although some stats make York somewhat maybe more expensive. Sheffield (South York's) or Hull (East York's) are cheapish places compared to Nottingham.