Tesco now hiring - come work for free!

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

So I saw this linked on Twitter, and damn...

http://jobcentreplus.jobhits.co.uk/TESCO-NIGHT-SHIFT-id-BSD-27442

For a more understandable, yet obviously biased explanation:

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/02/16/how-companies-like-tesco-are-paying-workers-virtually-nothing/

Full time, permanent night shift manual labour, at Tesco, for anyone unemployed. They'll pay your bus fare!

Now, if this was some awesome opportunity to get amazing training in skills that would improve your life and career, in exchange for 6 months free work, then cool.

This was how the original scheme was sold, as a way for people for get a foot in the door, get valuable training and experience, and a guaranteed interview. Now it's being used to force minimum wage jobs on people for not even any wage, never mind minimum. Note it states permanent, not 'trial period', because once you've got someone working for nothing, why would you choose to pay them another 200 a week?

However, this is a permanent position of night work in Tesco, again, for no money. It's also being supported by the Government employment agency, which means that if you are currently unemployed, and refuse to work for no money, I'd have to think they could then stop your benefits.

Now, many people will shout 'good, stop the dirty leeches living off the state!'

However, a vast number of people have lost their jobs thru no fault of their own, and are actively trying to get back into work. (Also makes me wonder why we're scapegoating the disabled and long term sick, if it's about money, get the recently unemployed back into work, they're FAR easier to re-employ!)

I fear that if this is successful, who's to stop more companies posting all their unskilled positions this way, and demanding a workforce that's forced to work for about 1 an hour.

Must be something wrong about Tesco having workers who can't afford to shop there.

In the end, what company is going to pay minimum wage when they can get free workers, paid for from the public taxes.

I think that's the worst part of it, us the taxpayers are paying people to work for Tesco.

Really, I would say I can't believe this is legal, but since Cameron got in, I'm just surprised he hasn't outlawed burials and cremations because he has a mate in the pet food industry who knows how to make a profit out of the dead.

Tesco pretty much hit record profits every year, and account for well over 10% of ALL money spent in the UK, how can they justify not paying minimum wage to people? Quite simply, they're a business and the Government has offered them a way to save money.

Just to make it clear in shorter points:

Yes, it's fine to push people back into work, but they should get at minimum wage for doing so, especially when it's night shifts.

Secondly, until I'm proven wrong, I think it's at least implying that Tesco only pay 'expenses', the regular welfare payments still coming from our taxes, therefore we're paying Tesco to accept free forced workers.

Thirdly, I just feel that this needs to be known about, and I don't see it showing up on the front page of the Sun or Mail any time soon.

So basically the government pays increased benefits, and the company pays nothing outside of travel expenses? How come that's not on the top of the list of things to cut back on when there's major budget cuts going on? At the very least make the company pay the equivalent of the JSA. I fail to see how unskilled labour is going to help the unemployed find a job. The only people whose situation could be improved by this is long term unemployed unskilled workers. There's no point to making anyone else do that work, as it's just a waste of their grades.

Sigh. It's so disheartening to read this, as an American. You've got benefits that we could never dream of, and you're going *backward*. I keep reading people complaining bitterly about "scroungers". I wonder how many would change their tune if they had to live under our system-- because we're what your country may become, if that kind of crap doesn't stop.

Yeah, someone posted that if only they'd directed this into social and voluntary work, sure it wouldn't be much more useful in terms of training as such, but at least we'd be seeing a sign of this 'big society' idea, of people improving their local area.

You could also have people who can't work at the moment, purely because that flatly are not the jobs to be had, and when you've hundreds of people applying for single minimum wage vacancies, it's hard to say it's not true, offering their unique skills to the local community.

Say you're a recently laid off IT guy, you could offer your skills to the local community, you do an hour at a local old ladie's home helping her either learn how to email or fix a driver problem, and she signs a form to say you've helped, and you get some kind of credit.

This is the shame tho, this could have been a return to apprenticeships, where, yes, the apprentice was low paid for a year or so, but then learned a skill and moved into a fully paid, worthwhile career with a set of skills to keep him employed.

The way this is going, however is just leeching the taxpayer to improve the bottom line of big business while continuing to demonise the poorest section of society as 'welfare scum who just don't want to work'.

SenseOfTumour:
Yeah, someone posted that if only they'd directed this into social and voluntary work, sure it wouldn't be much more useful in terms of training as such, but at least we'd be seeing a sign of this 'big society' idea, of people improving their local area.

Well, mostly it can be turned into something usefull. There was some outrage around here about the city of Rotterdam creating a similar work-or-lose-benefits scheme for longterm unemployed, which involved picking up litter from the street. But actually, that is something I'm okay with, providing they keep it reasonable and only target people who really haven't worked in years (that's some 5% of the people on benefits for a longer term according to 2008 data). Because in such a case, at least something usefull is getting done. Less pollution by litter in the street is always a good thing. What I don't get is why they basically sponsor unfair competition by offering a commercial company free employees, while others have to pay their people. I'm okay with it free work being to some sort of usefull purpose, but advancing the interests of a commercial enterprise in such a way is just wrong.

I wouldn't even be surprised if EU regulations regarding unfair state support to private companies would forbid this scheme if someone took it to the competition authority.

Yes, at the moment, I think the main problem most people have with this, is that, at a time of massive unemployment, I think it's nudging 2.5 million, they're giving companies free workers instead of getting them to employ people. Every person on this 'system' is taking the place of someone who could be usefully employed, gaining a regular wage and contributing to the system.

If someone is worth hiring, they're worth paying the min wage. If this is encouraged, then we could end up with millions of people working for less than a hundred bucks a week, which is just offensive and abuse of the power of the big companys and the government.

Being poor or unemployed on its own is not a crime, nor is being sick or disabled, I'm getting highly tired of seeing everything blamed on the bottom rung of society.

First, the taxpayer bailed out the banks

Second, the taxpayer pays the government the same in taxes for less quality and quantity of public services

Now, the taxpayer pays labour costs for private business

Next... I don't even want to imagine how far this will go >_<

A day's pay for a day's work.

It's really not that difficult a concept to grasp, and the fact that the ConDems are supporting such a backward scheme shows how utterly incompetent/tight fisted they are.

I've been on JSA before. It's 50 a week. That's about a tenner more than what I'd earn for one day of work on minimum wage. If you're forcing people to work for a week, then only paying them for a single day, then you're going down the path of wage slavery. It sounds dramatic, but ultimately that's what slavery is: forcing people to work for nothing.

Absolutely shameful.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
A day's pay for a day's work.

It's really not that difficult a concept to grasp, and the fact that the ConDems are supporting such a backward scheme shows how utterly incompetent/tight fisted they are.

I've been on JSA before. It's 50 a week. That's about a tenner more than what I'd earn for one day of work on minimum wage. If you're forcing people to work for a week, then only paying them for a single day, then you're going down the path of wage slavery. It sounds dramatic, but ultimately that's what slavery is: forcing people to work for nothing.

Absolutely shameful.

I didn't want to bring the 'S' word into it, but what else is it, when it's enforced labour paying a pound an hour?

Ok, they're not breaking rocks in the sun and being whipped and fed stale bread, but by today's standards it's terrible, and yet it's accepted because when things start getting bad, economy wise, history shows people turn on those below them, instead of upwards, where most of the problems are caused.

If I had my way, every million pounds of profit made by a company, they'd have to employ at least , say , fifty more people. Doesn't matter if they don't need them. I say that, because anyone who's ever worked knows that just having nothing to do, doesn't stop management finding you work to do. It would also force 50xabout 15,000 = 3/4 of that million to end up being fed back into the economy, because people on minimum wage generally aren't packing away vast sums off shore or locking them in long term savings where the money stagnates.

Can anyone explain how we're being encouraged to borrow and spend our way out of the recession, yet there's constant job cuts and now they're pulling shit like this? How is someone doing a 40 hour week and taking home 40 quid supposed to kickstart the economy at the weekend with a spending spree?

This is the way its been working in Germany for years now.

Fight it tooth and nail Britain, because its a terrible system.

Companies like Tesco easily have the money to pay these staff, it's nothing short of trying to replace paid staff with, well, slaves. It's absolutely an outrageous scheme, nothing short of slave labour and profiteering.

even the daily heil crowd can't stand this one.

check out the "Best rated" tab

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102228/Tesco-row-advert-unpaid-workers-claims-expenses-plus-benefits-offer-mistake.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

needless to say i've already ensured everyone in my family will be enjoying exploring what's on offer in other stores until tescos withdraws from this scheme.

if they don't they'll have me to answer to (i am "big brother" after all :P) still i'm disappointed they didn't go for the midnight trip to spray paint "arbeit macht frei" above the doors of the local stores.

This is beyond retarded. The last thing a government has to do is pay for employees' salary allowing businesses to be unfairly competitive thanks to the taxpayers. Now if at least it were temporary jobs leading to potential hiring or jobs that would "train" these people, sure. But this? disgusting.

I'd rather have the state pay the unemployed to clean the streets than fund private business through such dodgy practices.

SenseOfTumour:

If I had my way, every million pounds of profit made by a company, they'd have to employ at least , say , fifty more people. Doesn't matter if they don't need them. I say that, because anyone who's ever worked knows that just having nothing to do, doesn't stop management finding you work to do. It would also force 50xabout 15,000 = 3/4 of that million to end up being fed back into the economy, because people on minimum wage generally aren't packing away vast sums off shore or locking them in long term savings where the money stagnates.

Or you could simply force them to raise the pay of their employees instead of crapping out massive bonus payments for their executive directors.

When I first read the advert I assumed JSA to be some kind of standard rate/minimum wage for employees. I think you can imagine my astonishement when I read up on it.

Well, that's one of my main problems with everything, is that minimum wage isn't enough for anyone to live on. Which means even before this, the Government are paying out benefits to allow companies to pay their staff too little to live on.

Which is why you get hordes of people complaining about the welfare bill being about 2 billion in this country, blaming 'lazy, feckless welfare scum', when a fair amount of that is pensions of people who've worked all their life, benefits to people out of work or sick, who've been working and paid in, or people actually working, but need to claim so many things to be able to keep a home, eat and get to work.

I agree that minimum wage is difficult, with such a range of house prices across the UK, but putting housing benefit aside, it's still not enough. Those people complaining that disabled people claim nearly as much as those working should be angry that they're being paid so poorly, not angry that people worse off than them aren't suffering more.

There's absolutely no reason apart from greed to take on people on this scheme that you couldn't hire and pay normally. One exception, if you're actually taking someone on, training them with real world job skills, and offering them a job once they're proven to be suitable.

Poundland had many of these workers before xmas, and they got no training, just told, 'empty a shelf a time and clean it, then move on to the next one'. Not the greatest thing to have on your CV to prove your skills, intellect and creativity, is it?

I'm not saying no-one should work in Poundland, I'm sure it's fine, I'm saying that those who are on this 'workfare' deal are being exploited as cheap, temporary labour, not even treated as well as regular staff. I can't find it right now, but there was a site with a list of all the companies exploiting this new source of free labour. Sainsbury's and Waterstone's recently came off it, I think after the backlash by customers hearing about it.

I did find a different one :

http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?page_id=16

The shame being, if this had been a voluntary scheme, and you got some kind of paperwork for completing a placement, with a review of your attitude and ability at the end, that'd be something to attach to future CVs.

Also, if the placements were in council buildings, schools, hospitals, libraries, parks etc instead of multi million pound companies who really have quite enough cheap labour already.

I'd have no problem with assisting a local library in that situation, knowing I was supporting something that is in danger of being cut, which is crazy as it's busier than many shops in my local town.

If I started...

Unionist-----(here)-----------------|----------------------------Nat

...and after the Tories got in and began acting like Tories brought me to....

Unionist--------------------(here)--|----------------------------Nat

....then the monstrous assault this government has perpetrated on the sick, disabled, and unemployed has put me....

Unionist----------------------------|----------------------(here)Nat

...roll on 2014.

Magichead:
If I started...

Unionist-----(here)-----------------|----------------------------Nat

...and after the Tories got in and began acting like Tories brought me to....

Unionist--------------------(here)--|----------------------------Nat

....then the monstrous assault this government has perpetrated on the sick, disabled, and unemployed has put me....

Unionist----------------------------|----------------------(here)Nat

...roll on 2014.

This, for me, is the crux of my views on Scottish independence. On the one hand, if Scotland becomes independent, it can finally tell the Tories to fuck off once and for good. However, without Scotland's influence, England will become more shit as a result.

On the other hand, if Scotland remains a part of the United Kingdom, it can continue the trend of trying to prevent England from continuing its right-wing windowlicker nonsense. However, Scotland will be forced to continue to bear the brunt of the shitty Conservative policies.

I just... I just don't know any more!

Well, the government subsidizing any kind of business is generally unfair for both competition and natural wage development.

If offered only to those workers who'd otherwise be unemployable though, it could be a fair policy. Companies should receive due compensation for the increased hassle of accommodating people who'd otherwise never be worth employing. But when also demanded of those who'd otherwise receive an ordinary pay check, then it's unjustifiable to both the competing companies and the tax payers.

When I lived in the UK I was required to do some work during about six months of the year for my benefits.. but it was for charities. I wasn't doing a job I'd otherwise be paid to do.

Even then it was grating... and made it near impossible to find a job, I'd be paying most of my benefits out each week on transport and sundry cots that everyone has with going to what is essentially a place of work, spend all day there, and then be expected to find a job in the evenings. I actually had to skip interviews because I'd loose my benefits faster for not turning up to my "dole job".

But at least I was giving back to society by working for charitable organisations.

But Tesco, seriously? If they need more employees they should bloody well employ them. Give them subsidies for doing so, maybe, but make them pay the people properly.

Benefit rules when I was over there were a deterrent to actually getting a job, and it seems this hasn't changed. Ten years ago I was allowed to earn a maximum of five pounds before it was dedicated directly from my pay.. part time or low paying jobs basically meant "work for a loss" as the five pounds were more than taken away by travel costs.

I'm actually in shock, it seems even the Daily Mail is against it and the comments section is slamming it to hell.

Nearly everyone who thinks it's good to force people to do this 'scheme' is getting told in no uncertain terms why they're wrong.

Another fine little fact on this, if you have cancer but have an estimated 6 months or more to live, they can send you off to one of these 'work' placements too.

So we're proudly forcing people who are slowly dying to spend their last days working thru the night in a dingy stockroom carrying around tins of beans for no pay, to boost the stock prices of big companies. Thanks Dave.

The facts are, that most people would be in favour of getting some work out of people who are capable of work and looking for it, and if it's to be for no pay, then so long as it's improving the community or assisting charities, people think that'll be fine.

Paying big business to take free workers however, is not right in any way, and I hope everyone remembers this both when they're doing their weekly shop, and more importantly, when the next vote comes around. The sheer level of blame that has been shifted onto the poorest parts of society, when I'm fairly sure it wasn't them who got us into the recession, is astounding.

Somehow the poor and sick are now the scapegoats for all the world's ills, and we're paying the richest people to make us work for nothing.

Whatever happened to basic empathy for your fellow man?

I only hope the backlash against this gets big enough to actually get noticed, and some people higher realise there's only so far they can squeeze us.

A few windows got smashed by some idiotic dicks in the last big protest, among 250,000 peaceful protesters. I can't imagine what will happen if next time there's a quarter of a million people that angry and willing to show it.

Oh on top of this, they're forcing people to stop doing voluntary work to go work for large companies.

There's been reports of geology students having to give up voluntary posts at museums, where they'd be gaining valuable experience, at least vaguely related to their field of interest, to go stack shelves at poundland.

It's actually past idiotic and into 'genuine evil'.

"We know you can't get a job and are living on virtually nothing, but we heard you might be actively trying to improve your chances at a career while you're looking for work. However, one of our mates wants his share prices to go up by a millionth of a point, so we're forcing you to do night shifts at Tesco instead."

I don't like to be rude, but cunts.

I'm just pleased I don't work for the Job Centre, I had to sign on for a while about 10 years ago and I was pleased to deal with some people who genuinely wanted to help, were optimistic, and took the time to assist me in trying to find a job I'd be suited to. Nowadays it seems they must have one of the most miserable jobs going, poor sods. A bit like the army, you sign up thinking you're doing it for the benefit of your country, then find out you've been fucked over by those in power.

I give it five years before we're just having anyone earning less than 20,000 dragged out of their homes and shot in the street to save money. OR just shoot everyone on their 50th birthday, no pensions, no care homes, no strain on the NHS, it's perfect.

I realise I've gone off topic, but fuck me, I've never seen such hate aimed down the ladder of prosperity.

I also realise about half this tread has been me, but I happen to feel strongly about it.

im already vulenteering at a charity shop for my work experience to hopefully get into employment in the near future, any fellow unemployed brits i urge you to do the same before you get conscripted into tesco

and hang on, this is going to cause redundancies if these shops can now get essentially free labour rather than paid employees. with out meaning to sound like a conspiracy theorist it does seem like cameron hates poor people

I'm *SO* glad I don't live in England anymore.

SenseOfTumour:

Which is why you get hordes of people complaining about the welfare bill being about 2 billion in this country, blaming 'lazy, feckless welfare scum', when a fair amount of that is pensions of people who've worked all their life, benefits to people out of work or sick, who've been working and paid in, or people actually working, but need to claim so many things to be able to keep a home, eat and get to work.

I did a bit of research into scrounging because I found it hard to believe that the state was that bad at identifying when people were lying when a social worker has to actually come around and assess you.

I found out that the gov't lost (the paper was from 2005) about 4~ of benefit payouts to fraud, but about 5% of benefit payouts to bad paperwork.

"Tesco asks government to change flagship jobless scheme"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/feb/18/tesco-jobless-scheme-work-experience

If they think that a part of the problem is that young people are simply work-shy, they should probably consider that getting paid is the part that makes the labour worth while. Nothing is going to sour young people to working life faster than doing it for no money. Pay 'em...and you might see their attitudes change.

"Those who will be made to work could include men and women with terminal cancer who have more than six months to live, accident and stroke victims, and some mental health patients."

This is repugnant and offensive in a variety of ways. Is this government just a human-appearing-front for our actual rulers, the Decepticons?

Sleekit:
"Tesco asks government to change flagship jobless scheme"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/feb/18/tesco-jobless-scheme-work-experience

im not sure if that was just for PR but you know something is seriously fucking wrong when a super market cares more about the people it has for free labour than the government does

"Tesco asks government to change flagship jobless scheme"

It kind of speaks volumes they ask for it being compulsory to be changed, and not for actual payment to become mandatory.

That it's a compulsory scheme is not bad. Such programmes have been shown to be able to help long term unemployed find work and there is a minority of long term unemployed who are hopeless without such a scheme, the problem is they have to do something for nothing. I'd already find it far less of a problem if they paid two pounds an hour plus travel expenses. If I'm not mistaken that approaches the minimum wage for apprenticeships, so it would both do some justice to the work, and the condition that those people will often not be as productive as regular workers.

Sleekit:
"Tesco asks government to change flagship jobless scheme"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/feb/18/tesco-jobless-scheme-work-experience

How is it that the government, supposedly the democratically accountable group, fails to show any moral character, while a bunch of faceless corporations are pulling out of this nonsense?

Bad Jim:

Sleekit:
"Tesco asks government to change flagship jobless scheme"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/feb/18/tesco-jobless-scheme-work-experience

How is it that the government, supposedly the democratically accountable group, fails to show any moral character, while a bunch of faceless corporations are pulling out of this nonsense?

Because the government doesn't have to worry about elections for another few years, and so can rely on the general public's astoundingly short memory to save their reputation, while supermarkets are facing massive bad publicity right now. The UK is lucky in that respect at least; there are enough major supermarket chains that consumer action is actually a concern for them, since there are so many competitors to choose from.

What I find a bit sad though is, predictably, the public outrage isn't in the main against the forced labour programmes euphemistically titled "workfare", or even against forcing cancer patients and the mentally ill to work for less than minimum wage; it's against the idea that tax money is being used to subsidise the scheme. If the government had simply exempted any corporation involved in this scheme from paying the "clients" minimum wage, and didn't put any money in themselves, you can bet that opposition to this fucking outrage would drop by at least half, as all the middle-class Tories in the South would love the idea of making the "feckless layabouts" work full-time for their 50 a week.

Blablahb:

"Tesco asks government to change flagship jobless scheme"

It kind of speaks volumes they ask for it being compulsory to be changed, and not for actual payment to become mandatory.

That it's a compulsory scheme is not bad. Such programmes have been shown to be able to help long term unemployed find work and there is a minority of long term unemployed who are hopeless without such a scheme, the problem is they have to do something for nothing. I'd already find it far less of a problem if they paid two pounds an hour plus travel expenses. If I'm not mistaken that approaches the minimum wage for apprenticeships, so it would both do some justice to the work, and the condition that those people will often not be as productive as regular workers.

You know... if the corporations just paid fair amounts to workers then there would be more money circulating and the recession would stop as investment would be secured by the available money to be made instead of it just sitting in a foreign, tax free bank

Sleekit:
"Tesco asks government to change flagship jobless scheme"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/feb/18/tesco-jobless-scheme-work-experience

And support for this dreadful system begins to crumble rapidly. It is delicious.
OP: Yeah, that is terrible. I'm working at a factory for less than minimum wage as part of a work program, but at least I'm getting paid over 5$ an hour. This is tantamount to slavery.

spartandude:

Sleekit:
"Tesco asks government to change flagship jobless scheme"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/feb/18/tesco-jobless-scheme-work-experience

im not sure if that was just for PR but you know something is seriously fucking wrong when a super market cares more about the people it has for free labour than the government does

I was about to post this. It's absolutely pathetic that the government hadn't culled this program before now. I had a friend on one of these schemes. She's got a First Class degree, plenty of work experience, and they had her stocking shelves out the back. She wasn't even given customer contact to improve interpersonal skills.
Saying that this scheme is giving people valuable work experience is a complete farce.

And in terms of Tesco's motivation, it's probably a bit of both. I can't imagine that people being made to work for free are the most enthusiastic about getting it right. I fucking wouldn't be.

Danny Ocean:

SenseOfTumour:

Which is why you get hordes of people complaining about the welfare bill being about 2 billion in this country, blaming 'lazy, feckless welfare scum', when a fair amount of that is pensions of people who've worked all their life, benefits to people out of work or sick, who've been working and paid in, or people actually working, but need to claim so many things to be able to keep a home, eat and get to work.

I did a bit of research into scrounging because I found it hard to believe that the state was that bad at identifying when people were lying when a social worker has to actually come around and assess you.

I found out that the gov't lost (the paper was from 2005) about 4~ of benefit payouts to fraud, but about 5% of benefit payouts to bad paperwork.

I'm on jobseekers now, and it would be so easy (if I were so inclined) to fake the paperwork to get money. The form they give you says that you have to take 3 steps a week to show that you're looking for work. That can be as simple as "looking at jobswales.co.uk". So you could just make shit up without actually ever applying for anything. They never check that you've actually applied for a job, even if you give them a contact number (I know because I gave them the wrong number a few times, just to see!). I would welcome steps to make sure people were actually looking for work , but making people work for free isn't going to help anyone. Except Tesco.

I'm not saying that jobseekers are lazy, if fact the opposite:
It isn't reasonable for the government to use a system that is so open to abuse, and then, when a very small minority abuse it, punish everyone with a nonsensical idea like this placement program.

Shivarage:
You know... if the corporations just paid fair amounts to workers then there would be more money circulating and the recession would stop as investment would be secured by the available money to be made instead of it just sitting in a foreign, tax free bank

That's not the way it is. Business are compelled to invest whenever possible. Just sitting on a pile of cash makes for unhappy shareholders.

And what's fair? You get more than fair payment for most jobs, and bumping up the minimum wages a lot would be unfair as it would mean simple unresponsible uneducated work would start to earn more or almost the same as much tougher jobs. The minimum montly wage here is € 1446, and that is very comfortable. Most minimum wage households can easily afford luxury electronics and such, and if they use all manner of benefits available they can boost their income to over € 1800 a month.

That's about half of what I earned for serving in Afghanistan as a specialist in a command position that required rare academic skills. It's definately more than half of the starting salary I'll get once I finish my master's degree. It's utterly unfair they get that kind of money for a simple job, or no job at all.

In addition, in such a scenario the wage-price circle would just spin a little faster, and soon, inflation would've nullified the wage gain.

Blablahb:
That's not the way it is. Business are compelled to invest whenever possible. Just sitting on a pile of cash makes for unhappy shareholders.

And what's fair? You get more than fair payment for most jobs, and bumping up the minimum wages a lot would be unfair as it would mean simple unresponsible uneducated work would start to earn more or almost the same as much tougher jobs. The minimum montly wage here is € 1446, and that is very comfortable. Most minimum wage households can easily afford luxury electronics and such, and if they use all manner of benefits available they can boost their income to over € 1800 a month.

That's about half of what I earned for serving in Afghanistan as a specialist in a command position that required rare academic skills. It's definately more than half of the starting salary I'll get once I finish my master's degree. It's utterly unfair they get that kind of money for a simple job, or no job at all.

In addition, in such a scenario the wage-price circle would just spin a little faster, and soon, inflation would've nullified the wage gain.

Oh yes, you are absolutely right... businesses are certainly compelled to invest where there is NO money O_o

If minimum wage households couldn't afford luxury electronics then the economy would be dead so that's a moot point, there aren't enough upper class people to sell to in order to make a profit (it sure is dying though so you will get what you want)

Uni is meant to be a place to learn how to learn, it's not a job training centre and plus, as population is getting smarter and more abundant, this makes the jobs that used to pay enough to live very comfortably on into minimum wage or less thanks to currency devaluation and wages staying still

Capitalism was originally just meant to disperse the wealth of the richest but that idea died a long time ago now that the wealthiest insulated themselves from any sort of risk

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked