Can anyone explain the logic of this please?

'employed'

Autocorrect again

FarNorth

It's to massage the unemployment figures by having a large number of people employed for very few hours per week.

Yes, I think even if it's one hour per week it is counted as 'employee' if it is paid.

FarNorth

It's to massage the unemployment figures by having a large number of people employed for very few hours per week.

Yes, and the taxpayer, who has been taught to complain about 'paying for' those on benefits, is still paying the bill, but instead of their taxes benefiting society, they are going into the pockets of unscrupulous employers.

It's to massage the unemployment figures by having a large number of people employed for very few hours per week.

But Boris has announced that we are going to be a high salary economy! I take this to mean that that those who are poorly paid will be replaced by robots, drones, etc., and the managers will be paid more. Thousands more will be unemployed, but average salaries of those in work will have risen.

Another pledge honoured.

The dwp will expect people to apply for low paid jobs, and to keep applying until they get one.

That only works if there are people available to do the work. If there aren't, all that happens is that the wage bill rises, but there are still vacancies.

It’s an interesting comparison and I’m sure it’s accurate but that’s not how it works, companies pay the lowest wages they can to attract a worker capable of doing the work. If that worker can get better elsewhere she/he will leave, the only way to increases wages of the low paid is to raise the national minimum wage. Then everyone in the retail, hospitality and care industries will get a better deal, albeit at the consumers expense because companies still need to make a profit.

I know.
I'm one of them!

I think when I renew my yearly bus ticket, I'll just decide to pay a couple of hundred, and the state can fund the other £300.

MamaCaz

It certainly is, isn't it, MissAdventure!
And at the same time, that these low-paid workers are demonised for it, as if it is their fault and they are just feckless scroungers.

I was trying to find a picture I've frequently seen on twitter, and maybe someone has posted on on here at some time. Many of you probably know it. But I can't find it. I think it's apt here

It's of a rich man with a plate full of biscuits in front of him (who looks a little like Rupert Murdoch) a person on the other side of the table with one biscuit on his plate, and a hungry looking person hovering around. The man with the full plate is saying to the man with one biscuit "He's trying to take your biscuit"

It certainly is, isn't it, MissAdventure!
And at the same time, that these low-paid workers are demonised for it, as if it is their fault and they are just feckless scroungers.

They have done this for years, though. Working Tax Credits encouraged it, if I remember rightly, and it's continued since. They allowed companies to suppress wages, knowing that the taxpayer would pick up the tab and bring them up to a basic level of subsistence.

This is one of the reasons why I have little patience with companies saying that they can't afford to pay the living wage. I would much rather see a system whereby the company had to apply for a subsidy, rather than the employees. Under the Doodledog Scheme, they would have to show that the turnover (or profit - whichever would show up the money paid to owners/directors) was under a set amount, and measures would have to be put in place to stop them from simply closing one company and opening a new one in order to keep claiming the subsidy.

I've never even considered this angle.
It is weird, that companies which are doing well can just let the system prop up their employees.

the y deliberately keep most staff at under 16 hours a week too

A very good post, grannyactivist.

M0nica

What about companies that are not profitable? Company profit levels vary from losses to very profitable but everyone is assuming that all public quoted companies are immensely profitable. They aren't.

Not every company gets a bail out when needed, only when the country and worldwide effects of their collapse is greater than the personal loss does the government step in.

Look at all the companies that have gone bust without government intervention. Philip Green's empire, Debenhams, all those small energy companies, and many more.

But M0nica that doesn't answer the question; I specifically asked about companies that do make huge profits.

I don't actually mind that some businesses are helped out by the government, but why, if they do become profitable again, is there no mechanism for repaying the bailout costs?

And again, why don't we ever hear the same disparaging terms about these business scroungers that cost the country billions upon billions of pounds, but we do hear of individuals who collectively cost the country far less? The question needs to be asked: Is someone controlling the narrative to keep eyes on the poor, so we don't look at where the big money is being siphoned off to?

M0nica

What about companies that are not profitable? Company profit levels vary from losses to very profitable but everyone is assuming that all public quoted companies are immensely profitable. They aren't.

Not every company gets a bail out when needed, only when the country and worldwide effects of their collapse is greater than the personal loss does the government step in.

Look at all the companies that have gone bust without government intervention. Philip Green's empire, Debenhams, all those small energy companies, and many more.

The only reason why Green's empire was not profitable was because he withdrew huge sums and left the businesses underfunded. There were also problems recruiting management level staff because of his abrasive personality. I don't know whether he paid his staff the minimum wage. If he had they would also have been claiming top up benefits.

I stand corrected, MOnica Private Equity indeed.

I stand corrected, MOnica Private Equity indeed.

No argument Maizie, but the thread is about goverment bail-outs, not dodgy deals by dodgy business men.

The question of these buy-outs by Private Equity companies (hedge funds are something else) are very worrying and of no good to anyone excpt the PE companies shareholders.

I think that could be controlled by limits on the extent that these companies can push the debts onto the acquired companies. Any borrowing done to purchase a company should remain on the purchasers balance sheet.

I heard this subject discussed on the radio and it was said that the reason we have so many of these PE buy-outs is because share prices are low in the UK compared with international share prices, so these companies can buy these companies relatively cheaply.

trisher

You might well wonder consider the Rail industry- it is privatised isn't it. But the government is still subsidising it Total rail industry income in 2019-20 was £20.1bn, a 5.3% increase from 2018-19. This consisted of £11.6bn from passengers (£10.4bn of fares and £1.2bn of other train operator income), £6.5bn from government funding and £2.0bn from other sources.
And that was before Covid, Substantial sums have been given to offset the disruption.

This was well researched by a team from Manchester University and their report published in 2013

www.bringbackbritishrail.org/reports/greattrainrobbery.pdf

Can I remind you that the East Coast main line is in public ownership at the moment (for the second time). And IIRR, wasn't another line taken into public ownership fairly recently. And the government of the day had to take back Rail Track quite a while ago after a serious of accidents.

But yes, privatisation was a big con.

You might well wonder consider the Rail industry- it is privatised isn't it. But the government is still subsidising it Total rail industry income in 2019-20 was £20.1bn, a 5.3% increase from 2018-19. This consisted of £11.6bn from passengers (£10.4bn of fares and £1.2bn of other train operator income), £6.5bn from government funding and £2.0bn from other sources.
And that was before Covid, Substantial sums have been given to offset the disruption.

I see there are concerns that Morrisons, having been sold to a Hedge Fund will suffer from asset stripping which could cause it to fail
That's what happened to a chain of care homes if I remember correctly.

Ilovecheese

"What about companies that are not profitable? Company profit levels vary from losses to very profitable but everyone is assuming that all public quoted companies are immensely profitable. They aren't."

But why should taxpayers fund a company that isn't profitable?
Surely if a business is not making a profit it is just an unviable business.

But, sometimes the company isn't profitable because its had its value so stripped out by its owner/s to the extent that it can't pay its debts.

But wasn't the OP more about companies benefiting from the government picking up the tab for supplementing the poor wages they pay? Corporate welfare...

Funny you should mention Philip Green, MOnica. He didn't look to have lost much through his company going bust. I'm not sure exactly what went on with BHS, but haven't the Pandora Papers disclosed a lot of very complex moves, involving shell companies and offshore ownership, by which company owners can, for example, load a company, which may well be a going concern, with debt and cause it to fail while reaping huge financial benefits for themselves?

I see there are concerns that Morrisons, having been sold to a Hedge Fund will suffer from asset stripping which could cause it to fail.

It's a really complex area, though. I don't begin to understand the half of it.