Like most people on I enjoy the discussion and debate
Anne
Dr. Anne Daguerre
Associate Professor in Work, Welfare and Employment
Middlesex University
Business School
The Burroughs
Hendon
London NW4 4BT
Tel.: +44 (0)20 8411 4612
Mob: 07715236033
________________________________________
From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mufeedh Choudhury [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 18 October 2015 19:26
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject:
Its fine just let them talk - I don't see what all this fuss is about.
-----------------------------------------
Mufeedh Choudhury | Doctoral Researcher (School Quality and Aspirations)
Secretary of Aberdeen Political Economy Group (APEG) & UCU Postgraduate Rep
Department of Economics | University of Aberdeen Business School | Edward Wright Building | Dunbar Street
Old Aberdeen | Scotland, United Kingdom | AB24 3QY
Tel: +44(0)7883991946
Personal Webpage: https://www.aqmen.ac.uk/user/1798
AUCU: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/ucu/
Aberdeen Political Economy Group (APEG): www.facebook.com/AberdeenPEG<http://www.facebook.com/AberdeenPEG>
________________________________
From: David Taylor <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sunday, 18 October 2015, 21:06
Subject:
Not by me! Useful discussion.
David Taylor
________________________________
From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Gregory White [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 18 October 2015 14:59
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject:
Dear John and Paul.
I think I speak for most people subscribed to this list when I ask politely that you not use it as a message board for your personal insights on every single issue that you deem important to discuss - it clogs up people's inboxes. I wouldn't have asked but this isn't the first time I've seen multiple (personal) conversation threads between the two of you appear in my inbox.
If you could refrain from this in future I think it'd be greatly appreciated by all subscribers.
Written with best intentions.
Gregory White
Doctoral Researcher
Department of Social Policy and Social Work
University of York
Heslington
York
YO10 5DD
e: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
w: http://www.york.ac.uk/spsw/research/phd/gregory-white/
t: +44 (0)7952 583 913
p: Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
On 18 Oct 2015, at 14:08, Paul Ashton <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
It is fine to say that the government's proposed National Living Wage is not actually designed to be a living wage, but then it is also ludicrous to describe the wage rate devised by the Minimum Income Standard research group, and given to the Living Wage Foundation to propagate, as 'the real Living Wage'. What is that wage level? It is alleged to be £7.85 an hour (outside London). As if you could have one single wage rate that produced a 'consensual minimum decency standard' for all family and household types, and working any number of hours! The Living Wage figure is just a weighted average of various household types. For example, for 2014, the MIS-calculated LW figure of £7.65 per hour came from averaging hourly rates that included: £8.30 for a single person; £5.70 for a couple (both working); £16.55 for a lone parent with 2 children; £21.10 for a lone parent with 3 children, and £10.35 for a couple with 2 children. But £7.65 an hour was the rate for all family types that was expected to achieve, “a measure of income that allows an employee to have a basic but socially acceptable standard of living.”
Further, it turns out that the averaged figure produced by the MIS group for 2015 is NOT the much flaunted figure of £7.85; it is in fact £9.05, though that figure is largely hidden from the public gaze. So, because the researchers who came up with this £9.05 figure realised that they would not be able to sell such a high wage rate, they come up with a 'fix'. Not quite on the scale of the Libor rate fix, but a fix nonetheless.
They use this excuse for the fix: "for the time being, it must be accepted that the applied Living Wage.. [the publicised one, now £7.85], ..while originating from a benchmark representing real minimum living costs, has for the time being been restricted to a level that is lower than these costs. … by keeping track of a ‘reference’ level.. [the actual computed level, now £9.05] .. that reflects minimum living costs in full, it will be possible to see what would be needed in better times for the Living Wage to be restored to this level."!
There is no pretence by the Chancellor that the National Living Wage rate, either on its introduction next year or at its completion in 2020, is intended to achieve a particular standard of living. The so-called 'real' Living Wage does pretend to do just that. But concocting a single wage figure which then has to have a fix applied to it to make it more presentable and then saying that that figure of £7.85 an hour will produce a 'socially acceptable standard of living' for all is just bonkers.
Paul Ashton
On 18/10/2015 12:04, John Veit-Wilson wrote:
Dear Michael – my comments were deliberately confined to the field in item 4 [income security] I know a bit about and not all the others, whatever their merits.
Advice on writing item 4:-
[1] Do NOT use the words ‘living wage’ anywhere unless you mean what the Living Wage Foundation supports. In particular do NOT use the Osborne NLW term at all because [a] it means nothing more than a higher minimum wage; [b] it is not a ‘living wage’ in any evidenced sense of the term; [c] it is a deliberate partisan political attempt to hijack the good image of the real LW and confuse the public, something which Compass should avoid instead of embracing [that’s part of my query about where its values have gone].
[2] Precisely because the real LW is evidenced and nationally based on consensual minimum decency standards, it is a good target for the statutory minimum wage to aim for. That should be what item 4 is about, not meaningless earnings deciles which don’t relate to measures of either insecurity or inequality.
[3] Don’t try to be so ideologically inclusive – you can’t placate the Osborne spin doctors who simply have a different political agenda in opposition to Compass, or it ought to have to theirs [my query about values is repeated].
If you don’t get the values clear first, you end up with a list of disparate ‘retail policies’ instead of a coherent political programme. What the entire statement needs to set out clearly at the outset is what are Compass’s current social values, and how does this varied list of policies derive from them? In the item 4 case that is not at present clear to me – I hope the next draft will be able to clarify it.
Best wishes,
John.
------------------------------------------------------------
From Professor John Veit-Wilson
Newcastle University GPS -- Sociology
Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, England.
Tel: 0044[0]191-208 7498
email <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
<http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/j.veit-wilson/>www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/j.veit-wilson<http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/j.veit-wilson>
/
___________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by MessageLabs' Email Security
System on behalf of the University of Brighton.
For more information see http://www.brighton.ac.uk/is/spam/
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by MessageLabs' Email Security
System on behalf of the University of Brighton.
For more information see http://www.brighton.ac.uk/is/spam/
___________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note that Middlesex University's preferred way of receiving all correspondence is via email in line with our Environmental Policy. All incoming post to Middlesex University is opened and scanned by our digital document handler, CDS, and then emailed to the recipient.
If you do not want your correspondence to Middlesex University processed in this way please email the recipient directly. Parcels, couriered items and recorded delivery items will not be opened or scanned by CDS. There are items which are "exceptions" which will be opened by CDS but will not be scanned a full list of these can be obtained by contacting the University.
|
