[DanaC]

We absolutely do have a low wage economy. But I think it would be a mistake to think that our government wants that changed.

It's like with rents. There is a benefit granted to unemployed and low wage households to help with the cost of renting a home. Rents are outrageously expensive. A significant proportion of the governing party are landlords who rent to the unemployed. So, whilst they make all sorts of noises about the cost to the public of high rents - they themselves are directly profiting from those high rents. Rather than intorduce rent controls on the private sector to bring down rents, they instead reduce the benefits of people who rent from the limited social rent sector - that is to say those who rent from council/housing associations - thereby forcing people who have no real option to change their situation to pay the shortfall out of their low wages or unemployment benefits.

They could cut the housing benefit bill drastically, if they introduced sensible rent controls to the private sector. But that would directly affect their own income.

Similarly, the current government is made up of people with strong links to business. It is against their personal interests for wages to go up, despite their claims to want wages to rise.

Instead they push unemployed people to accept zero-hour contract jobs or lose their meagre benefits.

The UK is tilted almost entirely to employers. If your employer lets you go and claims it is your own fault (so, whether you've actually been incompetant, or if there's a personality clash between you and a manager) you are not entitled to any unemployment benefit for 6-12 months. If you walk away from your job (so, if your employer has treaed you badly - and that includes a zero hour contract not giving you any work for months on end) you are intentionally unemployed and barred from claiming benefits for 6-12 months. If you are unhappy with the way your employer treats you, you can no longer seek redress from an employment tribunal without paying fees of several hundred pounds. Consequently, people get trapped in jobs where they are mistreated and underpaid for fear of having no income at all. Employers know this and some (not all) are happy to make use of that situation.

The problem with having very low and very contingent benefits for the unemployed is that people are fearful of losing their jobs and therefore are in a weak position when mistreated. With high unemployment, employers are free to treat workers badly, knowing there is always a ready pool to draw from.

These things drive down working conditions and wages. And that - for the ones who are employers, works very well thankyou.

Meanwhile - the austerity drive seeks to save money by cutting benefits to the unemployed and low waged - when the amount that could be saved is minimal compared to what might be saved if attention was focused on the tax avoidance strategies of big corporations. Businesses are not heavily taxed in this country. And, that's probably a good thing overall. But they should be paying that tax not squirreling away through complicated tax avoidance schemes and tax havens.

Smaller businesses pay their way. They pay their taxes. It's the huge corporations that manage to get away with not doing so. The burden of recovery falls on the shoulders of the very poor and the genuine job creators. Whilst big business gets away with paying minimal tax, reaping hige profits and employing people on exploitative terms.