Why do we accept low pay for key workers as the norm?

I think we also need to exercise some caution here. The concept of a key worker isa wide one and now seems to cover a wide range of jobs. So whilst fully accepting some key workers are indeed paid poorly (in care homes etc traditionally due to some of the issues highlighted above) not all key workers are.

Median total earnings for Police Constables and Sergeants is £40K and many quickly reach the top of their pay spines. Newly Qualified Teachers earn £25K+ and again many rise by annual increments to 40K. According to the RCN the average salary of a nurse in the NHS is £33K. (And accept that with any average there will be lower examples as well as higher ones). Some though not all these jobs also come with additional benefits that are important when making comparisons

Whilst none of these salaries is going to make you rich or even very comfortable, they are all above the "average" salary in the UK.

So let's be clear which key workers we think are low paid. Often (not exclusively) it's those requiring lower formal "skills" (and accept that people also do these jobs for other reasons) and can in some ways be seen as a factor of a normal market, improve skills and improve prospects.

For what its worth Jacky I think there is some merit to the discussion about a Universal basic payment. But it won't (I think) help this debate for the majority of people at the bottom as in effect it will simply replace benefits. It may in fact make the situation slightly worst for some at least in terms of differentials

When I posted on this thread I had in mind the workers who provide domiciliary care. I think I am right that contracts for domiciliary care are awarded by Social Services and provided the supplier can meet the minimum standards to fulfil the contract, they go to the lowest bidder. I would speculate that outsourced hospital jobs (porter, cleaner, canteen worker) operate on much the same lines. I don't think there is much opportunity for progression for this type of worker. There might be a supervisory role for someone to organise rotas etc, but its going to be for a small addition to their hourly rate. Whereas, as you point out, some key services (the police, fire service and teaching, for example) can provide a career structure and the potential of a senior job on considerably higher pay.

David indeed there is something not quite right. But that's not "necessarily" linked to being a key worker. Many of those people are in cleaning, retail, factory, security etc.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I think the debate to be had (which I also think is what you are saying) is far more about social justice and inequalities across the economy rather than restricting it to particular sectors.

Very true Keith. The initial question being about key workers, we cannot ignore that many other workers are also low-paid, for many of the same reasons that some key-workers are, nor should we ignore that many once low-paid key workers became and/or are adequately or even well-paid. The mystery seeming to be not why these inequalities exist or have remained existent, (as explored above) but how they should be addressed and removed. As you suggest, much debate to be had.

Much as it might temporarily relieve the problem of financial hardship, I feel a universal basic income will not make housing available for those currently unable to afford rent, it will merely create a shortage encouraging rents to rise and exploitation, such as multiple-occupation of unsuitable dwellings, to increase. Similarly for other resources currently of limited access to those in poverty: Being able to buy more food will further exacerbate our increasingly stretched supplies, driving prices up and (potentially) quality down, and on every level a UBI can only become a benchmark of necessity for payments by those who see "fair" incomes as an unnecessary liability to their profits, and a (powerful) force for inflation. Regrettably, I believe the effect will be more opportunities for exploitation of those existing on the UBI and not a long-term solution to poverty. I have no answers, but don't feel a UBI, if not associated with other substantial changes, is one either.

P