Support the living wage

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2...Editable trailblock - news:Position4:sublinks

"An idea whose time has come." I certainly think so.

 

[Benfleet A1]

Just as a matter of interest, how much would you set this living wage at. No set up, no trap, just a genuinely curious question.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Just as a matter of interest, how much would you set this living wage at. No set up, no trap, just a genuinely curious question.

"The living wage, set by the Centre for Social Research and the Greater London authority, stands at £7.45 for workers outside London and £8.55 for those in the capital. The statutory minimum wage is £6.19."

Unite's leader has suggested a similar figure recently.I'm certainly not going to argue with the CSR.

This is what some enlightened employers are already paying anyway.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

when people say that the two main parties are the same the differing stance on minimum is something that always springs to mind

 

[steveo]

So what if a firm cannot afford to pay £7.45 per hour? A company employing 20 people on minimum wage for 45 hours a week, would have to find another 1100 quid each week.

They could do this by laying off 4 of their existing staff - but lets assume they have already cut everything to the bone to survive, so that isn't an option.

Increase their prices? Possibly but then have the potential to lose business to other competition resulting in less work meaning less staff required meaning loss of jobs.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

So what if a firm cannot afford to pay £7.45 per hour? A company employing 20 people on minimum wage for 45 hours a week, would have to find another 1100 quid each week.

They could do this by laying off 4 of their existing staff - but lets assume they have already cut everything to the bone to survive, so that isn't an option.

Increase their prices? Possibly but then have the potential to lose business to other competition resulting in less work meaning less staff required meaning loss of jobs.

"At present the state pays out around £4bn a year to top up the incomes of low earners, a sum that experts say could be halved, or better, if the living wage became the norm".

Why should the state have to subsidise companies which refuse to pay their employees a living wage?

"Companies would add to their wage bills, but would benefit through better-motivated workers and lower staff turnover".

This is precisely why companies should sign up for the living wage.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2...Editable trailblock - news:Position4:sublinks

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

when people say that the two main parties are the same the differing stance on minimum is something that always springs to mind

It's interesting that both the Mayor of London and the PM have expressed support of the living wage as a "good idea".
Neither of them,however, appear to support the case for compulsion,which is surely the whole point?

 

[steveo]

Yes its a great idea Barna, but you are assuming that every company is making millions. That is just not the case.
Small business in this country often struggles to make ends meet.

You didnt answer my question. What if the firm cannot afford to pay the extra? Would you rather they shut down and carry their failure as a badge of honour "We tried to pay our workers more but couldn't afford it so we closed"

Why should the state have to subsidise companies which refuse to pay their employees a living wage?

The state subsidises plenty of other loss making ventures. LEts take your argument to something for example like "why should the state subsidise housing for people who dont want to or cant afford to buy their own house?

Lets have it one way or the other - you cant have both.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

It's interesting that both the Mayor of London and the PM have expressed support of the living wage as a "good idea".
Neither of them,however, appear to support the case for compulsion,which is surely the whole point?

Bit like having a striker who agrees with the principal of scoring goals but doesn't score any. That striker wouldn't get a new contract in the next season

 

[Neil_F]

Come on, Barna, you need to answer Steveo's question here. The biggest problem with high minimum wages is unemployment, especially youth unemployment. Academic research suggests a minimum wage in excess of 60% of the minimum wage leads to significant youth unemployment. You're going to need something a lot better than, "I disagree" to convince anyone. The objective here is to increase the consumption power of the lowest earners. An admirable aim and one I completely support. There are three components to consumption power: gross earnings, direct taxes levied by the government and the cost of living (including indirect taxes). The best way to increase consumption power is to reduce the burden of taxation, especially indirect taxes. This avoids the problem of unemployment that comes from high minimum wages. That would mean reducing the size of the State and the huge drag that paying for it has on the economy. I suspect you won't support this though, Barna. The left always want more government and more handouts and they always want someone else to pay for it.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Supporters of minimum wage accept that some unemployment will result as some companies are run in a way that they can only exist if they under pay on their costs. The trick is getting the level of minimum pay right. There will always be some companies that get tipped into being unviable but really that indicates they always were. For more though it will mean a squeeze on profits. The poor spend all of their income so that money goes straight back into the economy and that creates jobs. The fears are valid but if the right level is chosen then we all win.

 

[steveo]

There will always be some companies that get tipped into being unviable but really that indicates they always were.

But if they could struggle through the tough times, whilst being unviable, things could improve in the future. If they started having to hike their wage bill it may tip them over.

 

[Pubey]

Seeing as Barna lives in Spain I thought he'd understand the issue of massive youth unemployment.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Seeing as Barna lives in Spain I thought he'd understand the issue of massive youth unemployment.

I do.What's your point?
(Incidentally, I was reading an article in El Pais earlier today about young Spaniards working in London.Berlin is another popular destination).

http://elpais.com/elpais/2013/07/18/eps/1374142732_461625.html

 

[Pubey]

I do.What's your point?
(Incidentally, I was reading an article in El Pais earlier today about young Spaniards working in London.Berlin is another popular destination).

That, as Neil F has pointed out, big hikes in minimum wage increases youth unemployment.

Spain is bankrupt, and 57% of under 25s are unemployed. I'd rather the UK didn't end up in that situation, thanks.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

That, as Neil F has pointed out, big hikes in minimum wage increases youth unemployment.

Spain is bankrupt, and 57% of under 25s are unemployed. I'd rather the UK didn't end up in that situation, thanks.

You'll perhaps have missed the news, earlier this year, that Spain was able to refuse a bail out by the EU.

The key difference between Spain and the UK is that Britain is free to devalue its currency, (since it's not in the Euro), which it has done by over 20% since 2010.

Otherwise, the balance of payments deficit and debt situation of the two countries is broadly similar.

 

[steveo]

Pubey, lay off for a minute or he will find another way to divert the thread without answering important questions in typical Barna fashion.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

As far as I'm concerned, Another Surrey Shrimper has already answered your question to me, (see post 11 in this thread).

 

[steveo]

As far as I'm concerned, Another Surrey Shrimper has already answered your question to me, (see post 11 in this thread).

I was hoping for an answer from you. How about you pick A or B, or enlighten us with C.

A business employees 20 people. 10 of these are unskilled and earn minimum wage.
The business hits upon hard times in a competitive market and is barely making end meet. Does the owner:

A) Increase the wages of the minimum wage earners to the "living wage" and after a while goes skint and has to shut down.

B) Carry on as he is and continue to employ 20 people.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I was hoping for an answer from you. How about you pick A or B, or enlighten us with C.

A business employees 20 people. 10 of these are unskilled and earn minimum wage.
The business hits upon hard times in a competitive market and is barely making end meet. Does the owner:

A) Increase the wages of the minimum wage earners to the "living wage" and after a while goes skint and has to shut down.

B) Carry on as he is and continue to employ 20 people.

"Supporters of minimum wage accept that some unemployment will result as some companies are run in a way that they can only exist if they under pay on their costs. The trick is getting the level of minimum pay right. There will always be some companies that get tipped into being unviable but really that indicates they always were. For more though it will mean a squeeze on profits. The poor spend all of their income so that money goes straight back into the economy and that creates jobs. The fears are valid but if the right level is chosen then we all win".

Which part of ***'s excellent post didn't you understand?