Support the living wage

[steveo]

Which part of answer A or B don't you understand?

 

[mrsblue]

Those on the maximum dole payments and equating their money Mon to Fri at 40 hours per week equals £12.50 per hour nett.

Perhaps those on the lowest wage should all go on the dole:stunned:

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Which part of answer A or B don't you understand?

You forgot answer C.

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

 

[steveo]

You forgot answer C.

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

Maybe on paper. However I'm talking about the real world. If every company adopted the living wage, this would soon become the minimum wage. So minimum wage workers would still be minimum wage workers. They would have more money to spend and most of the firms they work for would be making less money which some would find to be unsustainable.

Why not take your argument a few steps further and make the living wage £15 an hour? By your reckoning everyone would be a lot better off, spend more money and be so much happier - but the money has to come from somewhere to pay for it.

Like most of your theories, its all worked out on paper by some bloke who probably hasnt done a proper days work in his life and doesn't know how things in the real world work, and as usual there is no explanation as to who pays for it and how they raise the money.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Maybe on paper. However I'm talking about the real world. If every company adopted the living wage, this would soon become the minimum wage. So minimum wage workers would still be minimum wage workers. They would have more money to spend and most of the firms they work for would be making less money which some would find to be unsustainable.

Why not take your argument a few steps further and make the living wage £15 an hour? By your reckoning everyone would be a lot better off, spend more money and be so much happier - but the money has to come from somewhere to pay for it.

Like most of your theories, its all worked out on paper by some bloke who probably hasnt done a proper days work in his life and doesn't know how things in the real world work, and as usual there is no explanation as to who pays for it and how they raise the money.

This particular theory was "worked out" by the Centre for Social Research and the Greater London authority, not by me.

 

[South Bank Hank]

as usual there is no explanation as to who pays for it and how they raise the money.

Bit harsh. It's those business owners nasty rich people who set up companies live on their trust funds and provide employment exploit the working man for their own benefit.

I almost agree with Option C. Companies could add to their wage bills and could benefit through better-motivated workers and lower staff turnover, but only if they were able to survive the additional wage costs. After all, the only motivation shown by an ex-employee of a company that failed due to increased costs will be to find a new job.

The key factor missing with the option is CHOICE - at both ends - the choice of the EMPLOYER to offer a job at a wage it considers reasonable and the choice of the EMPLOYEE as to whether they consider the offer to be reasonable or whether they should provide their labour elsewhere.

My gut-feel is that the notion of a minimum wage is a good one, even a living wage (as there should be certain protection for maternity, disability, etc) but it should not be forced to apply to businesses of a certain size, turnover or profitability where its introduction could do more damage than good in leading to failure. Where it's applied to larger, more profitable businesses, it then needs to be considered from a global economic basis where again, the same question needs to be asked: is it doing more damage than good in leading to a lack of competitiveness in the market.

 

[Hotman]

Barna you've got an obvious lack of experience re: point C. Money is not the key motivator for people. Trust me, I know, having given pay rises of over 10k with no benefit. Problem is you are a university educated bell end who thinks that theory works in practice .. Increase the min wage to £10 and everyone will want £12 - why? Because those who lie at the lower end of the social spectrum feel the world owes them a favour. And ***** like you only perpetuate that feeling. ******.

 

[Berrichonne shrimper]

Barna you've got an obvious lack of experience re: point C. Money is not the key motivator for people. Trust me, I know, having given pay rises of over 10k with no benefit. Problem is you are a university educated bell end who thinks that theory works in practice .. Increase the min wage to £10 and everyone will want £12 - why? Because those who lie at the lower end of the social spectrum feel the world owes them a favour. And ***** like you only perpetuate that feeling. ******.

A polytechnic educated bellend if you please,get the facts right.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Barna you've got an obvious lack of experience re: point C. Money is not the key motivator for people. Trust me, I know, having given pay rises of over 10k with no benefit. Problem is you are a university educated bell end who thinks that theory works in practice .. Increase the min wage to £10 and everyone will want £12 - why? Because those who lie at the lower end of the social spectrum feel the world owes them a favour. And ***** like you only perpetuate that feeling. ******.

Actually,I'm a freelance teacher of business (and general English) with a fair amount of experience in pricing my services successfully to various different institutions,companies and private individuals.

While I would agree that "money is not (necessarily) the key motivator for people" at the top/middle end of the earnings scale, it obviously becomes much more important, the nearer you are to the bottom.

 

[steveo]

Actually,I'm a freelance teacher of business (and general English) with a fair amount of experience in pricing my services successfully to various different institutions,companies and private individuals.

While I would agree that "money is not (necessarily) the key motivator for people" at the top/middle end of the earnings scale, it obviously becomes much more important, the nearer you are to the bottom.

As a teacher of business have you ever actually been involved in running a business? Its just a question.

I usually find the people with all the theories have never had to put them into practise.

Obviously money is important but people live to what they earn and will always want more. There are plenty of people on minimum wage who still afford to smoke for example. Should being able to afford to smoke be included in the living wage figure?

 

[Neil_F]

"Supporters of minimum wage accept that some unemployment will result

You've admitted the living wage policy will increase unemployment so how much unemployment will that be? You are advocating a policy that will put the lowest paid out of work. If the current government did that you would argue it is a sign of an evil government looking after their rich friends at the expense of the poor. How comes you are allowed to advocate it?

 

[Neil_F]

You forgot answer C.

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

But you lefties are always telling us that absolute earnings are irrelevant; it is relative earnings that matter. Hence the emphasis on inequality (which is actually falling) rather than the significant real terms increase in absolute earnings and wealth. If relative earnings are the most important thing (according to you) then you cannot argue that employees will be more motivated because everyone would get a pay rise if the living wag is enforced by statute (as you want). Hence the relative earnings would not increase at all. You can't have it both ways. As for staff turnover, it is clear you don't understand how labour markets work.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

As a teacher of business have you ever actually been involved in running a business? Its just a question.

I usually find the people with all the theories have never had to put them into practise.

Obviously money is important but people live to what they earn and will always want more. There are plenty of people on minimum wage who still afford to smoke for example. Should being able to afford to smoke be included in the living wage figure?

As a freelance "autonomo" teacher in Spain, I have to pay the Spanish state 250 euros a month,irrespective of what I earn, (nothing in August for example),issue companies etc with invoices,chase up late payers,keep my own books etc.In other words,all the things I would be doing, were I running my own company here,which is effectively what I am doing (though not as an S.A, or limited company, as such).

I did have some discussions with a group of other teachers, some years ago, about setting up a teachers co-operative here in Barcelona.
I thought their ideas were remarkably old fashoned, in that they wanted to operate from a "school" premises (these are just the sort of old style "businesses" that have been going to the wall here in recent years).
My idea was to offer teaching,translation and other services to companies and institutions etc,which is effectively what I've done by myself.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

[/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B]

You've admitted the living wage policy will increase unemployment so how much unemployment will that be? You are advocating a policy that will put the lowest paid out of work. If the current government did that you would argue it is a sign of an evil government looking after their rich friends at the expense of the poor. How comes you are allowed to advocate it?

Please see ***'s excellent post (number 11 ) on this point.

I'm advocating a living wage not a minimum wage.You seem a little confused on this point.

But you lefties are always telling us that absolute earnings are irrelevant; it is relative earnings that matter. Hence the emphasis on inequality (which is actually falling) rather than the significant real terms increase in absolute earnings and wealth. If relative earnings are the most important thing (according to you) then you cannot argue that employees will be more motivated because everyone would get a pay rise if the living wag is enforced by statute (as you want). Hence the relative earnings would not increase at all. You can't have it both ways. As for staff turnover, it is clear you don't understand how labour markets work.

Another Aunt Sally argument.

It is of course a nonsense to claim that inequality is falling.In fact, the exact opposite is happening under this government.

How could it be otherwise at a time when prices are rising faster than wages? It is this alone-IMO-which will cost the Tories any chance of victory at the polls in 2015.

Voters anywhere and especially in the UK, don't normally vote for parties which are responsible for a fall in their real standard of living.

 

[Neil_F]

Please see ***'s excellent post (number 11 ) on this point.

I'm advocating a living wage not a minimum wage.You seem a little confused on this point.

*** acknowledged that unemployment would increase if a living wage is introduced. You then copied ***'s comment and endorsed it. Surely you therefore agree with his point that unemployment will rise? I am asking you how much it will rise by.

The easiest way to legislate for a living wage is to increase the minimum wage. Indeed, if you want to make the living wage a statutory amount then it would be illegal to pay less than it. How is that anything other than a minimum wage?

It is of course a nonsense to claim that inequality is falling.In fact, the exact opposite is happening under this government.

How could it be otherwise at a time when prices are rising faster than wages? It is this alone-IMO-which will cost the Tories any chance of victory at the polls in 2015.

Voters anywhere and especially in the UK, don't normally vote for parties which are responsible for a fall in their real standard of living.

Perhaps you'd like to take it up with the ONS: http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013...the-rich-are-getting-poorer-and-inequality-is. From your reference to prices it is clear that you don't understand how inequality is defined, just as you don't understand how a living wage would work, what a minimum wage is and what the economic consequences of it would be.

 

[Bielzibubz]

Forgive me if I'm being a little dense here but if a working wage is set by statutory regulation then it goes without saying that any employer cannot then pay an employee less than that statutory set working wage, thus it is to all intense and purposes a legally set minimum wage, yes?

Now I'm not a business man nor do I employ anyone but I have two very good friends that are and do. Both are finding it very hard to make ends meet and keep the wolf from the door and both have had to 'let people go' in the last 18 months or so. Setting a minimum wage/ working wage (or whatever you prefer to call it) at the limit at which it's been proposed would have dire consequences for both. Surely basic common sense say's that the higher the expenditure of any company when sales stay relatively stagnant means cutbacks and savings have to be found elsewhere and when a business has already been trimmed to it's limit already the only option left to the employer is more staff cutbacks and redundancies.

I'm sorry but for the life of me I cannot see any sense in that whatsoever. Surely it's better to re-educate certain people that if you have to live and you just manage to get by on the basic minimum wage you cannot then complain that you've had to cut back on your smoking and you can now only go down the pub once a week instead of three.

Also Barna. Do you honestly believe that an extra £1.00 per hour or so in a persons pay packet is going to make them more productive and thus more beneficial to an employer then you're clearly so far detached from the realities of normal working life then I think you'd be better off working in Spain..............................oh, wait. Scrap that.

 

[steveo]

Now I'm not a business man nor do I employ anyone but I have two very good friends that are and do. Both are finding it very hard to make ends meet and keep the wolf from the door and both have had to 'let people go' in the last 18 months or so.

I was trying to make this point to Barna, but as with most lefties, they seem to think the bloke that runs the Company is milking it dry whilst paying staff a pittance, which in reality is just not the case.

If he ever got off his fat arse and got in amongst the real world he might see things in a different light.

 

[Hotman]

Actually,I'm a freelance teacher of business (and general English) with a fair amount of experience in pricing my services successfully to various different institutions,companies and private individuals.

so you understand how to price effectively. That's irrelevant. The point that you should be trying to make here is in respect of your experience in employing people. Not talking about it to people who know even less than you.

While I would agree that "money is not (necessarily) the key motivator for people" at the top/middle end of the earnings scale, it obviously becomes much more important, the nearer you are to the bottom.

i agree it is more important at that end. as demonstrated in Maslow's hierarchy of needs (see I can do theories too). Thing is, the basics are more than adequately covered by the current min wage and welfare state. Hence, money is considered more of a hygiene factor (see Herzberg's theory) for most.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

*** acknowledged that unemployment would increase if a living wage is introduced. You then copied ***'s comment and endorsed it. Surely you therefore agree with his point that unemployment will rise? I am asking you how much it will rise by.

As you will be well aware, that is a question which is almost impossible for an ordinary member of the public to answer.I suggest you wait until an attempt to introduce the living wage is made,hopefully by Ed Balls, after the next GE.

Since the rest of your post contains a motley collection of untruths,half lies and petty, personal insults I won't be concerning myself with it.

I'm sorry (for you) that you have so little compassion for the poor and are arrogant and contemptous of people who disagree with your views.

 

[steveo]

i agree it is more important at that end. as demonstrated in Maslow's hierarchy of needs (see I can do theories too). Thing is, the basics are more than adequately covered by the current min wage and welfare state. Hence, money is considered more of a hygiene factor (see Herzberg's theory) for most.

Boring ****er.
Are you Barna in disguise?