Although George Osbourne is an unsufferable arse...

[Lord Duckhunter]

But, LD, there's nothing to stop companies paying living wages without being told to. That's a moral thing to do. But do morals and principles mix with business?

 

There are a few private companies and a number of local authorities (including many London boroughs) opting to pay the living wage already.

 

But the minimum wage allows them to a the veneer of having morals without actually having any.

 

My Company regularly bangs on about paying above the minimum wage as if it's some sort of achievement. Pay rises for grades lower than management were all changed to Oct from April to coincide with the increase in the minimum wage, the figure will be announced and it'll contain the words "X amount of pence over the minimum wage". I'm sure there are countless other companies that do the same.

 

Personally, and I have no data for this just a gut feeling, I think the minimum wage has suppressed more peoples wages than it has dragged peoples wages up. Not so much now, but during the growth years. Companies all benchmarked their lowest pay against that figure, rather than paying a decent figure to attract talent. WFTC then add to the problem because Companies get the low wages topped up, so why bother paying more. For capitalism to really work people have to be able to put a figure on their Labour and walk away if offered lower than that. If Tesco couldn't get anyone to stack their shelves for £6.30, they would have to put the wage up to attract people. At present they can pay people that (and it was just an estimate) and the taxpayer will top it up. It also means that ASDA, Sainsbury's and Morrison's can also peg their pay around that figure leading to a downward spiral of ever lower wages. There is not a genuine market for peoples labour, it is skewered by the minimum wage. Therefore to make the minimum wage work you need to set it at a rate where people can live on it without state hand-outs .

[Whitey Grandad]

No. But my point was that its not like a household budget, which is a widely held misconception. If the state sacks a state employee, the state will incur costs in doing so whether we like it or not. Obviously, state departments are overstaffed, but its naive to think we could just sack the ones we think we cant afford and save that amount on their salaries.

But it costs less to give them benefits than it does to employ them in meaningless jobs. The answer, of course, is to reduce the amount that is paid out in benefits.

[Whitey Grandad]

If the private companies paid living wages to their lower paid workers, those workers wouldn't need to claim benefit support and that would save all of us a fair bit. In the meantime, I find my taxes are, in part, being used to bolster the earnings of shareholders and directors.

That's not the case in every company. You cannot just increase your wage bill and expect that your customers will pay more for your products. There are many companies that are struggling to make any sort of profit at all, whose directors and shareholders have had no returns for several years. Would you drive those out of business and put their employees back on the state to support?

[Ex Lion Tamer]

That's not the case in every company. You cannot just increase your wage bill and expect that your customers will pay more for your products. There are many companies that are struggling to make any sort of profit at all, whose directors and shareholders have had no returns for several years. Would you drive those out of business and put their employees back on the state to support?

 

But equally you can't have the state indefinitely propping up unprofitable businesses, they have to be allowed to fail if they really can't make enough money to pay staff enough to live.

 

I would suspect that, in fact, even if these companies aren't making a profit, the directors are still taking home a tidy salary. But of course it's the low paid who have to make all the sacrifices

Edited 6 April, 2013 by Ex Lion Tamer

[Whitey Grandad]

But equally you can't have the state indefinitely propping up unprofitable businesses, they have to be allowed to fail if they really can't make enough money to pay staff enough to live.

 

I would suspect that, in fact, even if these companies aren't making a profit, the directors are still taking home a tidy salary. But of course it's the low paid who have to make all the sacrifices

Certainly it's no profit, no dividends. Salary is another matter.

[scotty]

But it costs less to give them benefits than it does to employ them in meaningless jobs. The answer, of course, is to reduce the amount that is paid out in benefits.

 

Eventually it does, but they still would be entitled to a departmental pension and redundancy money, so the benefit would be several years away. We apparently need it now.

[corky morris]

What's going on in world economies at the moment is a massive experiment. QE here in the UK made massive sense first time round. Each subsequent time the benefits subside.

You can criticise Brown as much as you want, but Darling was & is the best Chancellor we had in years. His decision to not let Barclays buy Lehmans 2 days before they went bump should make any UK citizen very very grateful.

Osborne is a fool. Balls is a liar.

There is no easy answer. FWIW - the govt should go & build hundreds of thousands of council houses. The positive effects of the multiplier would come through quite quickly. The down side is the negative effects on house prices. As in the UK our home is our castle we would never tolerate it.

50% tax is too much. You add National Insurance & it's plain silly. We should go after the none tax paying companies (Starbucks, Vodafone etc) & the lazy no marks who don't have or don't want a job. Don't stop child benefit for incomes in excess of £50k, stop them at the 2nd child.

Get rid of Trident.

Guess what............we balance the books easily!!

Any politician should have to work outside of politics for 10 years before they are an MP. Not straight from University. They know nothing else.

Lastly to sort our energy issues out (and most wil disagree) open 50 new coal mines!! If we can sort the carbon issue we can utilise one of our biggest resources.

Govts have debts, they always will. Anyone remember the war loans??

[Jonnyboy]

^ good post

[ecuk268]

But the minimum wage allows them to a the veneer of having morals without actually having any.

 

My Company regularly bangs on about paying above the minimum wage as if it's some sort of achievement. Pay rises for grades lower than management were all changed to Oct from April to coincide with the increase in the minimum wage, the figure will be announced and it'll contain the words "X amount of pence over the minimum wage". I'm sure there are countless other companies that do the same.

 

Personally, and I have no data for this just a gut feeling, I think the minimum wage has suppressed more peoples wages than it has dragged peoples wages up. Not so much now, but during the growth years. Companies all benchmarked their lowest pay against that figure, rather than paying a decent figure to attract talent. WFTC then add to the problem because Companies get the low wages topped up, so why bother paying more. For capitalism to really work people have to be able to put a figure on their Labour and walk away if offered lower than that. If Tesco couldn't get anyone to stack their shelves for £6.30, they would have to put the wage up to attract people. At present they can pay people that (and it was just an estimate) and the taxpayer will top it up. It also means that ASDA, Sainsbury's and Morrison's can also peg their pay around that figure leading to a downward spiral of ever lower wages. There is not a genuine market for peoples labour, it is skewered by the minimum wage. Therefore to make the minimum wage work you need to set it at a rate where people can live on it without state hand-outs .

 

Exactly.

 

Benefits paid to people in work are nearly £50 billion, as opposed to about £7 billion to the unemployed.

 

The other large outlay is about £25 billion in housing benefit, a considerable amount of which goes into the pockets of private landlords. Why not give the money to local authorities to build more social housing. It would give a boost to the building industry and they would get some of the money back in rents.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

What's going on in world economies at the moment is a massive experiment. QE here in the UK made massive sense first time round. Each subsequent time the benefits subside.

You can criticise Brown as much as you want, but Darling was & is the best Chancellor we had in years. His decision to not let Barclays buy Lehmans 2 days before they went bump should make any UK citizen very very grateful.

Osborne is a fool. Balls is a liar.

There is no easy answer. FWIW - the govt should go & build hundreds of thousands of council houses. The positive effects of the multiplier would come through quite quickly. The down side is the negative effects on house prices. As in the UK our home is our castle we would never tolerate it.

50% tax is too much. You add National Insurance & it's plain silly. We should go after the none tax paying companies (Starbucks, Vodafone etc) & the lazy no marks who don't have or don't want a job. Don't stop child benefit for incomes in excess of £50k, stop them at the 2nd child.

Get rid of Trident.

Guess what............we balance the books easily!!

Any politician should have to work outside of politics for 10 years before they are an MP. Not straight from University. They know nothing else.

Lastly to sort our energy issues out (and most wil disagree) open 50 new coal mines!! If we can sort the carbon issue we can utilise one of our biggest resources.

Govts have debts, they always will. Anyone remember the war loans??

 

10 year rule should be standard! End the career politician! Politicians should be motivated by a sense of duty.