living wage or minimum wage ?

[Anonymouse]

It may all become academic anyway - what with all the latest legislation eroding workers' rights, I imagine the NMW will be next.

The entire country would be better off. But they, i.e. the government & most employers, will never see that; they're still suffering from the Thatcher Syndrome, defined as the belief that maximum profit = minimum everything else (workers' numbers, pay and workforce rights).

Originally Posted by Escapee

But wasn't that the aim of the last government, they encouraged single women with children to work 16 hrs minimum wage and married couples to work on minimum wage topped up with tax credits. This made the unemployment figures look good and the 16 hours was also a bit of a job share in many cases, their approach with single people was that they could just rot in hell.

Well it also means that they won't be claiming as much benefit and they have some path back into work, it's much harder for the long term unemployed to find work than those whose spells in unemployment have been short. No policy is perfect but regardless of the perceived motivations of the last government the policy itself wasn't a bad idea and hasn't led, to my knowledge, to the problems people foresee with increasing it to be more in-line with the living wage. People being below what they need to live isn't a good system and will lead to people needing their benefits to be topped up with tax credits.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Damien

People made the same arguments against the minimum wage and it didn't really inflate prices to any real degree. We don't really know what will happen, economics isn't an easy science. People always confidently tell you what will happen as the result of economic policy but it never quite works like that. We're told that too high taxes on the rich destroys growth because these peoples' wealth will 'trickle down' but to a large extent that doesn't happen. The rich became rich and the poor remained poor. We can put taxes up to 50% to get more income but that didn't really work either. I don't think anyone knows what will happen, even in this 'real world'.

But I think it's a good idea. If people are being paid so low that it's not worth them taking the job or they need benefits to top up their income just in order to live an 'acceptable' lifestyle then that doesn't help anyone. Yes, you could argue that you have to pay more the in store for an item (maybe) but more of your tax income in going out to these people anyway. So it isn't as simple as driving up costs for everything else.

pay more = charge more - thats why we buy everything made by child slave labour [made in china ]

[Taf]

They just want to take the responsibilty of making sure working people have enough to live on (through various benefits) and make employers pay a wage that that will negate the need for any in-work state handouts.

A lot will have to change for that to happen, but I actually believe it is the way to go in the future. Why should taxes pay to get some working people out of near poverty?

I have several friends who have been unable to move up from the minimum 16 hour working week, to the new 24 hour minimum working week which will entitle them to certain benefits. They are finding it tougher and tougher to live. A few who did manage to get the extra hours did so at the expense of other workers' jobs.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

pay more = charge more - thats why we buy everything made by child slave labour [made in china ]

But at the initial post points out it may reduce the benefits paid out and increases income tax. These people will have more money to spend also whilst stores that already pay near or above the living wage won't have to increase their changes and others will simply have to take the hit to compete.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Damien

Well it also means that they won't be claiming as much benefit and they have some path back into work, it's much harder for the long term unemployed to find work than those whose spells in unemployment have been short. No policy is perfect but regardless of the perceived motivations of the last government the policy itself wasn't a bad idea and hasn't led, to my knowledge, to the problems people foresee with increasing it to be more in-line with the living wage. People being below what they need to live isn't a good system and will lead to people needing their benefits to be topped up with tax credits.

I have to disagree to a certain extent regarding the benefit of subsidised employment. We ended up in the situation where some people not exceeding 16 hours per week are better off than others in full time employment. Some who do not work at all are better off, with more disposable income than those in work, and that can't be right.

Originally Posted by Escapee

I have to disagree to a certain extent regarding the benefit of subsidised employment. We ended up in the situation where some people not exceeding 16 hours per week are better off than others in full time employment. Some who do not work at all are better off, with more disposable income than those in work, and that can't be right.

Well it isn't right. It's better than not having a job at all but it's not right that people who work longer, for the same type of work, have less disposable income (although that depends on what is the disposable part, i.e it's perfectly right if that money is going to savings or a mortgage). A living wage would hopefully help to correct that by making work pay more than benefits, as a politician would put it .

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Escapee

My opinion is that although the introduction of the minimum wage put a stop to some employers exploiting workers, employees who have had their wages reduced to match the minimum wage are paying for it.

The minimum wage appears to be the target that employers want to pay at the lower end of the job market.

Exactly what happened, the arrival of millions of eastern Europeans delighted to be earning minimum money helped fill vacancies to.

---------- Post added at 20:51 ---------- Previous post was at 20:50 ----------

Originally Posted by Escapee

But wasn't that the aim of the last government, they encouraged single women with children to work 16 hrs minimum wage and married couples to work on minimum wage topped up with tax credits. This made the unemployment figures look good and the 16 hours was also a bit of a job share in many cases, their approach with single people was that they could just rot in hell.

Yeah I got that feeling to by the way every budget they did targeted the "hard working families"

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Exactly what happened, the arrival of millions of eastern Europeans delighted to be earning minimum money helped fill vacancies to.

---------- Post added at 20:51 ---------- Previous post was at 20:50 ----------



Yeah I got that feeling to by the way every budget they did targeted the "hard working families"

And they say the Tories are the enemy of the working man