Employers can't 'afford' to pay a living wage?

KiKi

marybelle01 wrote: »

You have as much control over how the products you buy are made as you expect us to have control over the price of the product you make. That is a lazy and lousy excuse. Why should people in developing countries subsidise the cost of the products you buy? You do have control - you can refuse to buy products that are not fairtraded so the producer gets a fair wage. The people whose products you buy run real businesses - most of them multinationals! But their producers may be on a lot less than $2 a day! Try that for a minimum wage and see how it works out. It is exactly thr argument you are making for yourself. I guess it doesn't apply to other people. Why shouldn't I expect you to subsidise the cheap goods I want - you expect others to subsidise the cheap goods you want!

I wish I could 'love' this post.

paddyrg

Do you know what I think the country needs? Less red tape around employment and tax. A massive slice of employment in this country is small businesses, and the cost and hassle of taking on your first part-time extra staff makes it onerous. Most employers do not want their staff to suffer, they walk a fine line between costs and profits. In fact a large number of small business owners will earn less than their staff - many pub landlords for instance dream of making NMW. Make it easier/cheaper to employ people who are willing to work, everyone wins.

It is a darn sight harder to get round NMW than it seems, too - as an employer you are always exposed to somebody sueing for the wage difference, even if they agreed to work as a free internship or their OTE deal isn't structured right, so they have certain committed hours and are not truly freelance.

The problem with paying everyone more is the goods cost more, so they become more expensive to buy, so you have to pay everyone even more and so the cycle continues. This is inflation. When you hear them discuss inflation on the news, this is what they mean, this tail-chasing. Inflation isn't all bad, it has certain macroeconomic benefits, but by and large it is pedaling to stand still overall.

I_luv_cats

It is a bit crazy how a consumer often has to pay twice.

a) Price of said goods and services, directly
b) Taxes to support people that don't earn enough, indirectly.

With b) there are also the huge costs of processing the in work benefits for low earners and fraud and error.

gingerdad

whitegoods_engineer wrote: »

Well I have no control whatsoever about how products I buy are made. My point is simply this; If an employer has a real business, he will cost all factors into his business model to arrive at a price to charge for his goods & services. Included in this mix, he should ensure that his workers are paid a sufficient wage. Simple as that!

If he complains that this makes his goods too expensive, then his business is unsustainable as he is relying on his staff to accept a low wage to make his product competitive!

Again, I ask, why should an employee subsidise the cost of a product?

you have total control over where the things you buy are mde, and i think you need to live in the real world, the company i work for charges as much as it can in the current market and pays as much as it can, this isn't minimum wage but not far above. we pay what we can afford simple as that if people aren't happy then off they go, the average length of service is about 4 years, we do have lots of other benefits.

but until everyone is willing to pay the realistic price for products or services the market rate for staff wiill be lower.

teajug

I_luv_cats wrote: »

It is a bit crazy how a consumer often has to pay twice.

a) Price of said goods and services, directly
b) Taxes to support people that don't earn enough, indirectly.

With b) there are also the huge costs of processing the in work benefits for low earners and fraud and error.

It could be either one of the links below....

http://www.lbc.co.uk/britains-rich-enjoying-record-wealth-54214

http://www.citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/ons-reveals-govts-5-trillion-pensions-bill/a585123?ref=new-model-adviser-latest-news-list

mynameistallulah

whitegoods_engineer wrote: »

If an employer can't afford to pay a living wage to his staff, he is either taking too much for himself, or not charging enough for his goods and services.

So every employer charges more for their products, leading to inflation and hence requiring a higher salary for their workers to have a reasonable standard of living = vicious circle.

Epic fail!

Russe11

Seems strange that no one has yet commented that the NMW is distorted by tax credits and other benefits.

NMW equates to a income of around £13k a year for a single person.

For a single parent with 3 kids the same NMW job would be a income equiv of 26-37k(depending on location with regard to housing benefit) some extremes in london of much higher near 6 figure incomes if you take into account some housing benefit rates.

Employers are subsidised by the state, why pay more when the state tops your staffs wages up?

TrickyWicky

whitegoods_engineer wrote: »

Well I have no control whatsoever about how products I buy are made.

Actually you do. The computer you're using for instance. Many will buy from the big retailers like PC World who will assemble them at the cheapest cost possible using the cheapest slave labour they can find. Then you have the local shop who for a bit more money will build you a machine to your spec using parts that came off an automated production line with minimal staffing. You just have to look around and do your research.

whitegoods_engineer wrote: »

Again, I ask, why should an employee subsidise the cost of a product?

A good point but its not just products is it. Sometimes its a service instead which is even cheaper to operate as there are is no stock involved yet employers will still try to screw you so they can get rich.

Russe11 wrote: »

Seems strange that no one has yet commented that the NMW is distorted by tax credits and other benefits.

NMW equates to a income of around £13k a year for a single person.

Really? I never once managed to get that via any tax credits. I was earning less than £10k working full time a few years back but go ahead, you stick to your opinion that the government do more for the poor.

Russe11 wrote: »

For a single parent with 3 kids the same NMW job would be a income equiv of 26-37k(depending on location with regard to housing benefit) some extremes in london of much higher near 6 figure incomes if you take into account some housing benefit rates.

Not everyone has kids and if they do, kids are expensive so do you really think they're that well off?

Russe11 wrote: »

Employers are subsidised by the state, why pay more when the state tops your staffs wages up?

I laughed when I first read that and then realised it's actually very true. Those staff lucky enough to get other financial assistance will be ok however those who have the least, can afford the least and can't get any help are the loosers.

Googlewhacker

Russe11 wrote: »

Seems strange that no one has yet commented that the NMW is distorted by tax credits and other benefits.

NMW equates to a income of around £13k a year for a single person.

For a single parent with 3 kids the same NMW job would be a income equiv of 26-37k(depending on location with regard to housing benefit) some extremes in london of much higher near 6 figure incomes if you take into account some housing benefit rates.

Employers are subsidised by the state, why pay more when the state tops your staffs wages up?

Its a very fine balancing act which each government has their own views on. Mine is that if you suddenly increased the NMW to say £8 this would cause mass unemployment but also all it means is that cost of services and products etc then become more expensive and as such £8 becomes not enough to live on.

A vicious circle.

To me, it is the benefit culture that has caused the problems in this country because its gone from where benefits where for the very hard up for a short term to people expecting them forever which in turn has caused things such as rent to go up and demand for products. If the culture wasn't there then the demand wouldn't be there and prices would be higher than now naturally and in turn so would wages.

Russe11

TrickyWicky wrote: »

Actually you do. The computer you're using for instance. Many will buy from the big retailers like PC World who will assemble them at the cheapest cost possible using the cheapest slave labour they can find. Then you have the local shop who for a bit more money will build you a machine to your spec using parts that came off an automated production line with minimal staffing. You just have to look around and do your research.



A good point but its not just products is it. Sometimes its a service instead which is even cheaper to operate as there are is no stock involved yet employers will still try to screw you so they can get rich.



Really? I never once managed to get that via any tax credits. I was earning less than £10k working full time a few years back but go ahead, you stick to your opinion that the government do more for the poor.



Not everyone has kids and if they do, kids are expensive so do you really think they're that well off?



I laughed when I first read that and then realised it's actually very true. Those staff lucky enough to get other financial assistance will be ok however those who have the least, can afford the least and can't get any help are the loosers.

If a single over 25 gets the min wage (6.08 x 30 hours) is a take home of £172.76 a week, they would then quality for a tax credit of £51.84 a week, thus recieving a income of 224.60 a week.

Should the employer then offer them a wage of £8.62 per hour for a 30 hour week the employee would have a take home of 224.57 a week.

I could do load of more wild calculations based upon what single parents with 2 kids get working 20 hours a week in a min wage job could get as income, but thats not comparing like to like, but it does equate to somthing like £30 a hour after tax.

The welfare system combined with the tax credit system does not make it attractive for some people to work, neither does it mean that employers have to pay fair wages in exchange for labour, the value is thrown out of the window... that why low paying jobs are paying the same wages as they did 10 years ago.