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

Russe11

Googlewhacker wrote: »

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.

so you believe income should relate to indivual circumstances rather than the value of their labour?

If I go to work next week and work for a local company part time I could get about £130 income, where as a single parent can go and work the same hours and their income equivalent is over £600. Of course on £130 i'd qualify for some housing benefit etc, but not to the same level.

The fastest way to increase your income in this country is to breed. It only take 9 months to get the qualification for higher earnings.

Would it not be better to set the labour rates based upon what the individual is worth, do away with benefits to working families and give tax breaks to those who wish to create a family.

As for saying the upping the min wage would put load of people unemployed, the tax credits that upped incomes and ment families could borrow more based on income(yes I do know people who have benefits listed as income for their income multiplier) not a far worse distortion.

ILW

People should run their lives according to their earnings. Benefits were supposed to be a safety net. The whole system is a mess which no party seems to want to address.

Russe11

ILW wrote: »

People should run their lives according to their earnings. Benefits were supposed to be a safety net. The whole system is a mess which no party seems to want to address.

And why do you think that is?, because it supports private business and polictical parties are privately funded.

ILW

Russe11 wrote: »

And why do you think that is?, because it supports private business and polictical parties are privately funded.

I support private business.

The current government do seem to be making an attempt to ween the country off virtually total reliance on benefits as a way of life. Hopefully they will be given the chance to continue.

I people can relearn that they have to live within their means then the country will be a whole lot more prosperous. It will take time though.

Russe11

but which private businesses?

many rely on the state support, the bigger the business the more help they get.

Itismehonest

Russe11 wrote: »

but which private businesses?

many rely on the state support, the bigger the business the more help they get.

Is the idea not that businesses come to (or start up, or stay) in this country, take on staff & so generate wealth & tax for the country & reduce the number on benefits?

The Unions would have very little to do if there were no employers, would they?

ILW

I believe something like 50% of the working population get some sort of income related benefits. many based around having children that they cannot support by their own efforts. That is just stoopid.

Itismehonest

I'd be really interested to know how many people on here would, if they won millions on a lottery, would give it all or even say 50% of it to the poor?
It's amazing how ideas change with circumstances.
I have the suspicion that for all the gripes about people with large houses, expensive cars & a rich lifestyle, a great many would buy that new house & car & take that holiday if they came into money.
A little hypocritical?

ILW

Itismehonest wrote: »

I'd be really interested to know how many people on here would, if they won millions on a lottery, would give it all or even say 50% of it to the poor?
It's amazing how ideas change with circumstances.
I have the suspicion that for all the gripes about people with large houses, expensive cars & a rich lifestyle, a great many would buy that new house & car & take that holiday if they came into money.
A little hypocritical?

Nothing wrong with the big house etc as long as you have earned it.
For many the route to a big house is to stay on the dole or a low wage job and breed though.

Russe11

Itismehonest wrote: »

I'd be really interested to know how many people on here would, if they won millions on a lottery, would give it all or even say 50% of it to the poor?
It's amazing how ideas change with circumstances.
I have the suspicion that for all the gripes about people with large houses, expensive cars & a rich lifestyle, a great many would buy that new house & car & take that holiday if they came into money.
A little hypocritical?

the thread is not about comming into money, its discussion and opinions on the value of labour and whether the min wage is a fair representation.

However when you talk of millions, that not really a figure that has any relevence on a national scale in this county, if your talking about £s then you need to be using billion or even trillions...