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

Russe11

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Quite, it always amuses me how easy people think employers have it, never mind that alot put their families at risk to run their own business and some do fail unfortunately.

The vast majority of those that moan wouldn't pay say £10 an hour to an employee to start with when its purely running of the start up funds when they can pay NMW...they might once its established but not at the beginning which thus makes them as 'bad' as those they are berating.

So a business owner takes risks and therefore has the oppourtunity for rewards. No one forces them to take these risks, its not the case that some businesses fail, its 80% of new start ups do in the first year.

Googlewhacker

Russe11 wrote: »

So a business owner takes risks and therefore has the oppourtunity for rewards. No one forces them to take these risks, its not the case that some businesses fail, its 80% of new start ups do in the first year.

Absolutely but then people should have more appreciation for the efforts people put into creating a business and thus reaping the rewards.

And no one is forced to work for NMW, if they don't like it either find another job or start their own business

Russe11

But the point is that employees are prepared to work for the min wage because of the state benefits, if they where not there do you think there would still be the people queuing up for a NMW wage job or would the market forces mean the employers would have to pay more, therefore making many businesses that rely on the NMW level and the state subsidies that come with not viable?

Googlewhacker

Russe11 wrote: »

But the point is that employees are prepared to work for the min wage because of the state benefits, if they where not there do you think there would still be the people queuing up for a NMW wage job or would the market forces mean the employers would have to pay more, therefore making many businesses that rely on the NMW level and the state subsidies that come with not viable?

I've not disagreed on this point as per my other posts, if the benefit system was not how it is now people would have lived within their means and most likely things would cost more now and wages would be higher to match. Unfortunately the benefit system has kept everything artificially low.

However, raising the NMW rapidly in my opinion will not benefit the country and there needs to be a weaning of benefits so that increase in wages etc occurs naturally rather than its current state where its artificially created.

EDIT: An interesting point though is NMW, before it was introduced I wonder how many people were under the original NMW wage and how many were above it, what I see NMW do with its constant rising is just sweeping up other employees that are near that mark into the NMW level.

I wonder if there was no NMW would the majority of people be better of than now...I'm erring to yes.

EDIT 2, just to add that yes they would work for NMW IMO if the benefits were not there because the cost of housing etc will have been lower than it is now.

Itismehonest

Russe11 wrote: »

But the point is that employees are prepared to work for the min wage because of the state benefits, if they where not there do you think there would still be the people queuing up for a NMW wage job or would the market forces mean the employers would have to pay more, therefore making many businesses that rely on the NMW level and the state subsidies that come with not viable?

Market forces only really push wages up in the sectors where they are after a limited number of employees who have certain skills & employers are fighting to get them.
Unfortunately, that is seldom the case with NMW workers other than those who are doing the job, hopefully, temporarily having lost a good job or those who take a 2nd job to make more money.
If an employer is advertising for a basic unskilled job there are always others to fill it particularly when, like now, times get tough.
The answer to a better wage for the unskilled is to gain better, more sought after skills or to work harder/longer - always has been.

Googlewhacker

Russe11 wrote: »

They have only touched the surface in the spending cuts and its already caused upsets, anyone who understands how the monetary system works will know that cuts will not have the desired effect as without borrowing and debts there would be no money as it is today.

Its a very difficult situation which we could discuss for months and months and still not get right!

Trying to balance the needs and wants of everyone is a tough job for a politician!

Am off now from this thread.

marybelle01

I am sure I am missing the point here, but if the NMW was to rise and as a consequence in work benefits were to be cut back or abolished, how would this get those who don't want to work to work? I am no defender of low pay, but at least those in low paid jobs are working, and whilst I don't think the majority of the unemployed are scroungers by any means, there are enough people around who think they are too good to work like the rest of us, including the low paid, have to.

Mudd14

Take a look at the universal tax credit coming in the next few years. If someone is financially better off on benefits, and they can get a job, on payday the new HMRC systems will look at their normal earnings on benefits, look at how much they earn from being an employee and then pay the balance with a universal tax credit. It should get more people back into work..........

wantsajob

ILW wrote: »

Labour is a commodity like any other.

And slaves were also a commodity, until not long ago in history.

Russe11

Mudd14 wrote: »

Take a look at the universal tax credit coming in the next few years. If someone is financially better off on benefits, and they can get a job, on payday the new HMRC systems will look at their normal earnings on benefits, look at how much they earn from being an employee and then pay the balance with a universal tax credit. It should get more people back into work..........

so you are saying people will earn the same for their working week as they would on benefits?

so options would be work 40hours, or not work 40 hours and get the same... and that will get more people into work?