Ed Milliband promotes living wage as labours next big thing

antrobus

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

...If the value of all goods was slashed such that those goods wiped out many years of inflation i.e. a loaf of bread was back to £0.46 as opposed to £1.46, wages could also be slashed similarly.

This could then make the UK far more competative and bring industry back to the UK, increase jobs etc.

Sure it makes imported goods or travel abroad far more expensive, but the main benefits being exports massively increased and jobs

I'm not sure if or how this could be achieved, but would you sacrifice options abroad for the benefits in the UK.

...

It's called 'devaluation'.

It only really works if you have fixed exchange rates, and even then it simply tends to inspire me-to devaluations as every other country similarly tries to make themselves more competitive, so you end up back at square one.

Thrugelmir

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Did Japan benefit from post war investment from the "west" too?

Japan spent a couple of hundred years in isolation from the rest of the world. So had ground to make up. In effect made Japan the country it has become.

dunstonh

CLAPTON wrote: »

personally I think everyone should be paid at least the average wage.

Isnt that impossible?

If everyone below the average was moved up to the average then the average itself would increase and you then create a spiral that would ultimately see everyone earning £50 million a year.

BobQ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ed Milliband is promoting the living wage, at £7.20 an hour outside of London and £8.30 an hour inside London as the parties next big policy to go into the next election with.

Its interesting that many people pan the idea on here and elsewhere as unafforable. You have to accept that to apply it will have an impact, but would it be as bad as the doom mongers predict?

Ever since this nation set sail on its quest to be a low wage economy we have inflicted low wages on hard working people in all sorts of industries public and private. Now we have many cheapskate employers ((bootiful I hear you cry) that deliberately pay minimum wages and rely on the benefits system to deliver a living wage.

How many of these people in minimum wage jobs would be less reliant on benefits if the state decided not to subsidise mimimum wage jobs?

We speak of £7.20 an hour as a living wage and many people say its unafforable. The minimum wage in Australia is about £10/hr. How can they afford it?

Zero_Sum

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

This is just massive and unacceptable hikes in the Minimum Wage by the back door.

One has to question the mathematics of that Newcastle cleaner who thinks Living Wage means she's £70 a week better off. £70 is £87.50 before tax. At (£7.20 less £6.19) that means she works 86.6 hours a week! Even at Eddies 'proposal' of £7.45, that's £1.26 an hour or 69.4 hours!

Perhaps she gets paid 'cash in hand'.

If it was the same bit of news I saw, Its was £70 extra a month, not week

robmatic

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ed Milliband is promoting the living wage, at £7.20 an hour outside of London and £8.30 an hour inside London as the parties next big policy to go into the next election with.

However, it's not mandatory.

It won't replace the national minimum wage, however, they state the government will discriminate against companies, by only offering government contracts to those paying a living wage.

I'm assuming, therefore, that ALL public sector workers will be switched to a living wage under labour...and I'm not sure how this is going to be paid for, and neither are labour it seems.

So....can it be done? It's obviously beneficial to most if it can be...I'm just not sure it's viable. Also put's quite a lrage margin between London and the rest of the UK again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20202005

Now that Ed has had this 'living wage' brainwave of the amount that is necessary for people to be able to get by... will he agree that it's wrong to pay more than this in benefits?

Carl31

The higher menial job wages get, the more the jobs will be cut. I can see why they are pushing for it but some jobs exist as theyre cheap to resource.

exarmydreamer

So, does anyone have the answer. Do we:

a. Increase the minimum wage, (via businesses paying a proper wage) so that we pay less benefits through tax i.e housing benefit etc.

or

b. Pay minimum wage and sub the companies by paying benefits through tax paid by you and me.

Answers on a postcard, please.:)

BobQ

Conrad wrote: »

ALL YOU FOLK CLAIMING THEY ARE HAPPY TO PAY MORE:

Presumably you volunteer extra cash to every lower paid worker you encounter / you agree to pay local trades more than the price they will accept?

Been doing it for years by the covert technique known as taxation.

brian_723

I kid you not when you pay above minimum wage companies would get more for their money. You get what you give imho .Pay me the minimum and I will give you the minimum .Years ago we did not need a minimum wage since Tony Blair opened to the door to cheap east European labour years before most ,now we certainly need minimum wage at least .Invest in your staff and you will reap the rewards .