Labours Living Wage Plan Will Boost Economy - Fairness And Equality

Generali

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

next poll will take into account Labour's call for fairness in the Living Wage Plan which voters can see will save the economy money...

So the current polls aren't reliable as they fail to take an interview with Mr Milliband in the Guardian into account.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

That'll send Labour into the stratosphere. Guaranteed.

Just like £3.52/litre petrol
Just like the definite triple dip recession
Just like the [STRIKE]60,000[/STRIKE] 20,000 unemployed construction workers

Numpty.

grizzly1911

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

Sorry guys, cant afford to get exorbitant petrol to drive to the cheapest store to hunt down the best bargain kidney beans.... only choice is Shanks's Pony to the nearest in walking distance... the Co-Op! Now if there was a Living Wage....

Heard of home delivery?

I refuse to shop in Coop or buy their petrol (local station) soo expensive.

I don't use home delivery but MIL does, £3 or free with certain offers - less than 4 tins of kidney beans. Probably save on the loo rolls too you need 'em.

Thrugelmir

Originally Posted by DecentLivingWage
next poll will take into account Labour's call for fairness in the Living Wage Plan which voters can see will save the economy money...

In the current climate appears to be a tax on business by the back door. Shifting the welfare burden from the state to the private sector. Making the UK even more uncompetitive in the global unskilled labour market. If an individual wants to better themselves then they should learn a skill or trade. An individual working full time stacking shelves for a living should have aspiration. Not nannying.

SteveV2

chewmylegoff wrote: »

http://www.mysupermarket.co.uk/Shopping/FindProducts.aspx?Query=Kidney%20beans

21p...

I expect if you are a champagne socialist and only shop in Waitrose you wouldn't know about this though.

Horse kidney beans those are.

ukcarper

Thrugelmir wrote: »

In the current climate appears to be a tax on business by the back door. Shifting the welfare burden from the state to the private sector. Making the UK even more uncompetitive in the global unskilled labour market. If an individual wants to better themselves then they should learn a skill or trade. An individual working full time stacking shelves for a living should have aspiration. Not nannying.

Are we ever going to compete on the global unskilled market and if we do will people be happy living next to the shanty towns.

With the people at the tops earnings increasing at a much greater rate than inflation while the average workers wages increase at a lower rate than inflation there could be some scope for improving things

Thrugelmir

ukcarper wrote: »

Are we ever going to compete on the global unskilled market and if we do will people be happy living next to the shanty towns.

Not true. Labour is only one component. Freight costs for shipping product back from China adds a considerable amount. So being competitive doesn't equate to the same level of wage.

Better to be productive in some form. Than receive even less by being on welfare.

ukcarper

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Not true. Labour is only one component. Freight costs for shipping product back from China adds a considerable amount. So being competitive doesn't equate to the same level of wage.

Better to be productive in some form. Than receive even less by being on welfare.

But how much is that minimum wage being boosted by welfare.

Thrugelmir

ukcarper wrote: »

But how much is that minimum wage being boosted by welfare.

HB benefit pay outs doubled under the previous administration. So an area of expenditure. That hasn't been addressed yet.

Closer to home, Germany has no minimum wage at all. Nor does Spain.

So while the policy has merits. Does nothing for the current debate. If anything is a diversion from the tough decisions that need to be made.

antrobus

I thought I'd have a look and see what all this Living Wage malarkey was about. So I had a read of Beyond The Bottom Line - The challenges and opportunities of a living wage published by the IPPR and The Resolution Foundation - http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/media/media/downloads/Beyond_the_Bottom_Line_-_FINAL.pdf

Apparently, were the living wage to be paid by all UK employees, then the workforce would see their gross earnings rise by £6.5 billion. However, the biggest beneficiary would be HM Treasury who would achieve gross savings of around £3.6 billion, although after taking into account the higher wage costs for public sector employees the net savings would reduce to approximately £2.2 billion. For some reason, the report fails to mention the fact that the £5.1 billion cost to UK private sector employers of paying the living wage would reduce their profits by that amount and so reduce their corporation tax bills, saving employers at least £1 billion, whilst costing HM Treasury the exact same amount. So that brings the net savings down to £1.2 billion.

Of course in practice, one suspects it will be far easier for government to enforce the living wage in the public sector than the private. Hence the extra cost of paying those higher wage costs for public sector employees will be 100% certain, whilst only a proportion of the private sector will comply thereby reducing the gross savings flowing into HM Treasury and thus the overall net savings.

In macroeconomic terms, I'm not that sure that this amounts to much more than a hill of beans. You're shifting a theoretical maximum £6.5 billion of national income from the corporate to the household sector and collecting an extra £1.2 billion of tax; or in practice probably shifting £4 or £5 billion with no discernable effect on government finances whatsoever. There may well be good social arguments in favour of a living wage, but the idea that it will 'boost the economy' in any way is quite preposterous, since all you are doing is moving money around from A to B.

grizzly1911

antrobus wrote: »

There may well be good social arguments in favour of a living wage, but the idea that it will 'boost the economy' in any way is quite preposterous, since all you are doing is moving money around from A to B.

The individuals that receive the increased pay will no doubt have to pay higher prices for goods, service and local taxes negating much of any advantage.