Living Wage: our survey says.......

Thrugelmir

antrobus wrote: »

That's not the question posed by the OP.

The question relates to the 'Living Wage' and whether "Osborne's political ruse" will lead to "confusion, higher prices, more productivity, less jobs", and so I was just wondering what was the difference between Osborne's living wage and Miliband's living wage.

If you want to discuss tax credits, there is already a thread about it, so there wouldn't be any point in starting another one.:)

GO has to pass the cost of welfare to the private sector to enact the required reform. The issues are linked. Once the link is broken. Then the Government is no longer accountable.

antrobus

BobQ wrote: »

Why rub it in to say he was wrong to support Tory policy.

I thought it was more the case that Osborne was supporting Labour policy?:)

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

I was helping you out .....As you say you were wondering about the difference and I'm telling you the difference.......... imo Miliband would have introduced his without a reduction in tax credits.You see as George says you have to look at the whole round of changes for them to make sense.:)

No, the OP was quite clear in asking the question about the impact of the 'living wage' on employer's costs. I am inclined to think that the impact would have been the same, irrespective of which party decided to introduce it.

The issue of tax credits, reduction of, is something else entirely.

antrobus

Thrugelmir wrote: »

GO has to pass the cost of welfare to the private sector to enact the required reform. The issues are linked. Once the link is broken. Then the Government is no longer accountable.

Not really.

The government plans to ramp up the NMW and call it something else. KPMG have estimated that it will increase the government's own wage bill by £1.8 bn, and result in a £1.1bn increase in other procurement costs. On the other hand, the government will receive an extra £6.6bn in tax revenues as a result of these increased wages.

Depending on what assumptions you make about what other things might happen as a result, the net effect on government revenues varies from £nil to an increase in revenues of £3.9bn.

https://www.kpmg.com/UK/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/PDF/Issues%20and%20Insights/kpmg-living-wage-report-2015.pdf

To put it another way, there is no cost to the "required reform" of the NMW as far as the government is concerned. The proposal to also reduce tax credits is inspired largely by the need to cut the government deficit. Good old Gideon is probably hoping that one will cancel out the other, but that's politics not economics.

purch

CLAPTON wrote: »

the faux 'living wage' is a con only taken seriously by naves and fools.

it has no more relevance to anything real than the nonsense 'poverty level' or fuel poverty level'

all created by socialists and self servicing academics and well paid charity 'workers', using careful chosen words to fool the stupid and the naive.

there is poverty in the world where people have no access to clean water, even less than to running clean water

here these nonsense catch phase include people living in nice, centrally heated homes, over weight from too much food and going every where in their newish cars.

Wipe your mouth Clappers, the foam is dripping everywhere :eek:

BobQ

antrobus wrote: »

No, the OP was quite clear in asking the question about the impact of the 'living wage' on employer's costs. I am inclined to think that the impact would have been the same, irrespective of which party decided to introduce it.

The issue of tax credits, reduction of, is something else entirely.

Well let us not be too compartmentalised about this, like mortal sin, who has never deviated from the subject of a thread?:)

My OP was indeed asking those questions. It was framed that way because that was way the CIPD survey was reported by them. It is not that I am arguing that it will cause "confusion, higher prices, more productivity, less jobs", rather that the survey suggested that there was evidence that employers believed this was so.

It was indeed a Miliband policy to improve the minimum and living wages, and try to reduce income inequality and reliance on benefits. But whatever he said he has no chance of enacting that policy. Osborne has and he has tried to establish his party as on the side of working people.

I called Osborne's policy a ruse, but you may see it as an altruistic conversion to a more moral way of life. Either way his implementation is appears to be confusing employers and the survey suggests it will have uncertain consequences. And then we have tax credits, which are the sting in the tail.

Employers have for decades used the existence of benefits to pay low wages. To his credit Osborne seems determined to stop this. But he does not care who is hurt in the process, hence the WTC changes.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Employers have for decades used the existence of benefits to pay low wages. To his credit Osborne seems determined to stop this. But he does not care who is hurt in the process, hence the WTC changes.

What evidence is there that employers would have paid higher wages if wtc benefits were lower?


generally employers will pay the rate that attracts sufficient workers :
why would workers withhold their labour if benefits were lower ; one might reasonably expect them to be more rather than less willing to work.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

What evidence is there that employers would have paid higher wages if wtc benefits were lower?


generally employers will pay the rate that attracts sufficient workers :
why would workers withhold their labour if benefits were lower ; one might reasonably expect them to be more rather than less willing to work.

You make a fair point. It is difficult to provide evidence of what employers would do if their employees were no longer to receive in work benefits. All we can say is that employers can pay minimum wages and workers can be better off if government subsidises their life style.

But in my experience, good employers might well pay as much as they can afford, but bad employers pay as little as they can get away with.

There was time after WWII when those invalided out of the military were routinely offered lower pay because they had a disability pension. I can recall the late Bernard Matthews boasting that he pays low wages because he knows that many of his staff are on benefits. I find it difficult to accept that modern employers like Tesco's pay any more than have to do so taking into account all of the factors including the likelihood of their staff to have access to benefits.

gadgetmind

I guess what we're seeing is that it's very easy for a country to slide into these situations, but very difficult to haul yourselves back out. Hats off to the Conservatives for trying, but it's going to more of a prolonged juggling act than they expect.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

You make a fair point. It is difficult to provide evidence of what employers would do if their employees were no longer to receive in work benefits. All we can say is that employers can pay minimum wages and workers can be better off if government subsidises their life style.

But in my experience, good employers might well pay as much as they can afford, but bad employers pay as little as they can get away with.

There was time after WWII when those invalided out of the military were routinely offered lower pay because they had a disability pension. I can recall the late Bernard Matthews boasting that he pays low wages because he knows that many of his staff are on benefits. I find it difficult to accept that modern employers like Tesco's pay any more than have to do so taking into account all of the factors including the likelihood of their staff to have access to benefits.

I'm not sure I agree about your implied definition of 'good' and 'bad' employers
but if the employer operate in a competitive environment then the pay must reflect the realities of that environment

I don't see why tesco would take into account whether their staff get benefits, no more that they would take into a/c whether the staff person was is a relationship and if so what the salary of their partner was nor whether they have children and how much child allowance they get (I suspect it would be illegal if they did).

I would expect that 99% of their salary calculation are based on
-how easy is it to recruit appropriate people?
-do they have a staff retention issue?