PeteMorris Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 There's been some talk in the news today of 'Living Wage', and how it is seen by some as a good thing. Obviously not by everyone. Wikipedia defines it thus Should the two wages not be synonymous? Just asking the question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 I don't think they should. Whilst the big boys will cope easily, start ups and many small businesses will hit the buffers hard. It may raise inflation I don't know, and I thought it might push other wages up, but according to the article you linked that won't happen, which I find strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 29, 2012 Author Share Posted October 29, 2012 I don't think they should. Whilst the big boys will cope easily, start ups and many small businesses will hit the buffers hard. It may raise inflation I don't know, and I thought it might push other wages up, but according to the article you linked that won't happen, which I find strange. Truth be told, I wasn't even aware that there was a measure of what constituted a 'living wage' before today! But it does having read the article make sense that those earning the minimum wage, have to claim various state benefits because it's clearly not enough to live on. But if the minimum wage was actually pitched at the 'living wage' level, then they wouldn't have to claim benefits, which would save the gov money, and the gov would also profit from the extra tax revenue, in all it's forms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Truth be told, I wasn't even aware that there was a measure of what constituted a 'living wage' before today! But it does having read the article make sense that those earning the minimum wage, have to claim various state benefits because it's clearly not enough to live on. But if the minimum wage was actually pitched at the 'living wage' level, then they wouldn't have to claim benefits, which would save the gov money, and the gov would also profit from the extra tax revenue, in all it's forms. It'd only save money if all the firms could afford it and didn't go to the wall along with all the jobs they supported... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Truth be told, I wasn't even aware that there was a measure of what constituted a 'living wage' before today! But it does having read the article make sense that those earning the minimum wage, have to claim various state benefits because it's clearly not enough to live on. But if the minimum wage was actually pitched at the 'living wage' level, then they wouldn't have to claim benefits, which would save the gov money, and the gov would also profit from the extra tax revenue, in all it's forms. It'd only save money if all the firms could afford it and didn't go to the wall along with all the jobs they supported... It is, then, the case that our economic system can only survive when underpinned by a comprehensive benefits system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Truth be told, I wasn't even aware that there was a measure of what constituted a 'living wage' before today! But it does having read the article make sense that those earning the minimum wage, have to claim various state benefits because it's clearly not enough to live on. But if the minimum wage was actually pitched at the 'living wage' level, then they wouldn't have to claim benefits, which would save the gov money, and the gov would also profit from the extra tax revenue, in all it's forms. Quite a lot of people earning double the living wage claim benefits! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 But it does having read the article make sense that those earning the minimum wage, have to claim various state benefits because it's clearly not enough to live on. But if the minimum wage was actually pitched at the 'living wage' level, then they wouldn't have to claim benefits, which would save the gov money, and the gov would also profit from the extra tax revenue, in all it's forms.It wouldn't, as there wouldn't be any. This could be done, if corporate taxation was reduced correspondingly. Corpo tax is one of the largest sources of income taxes for the Gvt. Reduce corpo tax but 'make' employers pay living wage instead of min wage = substantially the same volume of money swishing around, just redistributed differently. In principle, that would remove the need for topup benefits. But...then there are the untold hundreds of further factors affecting the above equation, which render it eminently impractical. Not the least of which being international competitivity. It is, then, the case that our economic system can only survive when underpinned by a comprehensive benefits system?Pretty much. At the moment at least. It will change in time, expectedly when the BRICs reach our socio-economic station. Which won't be long at this rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 It is, then, the case that our economic system can only survive when underpinned by a comprehensive benefits system? That's going along the assumption that all those under £8odd an hour work full time and are the main bread winner. There will be students in there working in a bar at weekends, housewives doing a couple of hours here and there, second jobs etc . I'm not saying they are the majority (although they might be I don't know !!!) but they definately aren't all the main earner in a single income household. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 29, 2012 Author Share Posted October 29, 2012 It wouldn't, as there wouldn't be any. This could be done, if corporate taxation was reduced correspondingly. Corpo tax is one of the largest sources of income taxes for the Gvt. Reduce corpo tax but 'make' employers pay living wage instead of min wage = substantially the same volume of money swishing around, just redistributed differently. In principle, that would remove the need for topup benefits. But...then there are the untold hundreds of further factors affecting the above equation, which render it eminently impractical. Not the least of which being international competitivity. Pretty much. At the moment at least. It will change in time, expectedly when the BRICs reach our socio-economic station. Which won't be long at this rate. I did see a program on TV a while ago, where even in China, the employers have to pitch to the workers, as they can't get all they want, and it's mostly based on pay. Who would have thought that in China? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 29, 2012 Author Share Posted October 29, 2012 It'd only save money if all the firms could afford it and didn't go to the wall along with all the jobs they supported... Surely if a company decides to take on some labour. They do the sums first? At the moment thay do the sums to the tune of "what's the least I can get away with paying legally?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.