ricgem2002 Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 That sounds like how a badly run business works. A well run business wants the work done efficiently and on time because that actually makes it more money. Having stressed, over worked, and thus under productive and unhappy staff doesn't benefit the business in any way. it seems to work for amazon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 You assume increasing the wage will result in increased product price, it is just as likely to result in lower profit Why would an employer/shareholder endure a risk of investment and capital for lower profits? They'd simply move their business elsewhere-Dyson is a good example of this. or even lower rental costs. An empty shop doesn't generate money for the owner.Nor does a shop that produces goods it can't sell because they're too expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 That's just the point though..if they couldn't look abroad to recruit then they'd have to up their wages to get the positions filled...I think that's the point that daneha was making..- They only need to pay the minimum wage,whether that is liveable depends on the circmstances of the person who is looking for a job,the minimum wage is not set by immigrants,therefore if there was no immigration,the minimum wage would still be fact,and the UK jobhunter would have to like it or lump it depending on their circumstances,or if benefits were a viable alternative to slogging it out for a week for very little extra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 They only need to pay the minimum wage,whether that is liveable depends on the circmstances of the person who is looking for a job,the minimum wage is not set by immigrants,therefore if there was no immigration,the minimum wage would still be fact,and the UK jobhunter would have to like it or lump it depending on their circumstances,or if benefits were a viable alternative to slogging it out for a week for very little extra. If there were more jobs than potential employees then the employer would have to up his game to get a worker...eg company A pays minimum wage..company B pays minimum +10%..who would fill the positions faster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 If there were more jobs than potential employees then the employer would have to up his game to get a worker...eg company A pays minimum wage..company B pays minimum +10%..who would fill the positions faster? That's right, but if there were more jobs than employees that would imply the demand for our goods and services was outstripping supply which might support higher labour costs to attract workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 If there were more jobs than potential employees then the employer would have to up his game to get a worker...eg company A pays minimum wage..company B pays minimum +10%..who would fill the positions faster? that would depend on if the work was full or part time work (you keep presuming these are full time positions) company a paying nmw would fill these vacancies quicker because people would get top ups, company b might struggle to find employees because they might earn a little to much to get top ups its not rocket science is it (how those romanians found out about it thou ill never know) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 If there were more jobs than potential employees then the employer would have to up his game to get a worker...eg company A pays minimum wage..company B pays minimum +10%..who would fill the positions faster? That's what I have been saying to Daneha,pay decent wages and people will be more inclined to come off benefits and become employed instead of being on benefits and unemployed,take out all immigration and there is still no guarantee that if the minimum wage is still unnatractive to a UK person,even if jobs are available for them,if benefits are a viable alternative then they will stay on benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 i worked at a womans house before xmas she was employed by jack fultons. 17 part time workers run the shop she works at all getting top ups from the taxpayer (great for jack fultons).she also told me the only people who do get overtime (if any) are the young ones on the least amount of money (again great for jack fultons) no wonder the taxpayers getting shafted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 That's what I have been saying to Daneha,pay decent wages and people will be more inclined to come off benefits and become employed instead of being on benefits and unemployed,take out all immigration and there is still no guarantee that if the minimum wage is still unnatractive to a UK person,even if jobs are available for them,if benefits are a viable alternative then they will stay on benefits. What I'm saying is that with a reduced available workforce then companies which need to fill vacancies will have to pay more than the MW to do so.... ---------- Post added 03-01-2014 at 11:31 ---------- that would depend on if the work was full or part time work (you keep presuming these are full time positions) company a paying nmw would fill these vacancies quicker because people would get top ups, company b might struggle to find employees because they might earn a little to much to get top ups its not rocket science is it (how those romanians found out about it thou ill never know) What would happen if the number of potential employees fell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daneha Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Why would an employer/shareholder endure a risk of investment and capital for lower profits? They'd simply move their business elsewhere-Dyson is a good example of this. Nor does a shop that produces goods it can't sell because they're too expensive. A coffee shop would loose a lot of business if it moved to Romania, and even if it did move another coffee shop would simply take its place. ---------- Post added 03-01-2014 at 11:48 ---------- That's right, but if there were more jobs than employees that would imply the demand for our goods and services was outstripping supply which might support higher labour costs to attract workers. It might support it, but if there is an unlimited supply of cheap foreign labour then there wouldn't be no incentive to increase wages, instead they would just enjoy higher profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.