National living wage will destroy jobs says ex-sainsburys chief

[I1L2T3]

 

Exactly the same way they managed for decades before the NMW existed.

 

It's not exactly the same though is it? The extent of the tax credits and benefits system brings that into sharp focus.

 

Something is wrong and that something is millions of working people not being able to survive on their wages alone.

 

---------- Post added 29-08-2015 at 21:28 ----------

 

Will they need to increase that £7.20 to keep differentials tho, £7.20 will be the new minimum wage.

 

It would be less of a challenge if one basic living cost was brought under control: housing

[adrea]

It's not exactly the same though is it? The extent of the tax credits and benefits system brings that into sharp focus.

 

Something is wrong and that something is millions of working people not being able to survive on their wages alone.

 

---------- Post added 29-08-2015 at 21:28 ----------

 

 

It would be less of a challenge if one basic living cost was brought under control: housing

 

Millions of working people can't have the life style they want on their wage alone, but they can survive. Increasing the minimum wage will also increase competition for the jobs available because better wages will attack more people from abroad.

[I1L2T3]

Millions of working people can't have the life style they want on their wage alone, but they can survive. Increasing the minimum wage will also increase competition for the jobs available because better wages will attack more people from abroad.

 

No they can't survive. If they could they wouldn't need housing benefits and tax credits. If you took those things away the result would be pretty desperate.

[adrea]

No they can't survive. If they could they wouldn't need housing benefits and tax credits. If you took those things away the result would be pretty desperate.

 

So you think everyone claiming housing benefits and tax credits would die if those benefits were stopped?

[taxman]

So you think everyone claiming housing benefits and tax credits would die if those benefits were stopped?

 

 

So you are happy for taxpayers to top up low wages are you?

[tinfoilhat]

No they can't survive. If they could they wouldn't need housing benefits and tax credits. If you took those things away the result would be pretty desperate.

 

Looking at it from a very dispassionate view, if you did that the rental market (and many other things) would reset very quickly.

[psynuk]

 

Here is an interesting quote from another article about Tesco's wage bill:

 

The UK wage bill at Tesco, Britain’s biggest retailer, is about £4.5bn, which indicates that every increase of 1% to wage costs would cost the company about £45m. The first increase in the national minimum wage to £7.20 represents an increase of almost 11%.

 

So for a big company like Tesco, the new law is going to cost them around £495 million pounds.

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/13/retailers-supermarkets-expected-raise-prices-cut-jobs-pay-minimum-wage

 

That just doen't ring true, The overall wage bill includes people on millions, includes milions spent on getting rid of people who don't perform. Even taking that into account their still making profit.

 

I'm of the opinion that if your going to rapidly increase the upper echelons pay the least you can do is keep the lowest on the ladder from scrapng their ass on the floor each day.

 

It's unlikely you'll find out the number of employees of nmw at tesco, they've got about 300,000 employees so it wouldn't be a tiny figure but not the one quoted.

 

---------- Post added 29-08-2015 at 23:23 ----------

 

Millions of working people can't have the life style they want on their wage alone, but they can survive. Increasing the minimum wage will also increase competition for the jobs available because better wages will attack more people from abroad.

 

'But they can survive' Well how very elgatarian of you!

That's it, basic survival, the worker reduced to the level of a battery hen. After all there only shop staff why should their lot be any beter than it needs to be for survival.

A better society in general is what attracts more people from abroard, the reason that migrants want to settle here (gold plated benefits aside) is the same reason you don't want to work in the UAE.

[bigsexydoug]

If all these businesses would die because of this wage how did they survive when the bosses pay was only 10x the lowest paid worker ?

[adrea]

So you are happy for taxpayers to top up low wages are you?

 

 

I didn't say that I was happy or that low wages should be topped up.

 

3 people leave school at the same time and all work for Tesco on MW and doing the same job.

 

 

They each earn £13963 for a 40 hour week.

 

2 of them are a couple and are buying their own house, they don't receive any benefits but still manage to run a car, go one holidays and the occasional night out, they can't afford everything they want but they are enjoying life and not just surviving.

 

The other lives with her 2 kids in a rented house, she receives top up benefits of £10,430.50, making her gross income £29,195.80, over double that of the other 2 that are doing the same job for the same hours with the same employer.

 

Should her employer pay her £29,195.80 a year because that is what she needs to live and if so should the employer also pay the other 2 the same wage because they are dong the same job.

 

New minimum wage would need to be £14 per hour.

 

Is it better to have a benefits system that increases peoples income based on need or scrap it altogether and up minimum wage making the couple much better off and the single mum much worse off?

 

---------- Post added 30-08-2015 at 08:27 ----------

 

 

'But they can survive' Well how very elgatarian of you!

That's it, basic survival, the worker reduced to the level of a battery hen. After all there only shop staff why should their lot be any beter than it needs to be for survival.

A better society in general is what attracts more people from abroard, the reason that migrants want to settle here (gold plated benefits aside) is the same reason you don't want to work in the UAE.

 

Working for minimum wage doesn't equal battery hen.

 

How much do you think Asda should pay their staff?

 

So you agree then that if the MW is increased it will attract more people to the UK to find work, this will increase competition for the available jobs and leave more people without work, it will also increase demand for housing, schools, NHS and more demand for goods will increase prices.

Edited August 30, 2015 by adrea

[I1L2T3]

So you think everyone claiming housing benefits and tax credits would die if those benefits were stopped?

 

Some people would probably die yeah and that is not being dramatic. You would have a lot of hungry people, homeless people and perhaps mass civil disorder.

 

You couldn't just remove that support.

 

---------- Post added 30-08-2015 at 09:06 ----------

 

Looking at it from a very dispassionate view, if you did that the rental market (and many other things) would reset very quickly.

 

How would it reset? A large proportion of the rental sector is provided by buy to let landlords leveraged to the Max with a lot of the small fry in the game using their family homes as security.

 

You wouldn't just have the housing benefit tenants out on the streets but lots of buy to let investors losing the shirts off their backs too if the housing benefit money dried up.

 

The incremental increase in the NMW towards a living wage is the right thing to do. Both main parties support it - Osborne borrowed the idea from Labour

 

---------- Post added 30-08-2015 at 09:15 ----------

 

I didn't say that I was happy or that low wages should be topped up.

 

3 people leave school at the same time and all work for Tesco on MW and doing the same job.

 

 

They each earn £13963 for a 40 hour week.

 

2 of them are a couple and are buying their own house, they don't receive any benefits but still manage to run a car, go one holidays and the occasional night out, they can't afford everything they want but they are enjoying life and not just surviving.

 

The other lives with her 2 kids in a rented house, she receives top up benefits of £10,430.50, making her gross income £29,195.80, over double that of the other 2 that are doing the same job for the same hours with the same employer.

 

Should her employer pay her £29,195.80 a year because that is what she needs to live and if so should the employer also pay the other 2 the same wage because they are dong the same job.

 

New minimum wage would need to be £14 per hour.

 

Is it better to have a benefits system that increases peoples income based on need or scrap it altogether and up minimum wage making the couple much better off and the single mum

 

The living wage should not use a couple who both work full time on minimum wage as the benchmark.

 

It should use the actual (or future projected) cost of living as the benchmark

 

If that benchmark indicates the wage should be £14 then it is time to rectify issues causing it to be so high. If you use what a corporate business is willing to do drive the benchmark then nothing will ever get changed. They don't care about society. They care about profits.

 

So, if it was £14 make a start with taking the heat out of the housing market.