National living wage will destroy jobs says ex-sainsburys chief

[adrea]

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 ----------

 

 

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

 

How much is a living wage, the example I gave above would need £14 per hour for a 40 hour week to get what she gets now, someone with 3, 4, 5 kids would need more. Is that what you expect employers to pay so that workers have no need for means tested benefits.

 

---------- Post added 30-08-2015 at 09:24 ----------

 

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.

 

Evan at £14 per hour some people will still need top up benefits, there is no way to increase MW to the point that tax credits and housing benefits can be scrapped, and living costs aren't going to fall they are going to rise unless the population falls significantly.

 

---------- Post added 30-08-2015 at 09:25 ----------

 

 

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

 

 

The cost of living is different for everyone.

 

The only way is to have a NMW and then top up the wage of those with the greatest need for more money, or stop topping up wages and force people to makes decisions based on the money they can earn.

Edited August 30, 2015 by adrea

[I1L2T3]

How much is a living wage, the example I gave above would need £14 per hour for a 40 hour week to get what she gets now, someone with 3, 4, 5 kids would need more. Is that what you expect employers to pay so that workers have no need for means tested benefits.

 

---------- Post added 30-08-2015 at 09:24 ----------

 

 

Evan at £14 per hour some people will still need top up benefits, there is no way to increase MW to the point that tax credits and housing benefits can be scrapped, and living costs aren't going to fall they are going to rise unless the population falls significantly.

 

---------- Post added 30-08-2015 at 09:25 ----------

 

 

The cost of living is different for everyone.

 

The only way is to have a NMW and then top up the wage of those with the greatest need for more money, or stop topping up wages and force people to makes decisions based on the money they can earn.

 

You're not getting this at all. The reason the living wage would be so high now is because living costs are so high.

 

It doesn't matter how much you try and contrive example situations, the fact is that current minimum wage is not enough for many people to afford necessities like housing and transport.

 

So, the government plan is to gradually increase the minimum wage. At the same time it should be introducing measures to bring down living costs. If it works correctly the two strands should meet at some future point greatly reducing the requirement for state support for things the state should never be supporting for most people.

 

At that point it really makes no difference to business. The money in the economy is the same and instead of taxes going to government (i.e. we pay less tax) to then be redistributed, the money flows through businesses instead and is redistributed as wages.

 

How anybody can argue for the current state of play with Labour's disastrous legacy of tax credits and extensive housing benefits is beyond me. To their credit the Tories are actually seeming like they want to start fixing it.

[Bonzo77]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34090038

 

Spoken like a true millionaire

[TJC1]

We are forgetting the welfare system reforms- it had to change at some point..removal of tax credits bill, the living wage is a purely ideological move.

 

unfortunately, a number of people will be worse off immediately because of it.

Although I feel neutral about it to some extent, because the welfare system was a mess. Labour had many years to put it right. There was nothing stopping new labour pushing a living wage...they pandered around the city and are to blame.

[watchcoll]

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

 

I don't understand your question. Tesco currently pay their lowest level staff £7.39 per hour (my partner works there). They will not be impacted by the minimum wage rising to £7.20. I can't see them voluntarily raising their rates of pay because Sainsburys have been compelled to catch up. They will, however, have to accomodate the future planned rise to £9 per hour in 5 years time.

[Penistone999]

Of course jobs will go if a living wage comes into force. Companies cannot ,and should not be expected to absorb the extra costs. The are only two ways cover this. one is to pass the costs onto the comsumer or cut jobs. passing the cost onto consumers leads to price rises where we all suffer, so cutting jobs is the inevitable result of a living wage.

[apelike]

Of course jobs will go if a living wage comes into force. Companies cannot ,and should not be expected to absorb the extra costs. The are only two ways cover this. one is to pass the costs onto the comsumer or cut jobs. passing the cost onto consumers leads to price rises where we all suffer, so cutting jobs is the inevitable result of a living wage.

 

Exactly the same was said when the minimum wage was first proposed and did it happen, no!

[I1L2T3]

Of course jobs will go if a living wage comes into force. Companies cannot ,and should not be expected to absorb the extra costs. The are only two ways cover this. one is to pass the costs onto the comsumer or cut jobs. passing the cost onto consumers leads to price rises where we all suffer, so cutting jobs is the inevitable result of a living wage.

 

Once again are you arguing for socialist-style redistribution of income through the state? Through housing benefits and tax credits?

 

Think carefully because that is happening.

 

Seems like you want to park your principles on the shelf when it suits.

[chalga]

Of course jobs will go if a living wage comes into force. Companies cannot ,and should not be expected to absorb the extra costs. The are only two ways cover this. one is to pass the costs onto the comsumer or cut jobs. passing the cost onto consumers leads to price rises where we all suffer, so cutting jobs is the inevitable result of a living wage.

 

Who's going to pay the extra costs when migrants are banned from working in the UK,and companies are forced to pay a living wage to the Brits who are currently unemployed because wages are too low to tempt them off benefits?

[TJC1]

Of course jobs will go if a living wage comes into force. Companies cannot ,and should not be expected to absorb the extra costs. The are only two ways cover this. one is to pass the costs onto the comsumer or cut jobs. passing the cost onto consumers leads to price rises where we all suffer, so cutting jobs is the inevitable result of a living wage.

 

You want the state to keep propping up private businesses and private housing?

 

Here's a novel idea, I pay everybody who works for me over and above the minimum wage...so why can't private big businesses do that?

 

I'm not saying they will by the way, my thoughts are they will do everything to minimise loss of profits...and weasel out of it, meaning job losses or slowed growth

 

Big business tax avoidance and the city have had it way too good...For too long.

 

---------- Post added 30-08-2015 at 13:44 ----------

 

Once again are you arguing for socialist-style redistribution of income through the state? Through housing benefits and tax credits?

 

Think carefully because that is happening.

 

Seems like you want to park your principles on the shelf when it suits.

 

It's funny...people want a small state when it suits them and a large one when it threatens their profits. Hypocrisy and greed.