National living wage will destroy jobs says ex-sainsburys chief

[bigsexydoug]

Work it out for yourself using the governments benefits calculator which can be found online, the results I just had for a 26 years old single person doing a 40 hour week on minimum wage living in private rented accommodation, is zero tax credits, zero housing benefits and zero council tax benefits.

 

 

 

How many should we build and where should they be built, how many immigrants will arrive in the UK next year and the year after and the year after that, future planning isn't easy when you don't know what the population will be.

 

 

 

Few jobs were lost which must mean some jobs were lost, how many weren't created that would have been created if not for NMW.

 

---------- Post added 30-08-2015 at 20:29 ----------

 

 

I think you will find some automated car wash owners actually complained about the low waged often illegal immigrant car washes because they took business away from the machines.

 

I agree that hand washing is much better, but would everyone pay double the price that a machine can wash it for.

 

---------- Post added 30-08-2015 at 20:32 ----------

 

 

That's right, so if the wage goes up they will make less money from each employee unless they get each employee to produce more, and if they increase productivity they won't need as many staff.

 

going a bit round in circles here, but don't you think tesco etc know how much they can get productivity wise already out of each employee ? they don't just guess how many employees they need, if they need 6 staff for one shop they won't employ 7 as your implying and then let everyone have it a bit easy. They will have tons of data saying EXACTLY how many staff per sq foot.

If they could increase productivity if the wage goes up to the living wage, then they would get their staff NOW to increase productivity and get rid of the spare employee now !

[MintPlumbing]

I don't think the problem is the hourly rate of pay, its the number of hours worked.

 

In work benefits are calculated based on number of hours worked, income, and circumstances. Someone working part time might get housing benefits and tax credits whilst someone else doing the same job for the same hourly rate will get no benefits because they work more hours.

Too many part time workers if the problem that needs sorting, get them working full time and the benefits bill will fall significantly, removing in work benefits for part time workers will go some way to sorting the problem.

[Funky_Gibbon]

Something fundamentally messed up about a country where businesses say they can't afford to pay their staff enough to live on without help from the State and where the average priced house is now too expensive for a person on the average salary.

[I1L2T3]

Work it out for yourself using the governments benefits calculator which can be found online, the results I just had for a 26 years old single person doing a 40 hour week on minimum wage living in private rented accommodation, is zero tax credits, zero housing benefits and zero council tax benefits.

 

 

 

How many should we build and where should they be built, how many immigrants will arrive in the UK next year and the year after and the year after that, future planning isn't easy when you don't know what the population will be.

 

 

 

Few jobs were lost which must mean some jobs were lost, how many weren't created that would have been created if not for NMW.

 

---------- Post added 30-08-2015 at 20:29 ----------

 

 

I think you will find some automated car wash owners actually complained about the low waged often illegal immigrant car washes because they took business away from the machines.

 

I agree that hand washing is much better, but would everyone pay double the price that a machine can wash it for.

 

---------- Post added 30-08-2015 at 20:32 ----------

 

 

That's right, so if the wage goes up they will make less money from each employee unless they get each employee to produce more, and if they increase productivity they won't need as many staff.

 

So, in a nutshell you are arguing for keeping things the way they are. For keeping tax credits. For keeping housing benefits. For subsidising corporate business. For keeping house prices high.

 

I want all that to change Andrea. I don't think we should be topping up wages, except in extreme situations. I don't think we should be subsidising rent. I don't think corporates should be taking advantage of those factors to offer lower wages. I think we need more affordable housing. Seriously, what is not to like?

[psynuk]

I want all that to change Andrea. I don't think we should be topping up wages, except in extreme situations. I don't think we should be subsidising rent. I don't think corporates should be taking advantage of those factors to offer lower wages. I think we need more affordable housing. Seriously, what is not to like?

You are absolutely correct, we shouldn't be doing the things that are enabling the perpetuation of such nonsense.

 

When and how did things stop being like that?

It's a strange situation when you think about it and I have no doubt it's a situation that has been at least in someway purposefully engineered by the link that business has to proffesional politics.

 

In a funny kind of way it's natural, much like the way a weaker animal will be chewed up and shat out by a stronger one. Only it's an entirely contrived set of circumstances that's allowed it to occur initially, then change in such a way that an employer is now arguing the state should (part) pay the wages that are used to create a wholly private profit.

I wonder if tesco for example, pays more in tax than it creates in state dependence? iyswim

Edited August 31, 2015 by psynuk

[adrea]

So, in a nutshell you are arguing for keeping things the way they are. For keeping tax credits. For keeping housing benefits. For subsidising corporate business. For keeping house prices high.

 

I want all that to change Andrea. I don't think we should be topping up wages, except in extreme situations. I don't think we should be subsidising rent. I don't think corporates should be taking advantage of those factors to offer lower wages. I think we need more affordable housing. Seriously, what is not to like?

 

No, in a nutshell I'm arguing that introducing a National living wage won't make people claiming tax credits and housing benefits any better off and won't stop the need for tax credits and housing benefits or lower house prices, but it will cause some to loose their jobs and will slow the rate of new job creation.

 

I don't think we should be topping up wages.

I don't think we should be subsidising rent.

I don't think corporates should be taking advantage of those factors to offer lower wages.

I think we need more affordable housing.

 

But increasing the minimum wage won't stop the need to top up wages,

won't stop the need to subsidize rent, won't stop corporates from taking advantage of those factors to offer lower wages and won't create more affordable housing.

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2015 at 10:16 ----------

 

I don't think the problem is the hourly rate of pay, its the number of hours worked.

 

In work benefits are calculated based on number of hours worked, income, and circumstances. Someone working part time might get housing benefits and tax credits whilst someone else doing the same job for the same hourly rate will get no benefits because they work more hours.

Too many part time workers if the problem that needs sorting, get them working full time and the benefits bill will fall significantly, removing in work benefits for part time workers will go some way to sorting the problem.

 

It would be interesting to see the stats for who actually receives in work benefits, there will be people on £15 an hour receiving them and people on £6.50 an hour not receiving them.

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2015 at 10:27 ----------

 

You are absolutely correct, we shouldn't be doing the things that are enabling the perpetuation of such nonsense.

 

When and how did things stop being like that?

It's a strange situation when you think about it and I have no doubt it's a situation that has been at least in someway purposefully engineered by the link that business has to proffesional politics.

 

In a funny kind of way it's natural, much like the way a weaker animal will be chewed up and shat out by a stronger one. Only it's an entirely contrived set of circumstances that's allowed it to occur initially, then change in such a way that an employer is now arguing the state should (part) pay the wages that are used to create a wholly private profit.

I wonder if tesco for example, pays more in tax than it creates in state dependence? iyswim

 

High house prices and other living costs are caused by supply, demand and affordability. If only one person worked in each household most people couldn't afford the house they are in so house prices would have had to stay much lower. If supply is low and affordability makes demand high then prices will rise, the advent of two people working in each household was bound to cause prices to rise because it increased affordability and demand, and supply couldn't keep up, Mass immigration also caused more demand and at the same time suppressed wages.

[psynuk]

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.

 

 

Eh?

wage £13963 + benefits £10430 = gross £29,195

 

No she shouldn't be paid double her wage, but no-ones arguing that she should, nor should either of the couple be paid less than her.

 

The benefits she receives are a stupidly high amount in proportion to her hours/wage but they are a consequence of the society we live in.

Running those figures through entitled to, produces a weekly rent of £120,

So approx;

1.5k-tax

6k -rent

1k -energy

1k -council tax

.3k -water

 

I'm nearly at 10 thousand already! add in food(4k), transport (?), clothes,(?)

and the other million little bits of cost modern life throws at you..

 

That's why she should be paid £7.20 ph,

That's why the likes of Justin king has no concept of what he's talking about.

He's a rich man and all good to him for it, but his concern is for the profit a business can make and as such his opinion should be treated accordingly.

[TJC1]

I don't think the problem is the hourly rate of pay, its the number of hours worked.

 

In work benefits are calculated based on number of hours worked, income, and circumstances. Someone working part time might get housing benefits and tax credits whilst someone else doing the same job for the same hourly rate will get no benefits because they work more hours.

Too many part time workers if the problem that needs sorting, get them working full time and the benefits bill will fall significantly, removing in work benefits for part time workers will go some way to sorting the problem.

 

the opposite is true. The hourly wage isnt high enough And it doesnt matter about hours...qualify tax credits are 30 hours +, while part time workers have benefits slashed So work doesnt pay.

So both sets of low wage workers have a problem. The only way currently for retail staff etc is to work lots of hours. Great for supermarkets being fed state subsidies, bad for workers.

[psynuk]

High house prices and other living costs are caused by supply, demand and affordability. If only one person worked in each household most people couldn't afford the house they are in so house prices would have had to stay much lower.

 

Yes, but that's not an accurate description of how/why housing in this country is at silly prices.

 

The housing stock in the country is artificially controlled and manipulated to an extent it bears little correlation with 'reality'.

The removal of social housing, and the restrictions on building are primary reasons why the prices are unrealistic.

 

for example I've bought an ex council house at over 100k. It probably cost

<£1000 in materials and labour to build, it probably paid for itself many times over, it would have cost about £200 a month to rent off the council.

I pay over £600/m in mortgage payments.

 

I should never have had the opportunity to buy it.

 

It's a self fulfilling prophecy for obvious reasons, throw in btl and %50 of minimum wage soon starts going on rent.

[TJC1]

 

High house prices and other living costs are caused by supply, demand and affordability. If only one person worked in each household most people couldn't afford the house they are in so house prices would have had to stay much lower.

 

In the uk its caused by state subsitence. If the state stopped in work benefits tomorrow the housing market would collapse.

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2015 at 11:30 ----------

 

The proposals are flawed as a living stabdards rise...if the real living wage was introduced people would be 'better off'. But thats not what this is about.

 

As it stands all osborne is doing is decreasing the state bill and placing the emphasis on business to pick up the slack.

 

People will not be better off. Maybe the same in some cases.