Is there any job that should be done for less than the cost of keeping some above poverty?

Politician?

Well if your employer goes bust there is no job.

A more sensible approach would be a mixture of a lower minimum wage increase and lower tax bill for NI and basic rate Income Tax.

Take home is more important than gross.

I think there was a similar conversation when they introduced the minimum wage in the first place. I agree that take home is more important than gross.

LivDiv wrote:

Either way whether it is right or wrong to do so it should be thought out. I asked what the thinking process was. Was there one?

How do you know there wasn't..?

There are many ways of funding a living wage. It certainly doesn't have to be a cliff edge introduction - government grants to help said small businesses make the transition. If it means that luxury goods should be priced more, that supply chain is more expensive, then that's a price we literally have to pay, don't we? Because the alternative is we just continue down the road of horribly underpaid, government subsidised (via UC) low opportunity workers, isn't it?

The first thing that people say when I say we have to pay more for things is: well then it's the poor who'll suffer because they'll have to pay more. But how much more, on a per-apple or per-pint basis? A few pence would probably fund all the difference we need - the supermarket wars and Amazon's supply chain nuclear war were built on such savings. And if those in work are now actually earning more money then they can afford the slight price increases necessary.

Tax the rich, introduce land tax, CGT and better inheritance taxation to fund a proper safety net for those who can't work and they too will be able to afford the more expensive goods.

GooberTheHat wrote:

LivDiv wrote:

Well if your employer goes bust there is no job.

I would argue that if you can't afford to pay someone non-exploitative wages then you shouldn't be in business.

You would argue wrongly.
Most businesses are at the mercy of external market forces.
Even if they could there has to be some headway there too. Who wants the responsibility and risk of running a business if you can stack shelves for the same money?

GooberTheHat wrote:

LivDiv wrote:

Well if your employer goes bust there is no job.

I would argue that if you can't afford to pay someone non-exploitative wages then you shouldn't be in business.

No offence but I really detest this argument. For the average person who starts a business they are not starting it so that they can employ people. They hopefully get to a point where the income of a business can support extra employment. It should be a key part of government to support those SMEs as they are a good way for income to flow through a community. 

Also are you saying that anything less than £15 is exploitative? Even when the living wage is a recommended £9.50?

OK so they pay £15 and go under then because they price themselves out the market paying it.

Meanwhile Amazon get bigger.

mistercrayon wrote:

Didn’t Keir Starmer last week say it was gonna be a £10 min wage he would put in day 1 of a Labour govt? Seems weird to then say £15 is the min wage?!

I presume it's a motion at conference, and rather than just sit it out and listen to the discussion, he was being instructed to actively argue against it. Given that he's been on a march with McDonalds workers asking for that, I'd have thought Starmer would have had a touch more tact here.

Scum ain’t he?

Edit - not you Yoss

Ah so conference proposed it and the shadow minister was asked to toe the actual party line because he’s the appropriate shadow minister. Fair enough he’s right to quit if he doesn’t agree with it.

"Fight for $15" was a US initiative and it wouldn't surprise me if the UK left have plucked that figure out because it fits into a nice, alliterative slogan. Labour's current policy is £10 min wage. Which, as per Yoss, doesn't even cover current living expenses in London. 

£15 seems like a steep increase but I don't employ people and I don't have to survive on min wage, and have done a few minutes research on all this while I've been sat waiting in a vets. So what do I know?

Sick pay is a disgrace and I've got no idea what Starmer wants for that, other than to 'increase it'. But clearly he doesn't want it to rise to even subsistence level.

RedDave2 wrote:

tigersgogrrr wrote:

You detest the argument that if you employ people, you should be required to pay them a living wage? That you should only employ people who you can afford to pay a living wage to?

Its more the notion that every role in a business is relevant to a living wage. Its not and please dont pretend it is. The living wage is based on supporting a family of 4 with 2 kids, right? So that has nothing to do with the role you are employing a person for. Its based on the persons needs. I'd argue that you should find the job you need, not have the job you have adapt to you. I know that's not a popular view but I cant see the justification in every job out there needing a living wage. Not every job needs to support a family.

LivDiv nailed the problem with treating all business as the same. It is not hard for Tesco, Amazon etc. to fund small increases - but it is for the local business who will get wiped by these practices. And those business do more to keep income within the community.

I don't know. Is that what the living wage is based on? Enough money to support a family?

tigersgogrrr wrote:

RedDave2 wrote:

tigersgogrrr wrote:

You detest the argument that if you employ people, you should be required to pay them a living wage? That you should only employ people who you can afford to pay a living wage to?

Its more the notion that every role in a business is relevant to a living wage. Its not and please dont pretend it is. The living wage is based on supporting a family of 4 with 2 kids, right? So that has nothing to do with the role you are employing a person for. Its based on the persons needs. I'd argue that you should find the job you need, not have the job you have adapt to you. I know that's not a popular view but I cant see the justification in every job out there needing a living wage. Not every job needs to support a family. LivDiv nailed the problem with treating all business as the same. It is not hard for Tesco, Amazon etc. to fund small increases - but it is for the local business who will get wiped by these practices. And those business do more to keep income within the community.

I don't know. Is that what the living wage is based on? Enough money to support a family?

What is the Living Wage (ontariolivingwage.ca)

According to this - I wouldnt necessarily take that as gospel but my point stands that not every job is capable of supporting a fully grown adult living alone - but they aren't meant to.

By the way, before anyone says I'm just looking for slave wages - I look after 30 staff for my company in Ireland. We are working on getting as many as possible over the recommended €12.30 living wage and at the moment 6 are on minimum wage (€10.20 per hour) but more than make up for that with cash tips (as well as sales incentives) The next tranche of 5 staff are on €11.50 per hour and they also get a smaller share of the tips. The rest (19 staff) are all on higher than the living wage. But its hard work and does limit how many staff we can bring in. Our wage costs account for 40% of our sales. If we moved everyone to €15 per hour, it would eat up the profit the business makes (about 6-8% after all costs and taxes are paid) and would negate the point of it being a business.

Living wage in Toronto, the highest rate in Canada, is almost £13 per hour, Toronto’s cheaper than London, that’s for sure.