Milliband's living wage.

[LeighLoyal]

While I agree 7.45 an hour is a more acceptable level, isn't this a bit crazy and unenforceable in the current climate? And if it was laid down wouldn't it also just suck in more migrants which benefits nobody.

[hibsbollah]

Firstly, its not intended to be 'enforceable'; employers can sign up or not as they like. Secondly, dont get me started on 'sucking in migrants' :rolleyes: This argument gets trotted out everytime there is a move towards improving the lot of the low paid in this country.

Personally im delighted ONL is making new progressive policy announcements for a change. A new Housing policy next please.

[RyeSloan]

While I agree 7.45 an hour is a more acceptable level, isn't this a bit crazy and unenforceable in the current climate? And if it was laid down wouldn't it also just suck in more migrants which benefits nobody.

Wow good going..you managed to turn an issue about baisc salaries into one about migrants inside one sentance!

Fact is quite quite simple. In a developed nation that has a low birth rate at or below the replacement level and advanced healthcare allowing it's citizens to live longer and longer inwards migration is an absolute essential to the future propserity of the nation.

It's also a pretty duff idea to suggest that keeping wages low for UK citizens should be implemented as a policy to prevent future migrants...is that what you are suggesting?

As for the 'living wage' concept....equivalent to £14k a year on a 35 hour week. Hardly a fortune I owuld suggest although how 'affordable' it might be I don't know..higher wages are laregly passed onto the consumer anyway, which will of course be reflected in inflation figures and the whole wheel goes round again. Not entirely sure Governments are any especially good at predicting or creating 'living wages' but I don't think you can argue that the minimum wage introduction was a great success and brought little of the negative effects that were suggested by opponents.

[Eyrie]

Worth remembering that those unfortunate enough to be earning minimum wage have to spend all their income to survive, so a small increase to a "living wage" figure would be a boost to the economy as the extra money is immediately spent. There would also be a saving to the taxpayer through a reduction in tax credits as people get paid for the work they do rather than subsidised by the state for doing it.

[allmodcons]

While I agree 7.45 an hour is a more acceptable level, isn't this a bit crazy and unenforceable in the current climate? And if it was laid down wouldn't it also just suck in more migrants which benefits nobody.


Great idea by Ed Miliband?????

http://www.scotsman.com/news/government-and-nhs-workers-to-get-pay-rise-as-living-wage-increased-to-7-45-1-2614882

BTW what's it go to do with 'sucking in migrants'?

[steakbake]

Id find Miliband more credible if his party were the first to dispense with the culture of unpaid interns. As for offering tax incentives to companies who pay the living wage, lots of big businesses could really get away with paying less tax already.

[--------]

While I agree 7.45 an hour is a more acceptable level, isn't this a bit crazy and unenforceable in the current climate? And if it was laid down wouldn't it also just suck in more migrants which benefits nobody.


'Migrants'? 'Migration'? :rolleyes:

If you're talking about IMMIGRANTS and IMMIGRATION, say so. What you're basically saying is, we don't want to do anything to help the poorest and least well-off in our country because it might attract foreigners to come here to work and WE DON'T WANT FOREIGNERS IN OUR COUNTRY, do we?

Talking all funny, taking our jobs, going off with our women, BEING DIFFERENT?

Simar is right - "In a developed nation that has a low birth rate at or below the replacement level and advanced healthcare allowing its citizens to live longer and longer, inwards migration is an absolute essential to the future prosperity of the nation."

Simar - :aok:

[Beefster]

Id find Miliband more credible if his party were the first to dispense with the culture of unpaid interns.

Absolutely. Complete hypocrisy from all the political parties. Not that that's any great surprise.

[Speedy]

'Migrants'? 'Migration'? :rolleyes:

If you're talking about IMMIGRANTS and IMMIGRATION, say so. What you're basically saying is, we don't want to do anything to help the poorest and least well-off in our country because it might attract foreigners to come here to work and WE DON'T WANT FOREIGNERS IN OUR COUNTRY, do we?

Talking all funny, taking our jobs, going off with our women, BEING DIFFERENT?

Simar is right - "In a developed nation that has a low birth rate at or below the replacement level and advanced healthcare allowing its citizens to live longer and longer, inwards migration is an absolute essential to the future prosperity of the nation."

Simar - :aok:

I think it's a valid point, albeit poorly made.

I think the point is that a balance has to be made between improving the conditions of the lowest paid and improving them too much that they becoming unattainable for various reasons.

On the mobile at the moment but will post a link to an article I saw on another forum later.

[Speedy]

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/

Readers of a certain age will remember the
children's TV series, Chigley. At the end of
each episode, workers would leave the
factory to dance in Lord Belborough's
garden. All conflicts were thus ended, and
there was happy harmony between
aristocrats, factory owners and workers.
Reading the two Milibands on the living
wage reminded me of this. Here's Ed:
Businesses which have introduced it tell us
that it saves them money.
In reduced turnover of staff.
And lower sickness absence...
So it makes business sense.
And here's David with Dave Prentis:
Paying the living wage cuts absenteeism
and labour turnover and raises
productivity.
This is not so much "pony politics" as
Chigley politics - something that, like Lord
Belborough's organ, makes every happy.
This the fallacy of composition. It's
perfectly likely that if one or two firms pay
higher wages than their rivals they'll attract
more motivated staff and enjoy lower staff
turnover than their rivals. But these
advantages would disappear if all firms pay
reasonable wages.And it's possible that the
higher labour costs would lead - maybe
marginally - to fewer jobs and shorter
hours. Efficiency wage theory, remember, is
a theory of unemployment.
You might reply here that higher wages
would boost demand as workers spent their
higher wages. Not necessarily, For one
thing - as Ed nearly said - workers would
lose around 50p in lower tax credits and
suchlike for each £1 of pay rise, so to some
extent paying a living wage is partly a form
of fiscal tightening. And for another, it's
possible that firms won't react passively to
higher costs by running down cashpiles,
but might instead cut spending on jobs or
investment.
I fear, then, that the Milibands are doing
what Kristian calls motivated reasoning -
they want to believe that something that is
morally desirable is also economically
efficient.
Such a motivation, however, doesn't arise
from the particularities of the living wage.
Instead, it's a product of social democratic
ideology. The defining feature of social
democracy is that there are some positive-
sum policies that benefit both capitalists
and workers.
Sometimes, this is true. For example, in the
50s and 60s the full employment policies
that benefited workers also delivered high
profit rates.
But just because something is true
sometimes doesn't mean it is always true.
Here's an alternative possibility:
Factors such as globalization and (power-
biased) technical change have massively
depressed demand in the west for low-
skilled workers, leading to unemployment
and low wages.Policies to rectify this
impose costs upon others. These might take
the form of higher taxes if the low-skilled
get in-work benefits. Or they might take the
form of lower profit margins, if a living
wage is imposed upon firms. And
capitalists' investment function might well
be such that lower profit margins lead to
lower investment. In this sense, policies to
help the low-skilled might well be zero-sum
ones, or perhaps even negative-sum ones.
Such a view flatly rejects the Miliband's
Chigley politics. But I suspect there's some
truth in it. And if there is, then we cannot
escape the reality that there is a class
conflict.

[hibby rae]

I like the idea of a maximum wage whereby if the chief exec ( for instance) of a company wants to increase his/her salary he can only do it to a certain extent and has to proportionally increase the wages of the poorest paid at the company. Helps the low paid and stops the fat cats just looking after themselves.