Jump to content

General Election 2015

Ludo*1

By Ludo*1
in The Politics Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 15.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
jagfox

jagfox

Posted
Posted

You look enough of a psychopath to be a Tory.

I'd never vote Tory...unless I won the Lotto Jackpot ;)

I was fecking about with my phone hence the "psycho" look 8)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DigOutYourSoul

DigOutYourSoul

Posted
Posted

strichener's spot on. Why is profit reduction never an option in these sort of discussions.

I have run my own small business for almost 20 years. I pay above the living wage, it has not bankrupted me. The banker-driven greed-driven recession did come close to doing so though.

It's is an option; it's just not one I can see masses of shareholders agreeing with. For me if the wages go up, they'll be met with an increased selling prices. Companies actively looking to decrease margins/profits isn't going to go down well with the majority of shareholders.

The company I work for pay everyone above the living wage and it's certainly not bankrupt them either.

My original point was that some people seem to think you can just blindly increase the minimum wage while holding everything else everything else constant.

The original post was about a McDonald's I think. If McDonalds ran with the £8 an hour minimum wage that was spoken about earlier. If you say on average they have 25 full time equivalents in one store that would increase their cost base, per store, by around £100,000 per year. multiply that out by the 100 or so shops they have in Scotland. Increasing their staff costs by £10million per year is going to lead to an increase in prices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jagfox

jagfox

Posted
Posted

Really can't warm to Black for whatever reason, something dislikeable about her.

Maybe I just hate women.

She was a bit clingy tbf :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
strichener

strichener

Posted
Posted

It's is an option; it's just not one I can see masses of shareholders agreeing with. For me if the wages go up, they'll be met with an increased selling prices. Companies actively looking to decrease margins/profits isn't going to go down well with the majority of shareholders.

The company I work for pay everyone above the living wage and it's certainly not bankrupt them either.

My original point was that some people seem to think you can just blindly increase the minimum wage while holding everything else everything else constant.

The original post was about a McDonald's I think. If McDonalds ran with the £8 an hour minimum wage that was spoken about earlier. If you say on average they have 25 full time equivalents in one store that would increase their cost base, per store, by around £100,000 per year. multiply that out by the 100 or so shops they have in Scotland. Increasing their staff costs by £10million per year is going to lead to an increase in prices.

The problem with paying someone less than a living wage is that the employer is then being subsidised by other companies that do pay at least the minimum wage (or more accurately the employees of such companies through taxation).

I repeat my earlier words - no-one in work should need to rely on "in work" benefits. I would be interested to see someone counter this argument rather than look at it from the profitability of the employer.

As an aside, you have also overstated the impact of an £8 wage by 1/3 using the numbers you supplied. The current minimum wage is £6.50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DigOutYourSoul

DigOutYourSoul

Posted
Posted

The problem with paying someone less than a living wage is that the employer is then being subsidised by other companies that do pay at least the minimum wage (or more accurately the employees of such companies through taxation).

I repeat my earlier words - no-one in work should need to rely on "in work" benefits. I would be interested to see someone counter this argument rather than look at it from the profitability of the employer.

As an aside, you have also overstated the impact of an £8 wage by 1/3 using the numbers you supplied. The current minimum wage is £6.50.

I agree that people shouldn't need to be subsidised by in work benefits, tax credits etc. I was merely trying to show the impact this increase in wages would have in prices. The calculation was a rough one in my head. £1.5 x 45hours x 25 employees =£87,750 = £8.750million to correct the calculation. I'm looking at it from the employers point of view because that's the main impact I see from the issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gaz

Gaz

Posted
Posted

It's is an option; it's just not one I can see masses of shareholders agreeing with. For me if the wages go up, they'll be met with an increased selling prices. Companies actively looking to decrease margins/profits isn't going to go down well with the majority of shareholders.

The company I work for pay everyone above the living wage and it's certainly not bankrupt them either.

My original point was that some people seem to think you can just blindly increase the minimum wage while holding everything else everything else constant.

The original post was about a McDonald's I think. If McDonalds ran with the £8 an hour minimum wage that was spoken about earlier. If you say on average they have 25 full time equivalents in one store that would increase their cost base, per store, by around £100,000 per year. multiply that out by the 100 or so shops they have in Scotland. Increasing their staff costs by £10million per year is going to lead to an increase in prices.

You're ignoring the effect that each and every one of those workers will then earn another £60 per week, which will be ploughed back into the local economy - and a good chunk of it will go back to McDonald's in some way, whether through direct sales or supplies. It's basic economics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Master

The Master

Posted
Posted

Another thing with the SNP being the third largest party is that they should now be allocated the chairmanships of two select committees.

Scottish Affairs must be a shoe-in, but I can't think of another one the Tories and Labour would be prepared to give up (the number of chairs from each party is decided by the speaker, but the distribution of committees is down to the parties).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DigOutYourSoul

DigOutYourSoul

Posted
Posted

You're ignoring the effect that each and every one of those workers will then earn another £60 per week, which will be ploughed back into the local economy - and a good chunk of it will go back to McDonald's in some way, whether through direct sales or supplies. It's basic economics.

I wasn't ignoring it but it again wouldn't be that simple. As if the companies staff costs increased by 20% the likelyhood that they'd have to increase their selling price. If you extrapolate across the economy wage push inflation is likely to kick in and the extra money, in real terms, will be worth a lot less than £60.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
strichener

strichener

Posted
Posted

I wasn't ignoring it but it again wouldn't be that simple. As if the companies staff costs increased by 20% the likelyhood that they'd have to increase their selling price. If you extrapolate across the economy wage push inflation is likely to kick in and the extra money, in real terms, will be worth a lot less than £60.

Not all companies staff costs will increase by 20%, only those that are currently under-paying staff. The reality is that the evidence points to people with the lowest incomes paying a higher proportion of their income in tax than the wealthiest. You are going to have to explain to me how you get that the real term worth would be less than £60. If this is a valid argument then no-one should be receiving pay rises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...