I have reservations about saying yes to making it compulsory tomorrow across the whole country because of the questions I have already asked - but that is also not a no. I'm not as certain as you: a) whether the benefit will be felt by those who need it most and b) what the knock on effect would be and who that would affect the most. I think that maybe our main differences are that you would be more satisfied with a largely symbolic change at this stage - whereas I would not, particularly as I have concerns it would backfire if poorly or bluntly implemented.
I don't think either of us disagree that we would welcome benefits being replaced by companies paying full rather than subsidised wages. LLW would hopefully go a long way towards achieving that. My initial concern about that causing a sudden leap in wages seems to be fairly strongly mitigated for some by resultant decreases in benefits although I don't think any of us really know by how much and for how many. But then it raises the question for me, are the right people going to benefit? Yes it's a triumph that every penny of a person's salary is paid by the company - but wasn't the original aim to make the lowest paid better off? You conceded there is truth in that and said it is largely symbolic and just a first step - well, what's the next one?
.
I don't really disagree with any of the research about how paying people more benefits the company although several of the listed advantages are based on the advantage of paying higher wages than other companies and would not exist if everyone paid LLW. I question the meaningfulness of some of the stats under the "good for the individual" heading. The lowest I have ever paid anyone was £7/hr and that was back in 2001. LLW didn't reach that level until five years later - minimum wage still hasn't. That was for unskilled building labour but guys were able to earn more pretty quickly as they got to know the ropes and made themselves more and more useful. However, paying good money meant you could be quite picky and those who didn't work out lost their jobs rather than staying on the starting wage. It was not uncommon. I don't know what work they got after leaving me but I really think many employers would have found an alternative to having to employ them rather than pay higher rates. I do wonder where these people would fit in as individuals are expected to deliver more. Relocatable jobs have been relocated as we agreed. More and more relatively unskilled are jobs are being replaced - just look at DIY shop scanning. You even mentioned staff-less easy cinemas above. A sudden increase in many wage bills will only accelerate this - where will all the LLW jobs come from?
I would like people to be better off in general. It would be easy for me to say - yeah pay everyone the LLW tomorrow. I'm just not convinced economics are that simple. Equating "I'm not sure it will work as you expect" with wanting to deny people a fair living is nonsense (not saying you are personally doing that).
I wanted to know if you supported the LW/ LLW if it was rolled out for the whole country.
As your previous posts imply that better educated more articulate workers like at Ritzy have better chance of getting higher wages than the mass of low paid workers like shelf stackers.
I take your answer as a no.
A lot of the arguments you make were made when the last Labour Government brought in the minimum wage. Now employers accept it. Not even this government has said it will repeal the minimum wage.
The Living Wage concept is another stage building on the minimum wage.
Yes its symbolic in the sense that its a successful political campaign that most people can support. Its an example of incremental reform. Not going to solve all the problems of living in a society where most people sell there labour. What the LW campaign has also done is bring peoples attention to the fact that London would not function without low paid workers. A security guard recently told me that one day we should all not turn up to work. It would bring London to a halt. Thirdly the LW is about restoring the dignity of low paid work. I am sick of mainly employers saying things like "this is not a real job" ( its a fill in job between a "real" job etc). A whole list of why its your fault for working.
I have already given my views why it will not harm present economy.
The issue of automation of work. This brings in problem of the surplus population. That is surplus for the requirements of employers. In 19c this was dealt with by emigration. Not possible now.
19c introduction of factory machinery led to greatly increased productivity. Less workers were needed and work was deskilled. However for those in work in the new factory system work was intensified.
Which is why I previously posted that employers may react to LW by reducing staff and intensifying work for remaining staff. This, I know, has happened to workers since the recession started. Laying off workers and getting remaining workers to take on more work.
Potentially with automation the working week could be reduced.
.
