LETTERS: How the Labour Party's minimum wage will create jobs
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The shock-horror figures of UBS chief economist Bill Martin ("City warns minimum wage could destroy 250,000 jobs", Business, l9 May) are based on assumptions about pay levels and differentials that do not reflect Labour policy.
The next Labour government will establish a Low Pay Commission, on which employers, trade unions and independent members will sit. This will set the minimum wage.
The minimum wage will benefit low-paid workers, such as cleaners and caterers. It is fantasy economics to suggest that skilled manufacturing workers will demand corresponding pay rises. They, along with everyone else outside the Tory party, are appalled by poverty pay.
The minimum wage will allow companies to compete on quality rather than low cost. It will increase the spending power of the lowest paid, thereby increasing demand in local communities. That is why, between 1970 and 1992, France created twice as many, Germany four times as many, and Italy six times as many jobs as the UK. They all have a minimum wage.
There is an overwhelming business case for a minimum wage, not least because the cost to taxpayers, including employers, of in-work benefits to subsidise poverty pay is almost pounds 3bn a year and rising; pounds 6.3bn has been spent on family credit alone since 1990-91. That means employers who pay fair wages, are required to pay additional tax to support those who try to undercut them through low pay. No wonder more and more companies support the principle of a minimum wage. UBS may not be among them, but they could at least reflect our policy accurately in future.
Ian McCartney MP
Shadow employment minister
House of Commons
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments