LondonMix

Childcare pushes people (mostly women) out of work in large numbers who would rather be working. Honestly though, childcare is only ever affordable if heavily subsidized by government. Just looking at the numbers including child to adult ratios etc required by law its not possible any other way. If one adult can only look after 3 children, paying them a decent wage plus covering all of the overheads etc means a large chunk of an average persons wage will be eaten up by childcare. I mean, even if you earned double what the child care provider does, as you pay for child care out of your post tax income and their are business overheads that are included in the bill, you'd still struggle.

Sedm not DuncanW! It's a complex calc that sets the rate below where it would generate job losses.

If it was done properly by the same independent body DuncanW refers to, then possibly but it would be complicated and is not really necessary. Low skilled jobs in London already are above the national min wage in general I think. The lowest paid Ritzy staff were earning 7.35 before the protest compared to 6.50 which is the legal min. The London employment market in General seems to provide a premium. Nationally 5 percent of workers are on the min wage.

Nxjen, the agency provides a service that otherwise would prevent the govt paying what it does. Without them, the govt would have to put the difference into hiring their own staff to manage the process. People cannot be paid more than the value they create. A real life example in the private sector is a nursery. In the UK only 75 percent of nurseries break even or make a profit for their owners. 500 closed last year according to the govt. For those that do make a profit the owner (if they also manage it) make circa 30k (20k pay / 10k profit). Opening a small nursery costs circa 100k in London so even with a loan it is a huge risk for the proprietor. Nursery staff often make less than the LLW which is a shame. If they were forced to increase pay, the owners would not reduce their already slim profits but either try to reduce headcount (ie increase productivity) and / or increase prices. Higher prices would reduce the market for nurseries forcing some to close as not all parents could afford the hike and would switch to other child are alternatives. Either way, jobs would be lost and it's not because the owner is greedy or parents are evil but rather business reality. Any competitive industry in the private sector is exactly the same. Most businesses operate at the minimum profit margin that rewards the owner for the risks and work involved with their investment. Just because a business is large doesn't mean it's profit margin is high. A large quantum of profits due to size does not mean spare profits. Who for instance would invest in a company that was only giving you a 2 percent return. You'd be better of buying a less risky govt bond or starting a different business. Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "No, without benefits low skilled workers would > live less well, not be paid more." > > If however the state has determined that the wage > is insufficient to live on and the employee is > eligible for state top up i.e. benefits paid for > by the tax payer, then the minimum wage should be > set higher i.e. minimum wage + benefits. > > "Every employer pays what the skills of the > employee add to the business" > > At some levels yes but at lower levels, those jobs > that are typically outsourced (as Otta has touched > upon) workers are paid the very least the agency / > outsourcing company can get away with so their > rake off is higher. With these parasites in > control of so much low level employment, skills > that are offered are only a very small part of the > equation in determining wages.

No, without benefits low skilled workers would live less well, not be paid more. Every employer pays what the skills of the employee add to the business. Again the vast majority of workers earn more than the legal minimum and this has nothing to do with benevolence. Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Increasing the pay of low skilled workers by law > rather than skill makes no sense. Businesses > aren't being subsidised. Unskilled workers don't > generated the value commensurate with higher pay. > If we as a society believe that even the unskilled > deserve a minimum quality of life they hold get > government benefits." > > If the low paid are in receipt of benefits paid > for by the tax payer instead of their employer > paying a decent wage, the company's payroll is > kept lower by payments from the taxpayer to the > employee, so yes, businesses' payrolls are being > subsidised.

Why don't the people who really care about this and believe it will work start a separate thread discussing supplying it across London and whatever measures they want to promote. The fact is the staff at the Ritzy are getting the LLW. Continuing to make this about Picture House is unfair

SJ if you accept the premise your employer pays you more than the minimum wage not because of benevolence but of the value you create, then forcing businesses to pay propel more than they worth will accelerate a switch to automation. Increasing the pay of low skilled workers by law rather than skill makes no sense. Businesses aren't being subsidised. Unskilled workers don't generated the value commensurate with higher pay. If we as a society believe that even the unskilled deserve a minimum quality of life they hold get government benefits. That is not just appropriate but fairer as taxes are disproportionately paid by those on high incomes. A blanket wage increase passed on the all consumers is regressive as everyone is hit by higher prices regardless of their ability yo pay.

Saying we should give up in what will actually work because it's hard is silly. The LLW is designed to deal in part with housing so you can't take that out of the discussion of the sense of the LLW

Assuming the eventual cost of the LLW is passed on to consumers across all industries not just cinemas or the Ritzy, this will increase the cost of living in London. That again will lead to an adjustment in the LLW in an endless loop. Moreover, assuming the same number of people want to live in London, unless more homes are created, the increase to the LLW will just cause housing costs to increase without making it more affordable for the working poor. Lastly, automation will increase as the cost of unskilled labor increases putting unskilled workers out of jobs perversely. The right answer- besides of course building more housing to make London itself more affordable- is to get more people into skilled work. I and most people as youngsters have done unskilled work and honestly as a student you don't need the LLW. However, no one should be trapped in life-long unskilled work which is when this really becomes a problem. Much earlier in this discussion I outlined this as did others- might have even been the other thread on Picture House. There is no quick fix beyond making the worker more valuable. The vast majority of people earn more than the legal minimum wage and it's not because their employers are benevolent. It's because the skills they have create at least as much value to their employers as their wage. Obviously it's not as sexy to start a campaign on social media about skills training and affordable housing but that is what is needed.

I can't see how SJ can say that. The LLW is flawed in many ways including as a mathematical calculation. People pointing that out in no way are suggesting people shouldn't earn more or have a better quality of life. In fact most people have explicitly said that the issues surrounding this are more complex than the LLW is equipped to address. And that is exactly what I personally said before. If you think advocating for the LLW across all firms will make unskilled workers better of in real terms rather than just causing inflation and technology substitution then explain why. Vilifying people who disagree with your position In such a lazy and unfair way is beneath you.

That's amazing!

DaveR is correct. Looking at their profit margin / ROCE is the more appropriate measure. Their profit margin should also be looked at based on industry norms. This has been said before but it's around 5 percent from memory for the chain, hardly earth shattering. Also asking a single business in isolation to adopt a different pay structure to their competitors is grossly unfair. Lastly, those advocating for the LLW should keep in mind that when unskilled labor increases in cost, the cost benefit analysis of investing in labor saving technology changes. Fewer unskilled jobs is often the corollary. The problem of low wage work and unskilled workers can't properly be addressed by a policy like the LLW in isolation.

You have to get into the nitty gritty even if you have a project manager. You have to be really prepared for this to take over your life for a year or so otherwise it won't go well. There are architects that will do projects your size and there are separate project managers. It can be a good idea to use an architect to project manage but you should check they have experience of executing projects with similar issues to yours. Good luck!

My point was really that it didn't feel like we were getting the full picture.

Yes, exactly. Tsunami are behind it as they confirmed by email they were opening that shop. For whatever reason, they have decided to brand the store with a different name-- perhaps to avoid confusion with the other ones.

I tend to agree that people will drive until its impossible. In Central London, the cost of driving is prohibitive and the lack of parking makes it virtually impossible which is why most people with cars still don't bother to drive to work. People won't universally use public transport here until there is no choice but to do so in Dulwich.

I tend to agree with Worldwiser on this one.

Agree. In central London there is virtually no parking provision. Literally two spaces per 150 employees in a typical office building. Its not too much to expect people to commute to East Dulwich. Peckham is very well connected to lots of areas and from Peckham, you can get to Whately Road in a reasonable amount of time.

Medley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I see no conflict between buildings being good to > use and good to look at. > > Indeed the latter has an impact on the former, > surely. Exactly. Its obvious that everyone wants the building to be functional but that some believe it should be more than just that. The built environment has a huge impact on people pyschologically and I don't think children are immune from that. In fact, in my experience, children care more, not less, than the average adult. And while the school is to be used by children, it will be seen by the entire community so everyone who has to look at it should get to express their view. Hopefully, we'll end up with something better than if there were no consultation process.

Thanks James, that is a lot clearer. Have the EFA said they won?t acquire the land at residential prices? From a planning perspective, does the Dulwich Hospital planning brief from 2005 carry more weight than the 2014 updated Southwark Plan that the council has just amended? Would residential developers still have a realistic hope of getting residential planning permission for the site in light of the new guidance issued by the council? Hopefully, the most recent planning statements will hold most weight and discourage residential developers.

I thought that rumor was a load of rubbish. Now I'm afraid the shopping centre rumor could be true as well!

James, I?m not sure I follow. If the EFA say they are confident and in the past have been willing to match / beat the price housing developers bid, then what is the risk? Whatever the EFA pays the NHS for the land is neutral to the tax payer as its just a transfer of funds between government agencies.

500 signatures. I agree with Samsopit that the change to the Southwark Plan is a good step regarding planning guidance. James if the EFA say they are confident they will secure the site for education purposes, why do you doubt their assessment?

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A well designed building should be able to provide > a pleasing aesthetic as well as functionality- > isn't that what an architect is for. That's the essence of design and I would hope despite the constraints someone could come up with something along those lines.

Everyone appreciates beauty. Kids aren't immune from that at all. However, functional space with good light and space is most important for a comfortable learning environment.