SauntOrolo

Yes, But you response was an answer that implied "you could do no other". I was just trying to tease out the difference between "I can do no other, because I'm a greedy bugger who wants all the possible profit for myself" from "I can do no other, becausea otherwise it would be unprofitable". Your answer implied the second, but left open the first. As to whether you pay NMW that is another answer that implies "I am better than this" but leaves open two possibilities. Either you could get the same quality staff for NMW, but do not pay it as a you regard paying more as moral, which means you are genuinely better than the bosses we are discussing, or you could be paying it because you have no choice (in that you can't staff the poisitions efficiently at NMW) which implies nothing about your personal morality. The employers on here seem incredibly keen to mix up meanings like this. To make statements that cover both, but imply their moral superiority. Is paying NMW a business decision on your part ? Or a moral one ? If it's business, you aren't exempting yourself from the types of bosses we are discussing by not paying NMW. If you could, you would. If it's moral, how do you feel about being a competative disadvantage to the immoral bosses just because you personally prefer to behave morally ? Wouldn't you prefer a level playing field where all employees are paid a moral wage and you do not have to suffer competative disadvantage in order to be a moral person ?

Your first paragraph is in contradiction with your second. Just because there is no coercion that doesn't guarantee "injin's market" is free of monopoly, corruption or barriers to entry. In fact, with no regulation at all, it is more likely to have monopoly, corruption or barriers to entry than markets regulated to minimise those problems.

There's at least two major mis-apprehensions going on here....... What if he does "£300's profit worth of stacking " and you pay him £100. By extension paying the £300 a week guy £300 for "£900 profits worth of stacking". I.e. The guy earning £100 only does 1/3rd of the job that the guy you pay £300 does........ but you pay BOTH such a small proportion of the profit they create that you could easily double both their wages and still make a profit. Would you pay him £100 then, because you could get away with it (in a supply/demand for that job sense) or (say) £200 because you could get away with it (in a, it's still a profitable activity even at that wage sense) ? The employers here are making te eassumption that to pay people more than NMW would make them unprofitable. That is not neccessarily the case. You pay them NMW because you can get away with that....NOT because they wouldn't still be profitable at a higher wage. So. If a worker builds widgets worth £1000 in profit to your company. But the NMW is £100 and it is an unskilled post, you pay him £100 and take £900 in profit. If the NMW goes up to £200, you would STILL employ him as he is still profitable. Whatsmore, all the employers here are also making another unjustified assumption along the lines of "the profit % I make is 5%. If you force me to increase wages 10% then I will be unprfoitable and shut the business". That is also not the case. What would happen is you'd increase PRICES 10%, and retain your 5% profit margin and STILL pay the extra 10% of NMW. You might say "but people will be less inclined to buy my product at 10% more"....... but thats not true because a) every other competitor just increased THEIR prices 10% for the same reason (at least in service industries like resteraunts) and a fair proportion of your customers also got a 10% raise, making it just as affordable ! It's in fact a transfer of wealth from your non NMW customers to you NMW workers...........not from owner to worker, because you'd increase your prices to cover the new cost.