The case for increasing wages to cut the welfare bill

Learning from Joseph and the Chocolate Factory.

Writing in today’s Times Philip Collins produces a powerful and eloquent article arguing that we should cut the welfare bill by increasing wages. What’s more, he argues for a more moral form of capitalism to underpin it.

So what’s brought this on? Well, today JRF published our annual Minimum Income Standards report. This research asks members of the public what are the goods and services every household needs to be able to afford in order to achieve a minimum acceptable standard of living in the UK. As Collins notes:

Whether or not you agree that a few pence a week for Blu-tack is necessary, most of the costlier items are hard to dispute and they come to quite a price.

And our research shows the cost of that decent standard of living is rising fast – up 25 per cent over the last five years, higher than the official rate of inflation, which was 17 per cent for the same period. This means people today need much higher earnings just to afford the same standard of living they had five years ago. As Collins argues:

The gap between the minimally decent life and reality is growing. People on low incomes are subject to a higher rate of inflation than those who are a little richer … The gap between the life that people think others should be able to afford, in a rich and lucky country, and the life that most people lead is huge.

So what would it take for people to afford a better standard of living? The research costs the basket of goods and services people say they need for a decent standard of living, and works out what that means for how much you need to earn, once tax and benefits have been factored in. The resulting hourly wage rates are substantially higher than the national minimum wage (which is currently £6.19 per hour). A single person would need to earn £8.16 an hour while a couple with two children would need to earn at least £9.91 an hour each. 

Collins argues employers have responded to this challenge before and they should do so again, learning from historical figures like Joseph Rowntree:

When he opened his chocolate factory in York in 1869, Rowntree established good pay, housing benefits and the first occupational pension scheme for his workers...

He understood that the corporation was and is a public entity, underpinned and given a license to operate by the laws of limited liability. He felt, as all the pioneers of the American joint stock company did too, that his private accumulation came with a public obligation, which he fulfilled by paying his people well.

Low paid jobs remain prevalent in the UK, and a fifth of the workforces is on low pay. This costs us all dear as the state subsidises low income working households through the tax credit system. 

For those employers not persuaded by the moral case for change Collins argues the rate of the minimum wage should be ratcheted up as a backstop, a view that is starting to gain more support. This undoubtedly has to be part of the solution, but alone will not solve the problem. Instead a more comprehensive strategy is required that looks at why we have such an endemic low pay problem in the UK; what is driving up the cost of essential like housing, childcare and energy; and yes, as unpopular as it is right now, how best to support people through the social security and tax systems.

Katie Schmuecker is a Policy and Research Manager at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) 

Joseph Rowntree. Photograph: Getty Images
Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.