Why is it so difficult to find employees?

In which case your previous comment makes no sense whatsoever.

No I do not only read the things I disagree with.

I wasn't being 'snide' either.

POGS, do you only read the things you disagree with?
I have run two businesses and sold them on.
You do not make people redundant when you sell on a business. The employees are taken over by the next employer, who signs an agreement to say s/he will do so.
My last business I sold because my husband was ill. I owed just as much when I sold it as when I started. When I say "I" it's because my husband was ill when we took over the business, so his names were not allowed to be on the deeds by the bank. For the first time in our marriage, I owned the house we lived in, and if the business went bust, we would have been homeless.
So less of the snide socialist comments.

'Nobody makes anyone run a business. You do it because you want to, and you can give up when you want to. When you sell it on to someone else, you get the rewards, or at least your money back'.

Durhamjen, I have never run a business but I think your idea of running a business is quite absurd.

Do you as a socialist give no credit to those who have taken a huge gamble and possibly financed themselves up to the hilt to try and get a business up and running. Do you not accept the worry this burden can cause, especially if it goes tits up.

Do you not see that your comment 'You can give up when you want to' has implications to not only the employer but to the employees who will possibly loose their jobs. I don't think being a business owner is the same as telling your employer, 'Oh by the way, I'm giving you a months notice, Bye'.

I agree that if you sell your business and make a profit you have done well. Why shouldn't they? To me only a jealous fool would decry a person who has possibly mortgaged their home, worked 80 hours a week, given people the opportunity to earn a wage in the process a bit of credit.

What if the business owner has lost money, worried he/she has to make staff redundant, lost their home and not shared enough quality with their family has to 'give up'. They are hardly going to, as you state, 'get the rewards or their money back' are they.

As I said I have never run a business but I detest the sort of socialist clap trap that wants workers rights and benefits but never thinks, understands, or gives credit to those who employ people. There would be no work for anybody if it wasn't for the business owner, large or small.

I don't believe the difference between the minimum wage and the living wage (£1 per hour) will make very much difference to those people living on them Durhamjen as there will still be the need of a benefits top up. The government could force employers to pay any wage they choose (say £10 per hour, plus job tax) but the result would be that many small businesses would go to the wall, there would be less jobs available, and prices would have to rise to take this into account so we would all pay more for goods and services.

I agree Durhamjen "that no-one is made to run a business" but many of us do it because of circumstances and not necessarily because it would be our first choice of making a living. My DH and I did not set out to run a business at all.

POGS well said

It would make more sense to have the mandatory minima wage raised in London than mess about with a voluntary code.

Sorry, Jess, wrong. The living wage will have a London rating, but the minimum wage does not appear to be any different in the capital.
Even Boris wants employers to pay the living wage in London.

There is, JessM, and the living wage will be higher in London. Still not enough to live on, but better than the minimum wage.

Well said POGS - I would like to see the living wage brought in in the London area as living costs are so high. It is therefore harder to survive on low pay and more difficult for people to get themselves off benefits and into work.
It would make sense perhaps to have a higher minimum wage within the M25?
London companies could afford it? Particularly offices where managers get paid a great deal and cleaners on minimum wage.

I get really annoyed at the 'pay peanuts get monkey' comment.

Just to say, yes I damned well would work for minimum wage and have done so, even worked for practically nothing at times. I would do what it takes to provide for myself or family.

I get fed up to the back teeth with those who tell kids for example working in Poundland or Mac Donalds is beneath them. WHAT!

I take it those who espouse such thoughts left school and took up management posts or became brain surgeons. Well good for you but to others work meant taking what you could and working your way up.

It sure as hell is no shame for any man or woman to provide for themselves or their family by taking employment that pays the minimum wage. With extras such as tax credits a lot of decent people are doing just that. Yes it's hard but they choose to hold their head up and get on with it.

Gill deserves a lot of credit for this thread and I am pleased to see she is defending herself in such a dignified manner.

Actually, for the record, I didnt set out to run a business! I went to work as office manager for a friend, when she announced that she was ceasing trading for personal reasons I bought it. Not expecting a medal or anything else, and yes I do earn a small income from it, but I did keep what was then 6 people in work, and have since added four more. When I sell the business i will pay capital gains tax for all my efforts in growing the business and employing people. Do you know that due to their clever accountants I pay more corporation tax than The Ritz hotel? good to see Mrs Thatcher was true to type even at the end!!

Nobody makes anyone run a business. You do it because you want to, and you can give up when you want to. When you sell it on to someone else, you get the rewards, or at least your money back.
Gillybob, the difference a living wage will make is in self-respect. An extra £1 per hour earned by oneself is worth a lot more than £40 a week to the worker, even if the present trap means you get no more to spend.
At least you do not live in fear of the government changing the rules and taking it away from you.

For a few years, I ran a preschool playgroup. This was just before parent-run groups took off, and one of my aims was to establish a little business where I could earn a bit while still being around for my children.

To get going, I had to buy equipment and supplies - some of it from another woman who was retiring. I paid a fee for the use of the church hall and I paid the two young women who took turns coming in to help. (Regulations meant that there had to be two adults present at all times, three if there were more than eight children present.)

I borrowed to pay for this. The first term, there were three children - their 50p each per morning was nowhere near enough to cover costs and pay back my loan. This picked up gradually but it was two years before I could take any wage at all for myself. I consoled myself with the thought that when I stopped doing the job, I could sell on the equipment and get something back that way.

I was on call from early morning (answering phone calls from a helper whose own child was unwell and had to be kept at home, so I'd to ring round for a possible replacement for her) until well after the official end of the session (waiting half-an-hour for a mother to appear to reclaim her child, while worrying about my own who were on their way home) and much of my spare time was spent making equipment or keeping records up to date and untangling red tape.

Five years later, I had a successful enterprise, with a waiting list and many happy children and mothers. I had not made very much money, but I had enjoyed the work and made some friends. My youngest child was off to secondary scholl, so I decided to move on. Someone wanted to take over, so I sold her everything rather cheaply and left.

Shortly afterwards I heard obliquely that I had been selfish in expecting anyone to actually buy it all from me because "The playgroup had paid for that equipment" Pardon me? I paid for it, with money and work.

Small businesses are not goldmines.

Thanks for all your comments, some more understanding than others it has to be said, but we are all entitled to our opinions! For the record I haven't PM'd Cathybee so dont know what that is about.. But as an update, I have to say that I am very seriously evaluating my position; since the beginning of the year I have not been paid at all other than putting petrol in the car. The main reason for this is staff off sick, or pregnant and I have to pay them and then claim it back. HMRC as you would expect as slow to do so, and I am finding the £300 per week in benefits, plus wages for the temp staff is a struggle. So, not looking for sympathy, but I have earned well below the minimum wage, I dont get SSP, dont get paid holiday and never get a full week off. So, before you ask, no I dont know why I do it and I am having serious doubts about continuing.

Yes, life is tough for small and medium-sized enterprises. The Government is constantly banging on about how these businesses should be employing more people. I also agree that people in work should earn a decent wage.

At the moment, it seems that many workers are subsidizing their low wages through a variety of benefits ( tax credits and the like), and real wages are being kept artificially low.

Why, instead, can't the Government directly subsidise employees' wages via benefits paid directly to the businesses that employ them? Employees would be guaranteed a proper wage and businesses would find it easier to employ and retain staff.

Why do you think the (so called) living wage will make a magical difference to those in low lay Durhamjen? Correct me if I am wrong but I am sure that the amount banded about is something like £7.65? Do you really that paying someone £7.65 per hour less tax and NI will make the difference between being rich or poor or receiving and not receiving top up benefits?

It is not possible to compare the private and the public sectors for several reasons (we could be here all day). Anyone who is in business is not doing so as a charity (although admittedly it often feels that way and I am not being sarcastic) they are doing so to make a living for themselves and their employees. Elegran made a good comment earlier when she mentioned employers pay. If I added the hours worked per week by my husband he would most definitely be working below minimum wage as he works many more hours than those for which he is actually paid. Likewise I work around 30 a week at work and another 12 or so at home doing quotes and accounts. I am probably paid around £5 per hour when you add up all of the hours. Like many other small business owners we never very rarely get a full holiday entitlement and even when we are "off" we are still at work as more often than not my husband is on the phone to customers and employees and ends up "just calling in for an hour" . In other words it is impossible to be totally off work, ever. There is no way I would expect my employees to work for nothing, miss out on holidays, overtime pay etc.

When we talk about businesses it is important that we understand that most businesses in this country are SME' s (the backbone of Britain I keep being told) who are working very long hours, very hard, running faster and faster to stand still and pay their employees as much as the market will allow.

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/11/05/tories-warn-cameron-of-disaster-if-he-opposes-living-wage&sa=U&ei=K9IPU4KGGuTjywPNhoH4Bg&ved=0CBIQFjAH&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNE-KAK0f8TdP3ZfMBLjb35340C-_w

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/11/06/paying-the-living-wage-could-increase-employment

Any proof of that Ana? Would anyone actually say that they had paid people off because of the minimum wage?
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/11/06/paying-the-living-wage-could-increase-employment/
Lots of people in banking have been paid off or had hours reduced in order to give their bosses a bigger pay increase. It's called better productivity. Many people in the public sector have been paid off, in rich and low-paid areas, because the government have cut the amount of money they give to councils, not because of the minimum pay rules.

Yes of course. I was talking specifically about small businesses in deprived/low-paid areas, many of which have had to give up despite their workers being desperate to stay in work.

People who were paid less than the minimum wage have benefited. That included a lot of working mothers.
Not all companies have paid people off because of the minimum wage.
Some companies have found it so beneficial they are now paying the living wage.

I was responding to your statement:

"When the minimum wage came in employers cried wolf, saying that they'd all go bust. They haven't."

They haven't because they've had to lay people off or reduce their hours.
So no one has benefited really, have they?

I know, Ana. I ran two businesses myself, one in Hull. The first one, there was a minimum wage for shopworkers and caterers, which the then conservative government got rid of. That was the start of poor pay and increased numbers of people claiming inwork benefits. I was then paying above the rates that trade unions had fought for, even though I did not know it.
Why do some people assume I do not know what I am talking about?

They may not have gone bust, durhamjen, but many small businesses have had to cut their staff numbers and reduce the hours of those they continue to employ.

Every time the minimum wage goes up, hard choices have to be made by business-owners, not just for the sake of their own profits but to keep the business solvent and able to continue. This is particularly true in deprived areas.