I write in response to the comments printed in your Web Views column (Letters, September 24), talking about businesses and what it means to pay a “living wage”.

Spencer1973 stated, “If firms can’t pay at least £8 per hour they don’t deserve to be in business.”

And sglenister states, with no obvious sense of irony, “If your company can’t afford to pay £7.45 an hour then it’s not a company.”

Ultimately, customers pay employees. Businesses do not receive an alternative source of income. In common language we speak as if a business pays its employees but this belies the real nature of the transaction. In the real world, if you raise wages for employees, ultimately prices to the consumer will tend to rise.

You can, to a limited extent, boost productivity by investing in training and better equipment.

You might be able to hold prices down for a short while but, in the end, prices will tend to rise.

The consumer is not forced to pay the higher price but an employer is forced by law to pay this “living wage” to its employers from its business income.

Employees are consumers and, by inflating wages beyond natural rates, you are without question ultimately going to have an impact on consumer prices – which ironically affects employees on the lowest incomes.

Those fortunate enough to have a job are able to obtain skills and experience which will enable them to become more productive and earn higher wages.

The minimum wage policy is harmful to those with low skills because companies will end up employing fewer people. It is not a coincidence that we have unprecedented numbers of unemployed young people in our country.

Spencer1973 and sglenister appear to be content that many people remain unemployed; the much vilified businesses and the greedy businessmen don’t pay them enough. Perhaps now, though, they should blame the pesky customers for not paying enough for their coffees!

Maxwell’s Ghost stated, “The living wage... would need to be £25 an hour... with the average home now costing £250,000.” Others made similar remarks.

There would not be substantially more housing if the wage rate was higher, unless Maxwell’s Ghost is proposing a dramatic change in planning legislation.

If people were better off and able to chase the limited number of vacant properties we have, as people competed, house prices would rise considerably.

Christopher M Adderley, Brighton