IT IS disappointing Matthew Laverack misleads readers by stating that “youth unemployment significantly increased after the introduction of the minimum wage” (Letters, July 11).

In fact, the reverse is true. The Labour Force Survey, which provides the official measures of unemployment, shows a steady decrease in the prime measure of youth unemployment (18-24) between 1999 and 2004.

Furthermore, Mr Laverack suggests firms cannot absorb a hike in their wages bill. While this may possibly be the case for some smaller firms, it is disingenuous to suggest larger firms cannot absorb such a rise, admittedly at either the expense of their higher paid executives or alternatively their shareholders.

Perhaps those are the consequences that Mr Laverack is referring to? If so, I would argue it is simply social justice that the rewards of labour are more fairly shared and the Living Wage goes some way to achieving that.

As for economic reality, I am well versed in that area as the financial director of a £50 million turnover company at the time the national minimum wage was introduced and certainly it had no adverse consequences to the running of the business.

The Living Wage is a win-win for employees, employers and the savings that the government can make. Its progress however will depend on which party is elected in 2015.

Richard Bridge, Holgate Road, York.