The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Increased minimum wage, but not for you lot!

You have to be 25 and up to claim it. Unfortunately the old min wage still applies to the countries potentially fittest workers. This is weird. Mike Tyson won a WBC title aged just 20. What sense would it have made that the person he knocked out got payed more than him simply because he was older?

The age discrimination aside, this increase is awsome. Increasing the amount a person can benefit from doing work is obviously good incentive to get a job. Most people dont have the benefit of being able to afford to train to become pilots, electricians or logistic managers etc.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Avatar for Jebedee
Jebedee
17
Original post by Laomedeia
You have to be 25 and up to claim it. Unfortunately the old min wage still applies to the countries potentially fittest workers. This is weird. Mike Tyson won a WBC title aged just 20. What sense would it have made that the person he knocked out got payed more than him simply because he was older?

The age discrimination aside, this increase is awsome. Increasing the amount a person can benefit from doing work is obviously good incentive to get a job. Most people dont have the benefit of being able to afford to train to become pilots, electricians or logistic managers etc.


It's just going to reduce the job market and urge companies to replace workers with machines. I don't see why people pushed for this.
Reply 2
Avatar for Laomedeia
Laomedeia
OP
21
Original post by Jebedee
It's just going to reduce the job market and urge companies to replace workers with machines. I don't see why people pushed for this.


To make people on low wages less poor.

If more people have more money, then more people will be spending. More spending means more products and services being sold. To keep up with increased demand, more people (in the form of paid employees) are required to produce said goods and services. Makes sense to me.
Reply 3
Avatar for Jebedee
Jebedee
17
Original post by Laomedeia
To make people on low wages less poor.

If more people have more money, then more people will be spending. More spending means more products and services being sold. To keep up with increased demand, more people (in the form of paid employees) are required to produce said goods and services. Makes sense to me.


And when corporations down-size to offset this new cost increase, how does that help poor people again?
The place I work at offers it to everyone :biggrin:
Reply 5
Avatar for Marrow
Marrow
8
Original post by Laomedeia


The age discrimination aside, this increase is awsome. Increasing the amount a person can benefit from doing work is obviously good...


Original post by Jebedee
It's just going to reduce the job market and urge companies to replace workers with machines. I don't see why people pushed for this.


This. A lot of labour productivity doesn't warrant the minimum wage, so increasing the minimum wage (to a "living wage":wink: is just going to push people out of employment and cause short term inflation.

I like Milton Friedman's 'crush the minimum wage and the complicated system and replace it with a Negative Income Tax'.
Original post by Laomedeia
You have to be 25 and up to claim it. Unfortunately the old min wage still applies to the countries potentially fittest workers. This is weird. Mike Tyson won a WBC title aged just 20. What sense would it have made that the person he knocked out got payed more than him simply because he was older?

The age discrimination aside, this increase is awsome. Increasing the amount a person can benefit from doing work is obviously good incentive to get a job. Most people dont have the benefit of being able to afford to train to become pilots, electricians or logistic managers etc.



I do understand the deterrence for under 21 as you should stay in education so really it should be for 21 and over.
I earned more at a temp job than the increased minimum wage for 25+ (£9.80) standing up for 8 hours scanning clothes and pushing them, so it don't concern me that much
Reply 8
Avatar for Swanbow
Swanbow
19
It's absurd really. As an incentive to decrease youth unemployment I could understand it, but the government never really tried pushing that angle at all. Also 24 really seems an arbitrary age to set it as.

Luckily my employer is implementing the actual living wage, for all employees regardless of age. Think our wage is going up to £8.30 for most workers, but as a counter measure no more paid breaks or Sunday, anti-social hours or overtime allowance.
Reply 9
Avatar for Trapz99
Trapz99
21
I don't see why they even increased the wage. A lot of labour isn't worth this wage, especially retail jobs which can easily be replaced by machines. The wages for these jobs increasing at a time when demand for them is decreasing makes no sense. I think this increased wage is just going to cause companies to lay off some workers, leading to increased unemployment.
F*** the unskilled , feed them fishheads
Original post by Laomedeia
To make people on low wages less poor.

If more people have more money, then more people will be spending. More spending means more products and services being sold. To keep up with increased demand, more people (in the form of paid employees) are required to produce said goods and services. Makes sense to me.


Except when you then factor in how little they get and the extra inflation, are they actually any better off?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Swanbow
It's absurd really. As an incentive to decrease youth unemployment I could understand it, but the government never really tried pushing that angle at all. Also 24 really seems an arbitrary age to set it as.

Luckily my employer is implementing the actual living wage, for all employees regardless of age. Think our wage is going up to £8.30 for most workers, but as a counter measure no more paid breaks or Sunday, anti-social hours or overtime allowance.


If an actual living wage is being implemented you should have taken your employer to court for paying less than the minimum wage, the living wage foundation have truly absurd spending levels to establish their living wage.

Posted from TSR Mobile
I'm not too concerned. I don't minimum wage in the first place.
Original post by Jammy Duel
If an actual living wage is being implemented you should have taken your employer to court for paying less than the minimum wage, the living wage foundation have truly absurd spending levels to establish their living wage.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Actual as in what the Living Wage Foundation suggests.

If you are looking for a conversation over what level of pay a person needs to live in relative comfort I'm not having it at the moment.
lol as if i'd go for minimum wage jobs anyway.
While I can see this making things more competitive for young people, it's going to put older employees' jobs at risk. Frankly, cashiers and burger flippers are not worth a 'living wage' to a lot of employers.

I'm sure the higher minimum wage will be great for the people who keep their jobs in the short term, but what do you think is going to happen when the prices of goods and services increase as a result? People on the 'living wage' are back where they started, and under-25s won't be able to afford anything.
Original post by Laomedeia
You have to be 25 and up to claim it. Unfortunately the old min wage still applies to the countries potentially fittest workers. This is weird. Mike Tyson won a WBC title aged just 20. What sense would it have made that the person he knocked out got payed more than him simply because he was older?


If the countries fittest workers are worth more than the over 25 year olds then they will simply leave their jobs and get paid more elsewhere.

If you make yourself the world's best in your field by age 20 like Mike Tyson did, and your employer isn't offering you a living wage, just take your services elsewhere until you get paid you worth.
I dunno, a legal challenge on age descrimination grounds could potentially work, but yeah, doesn't make much sense other than to please the youthphobic core tory voters.

Doesn't apply to me though so sucks for you lot.
Original post by Studentus-anonymous
I dunno, a legal challenge on age descrimination grounds could potentially work, but yeah, doesn't make much sense other than to please the youthphobic core tory voters.

Doesn't apply to me though so sucks for you lot.


I expect that will have been tried anyway on the basis that it is already tiered by age.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you