Increased minimum wage, but not for you lot!

Watch this thread
Laomedeia
Badges: 21
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
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.
0
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
(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.
0
reply
Laomedeia
Badges: 21
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#3
(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.
8
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
(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?
0
reply
Blondie987
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
The place I work at offers it to everyone
0
reply
Marrow
Badges: 8
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
(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" 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'.
1
reply
Sebastian Bartlett
Badges: 10
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
(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.
0
reply
niceguy95
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
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
0
reply
Swanbow
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
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.
0
reply
Trapz99
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
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.
0
reply
EccentricDiamond
Badges: 7
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
F*** the unskilled , feed them fishheads
0
reply
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(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
0
reply
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(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
0
reply
DiddyDec01
Badges: 3
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
I'm not too concerned. I don't minimum wage in the first place.
0
reply
Swanbow
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(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.
0
reply
MildredMalone
Badges: 16
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
lol as if i'd go for minimum wage jobs anyway.
1
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
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.
0
reply
MagicNMedicine
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
(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.
0
reply
Studentus-anonymous
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
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.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(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.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Psychology Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (275)
42.18%
The paper was reasonable (269)
41.26%
Not feeling great about that exam... (60)
9.2%
It was TERRIBLE (48)
7.36%

Watched Threads

View All