Labour pledges £10 minimum wage for under-18s Watch

Themysticalegg
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#1
What do you think about Labour pledging to increase the minimum wage for under-18s?

From my initial thoughts I believe this is not a good idea, I'm pretty sure the only reason why I got my job at 16 was because I was cheap labour. This work experience I gained was invaluable in securing future opportunities and I would happily get paid £4.74 (my rate back in the day) to gain it. Surely now there's no incentive to hire someone younger when they can hire someone older who has more experience for the same pay.

Surely you also run the risk of increasing inflation if you increase wages this substantially for everyone.Background:'Labour will extend its plans for a higher £10 an hour minimum wage to include workers under the age of 18, party leader Jeremy Corbyn is to say.


Currently, under-18s are entitled to a minimum wage of £4.35 per hour, compared with £8.21 for over-25s.
But under a Labour government this "youth rate" for the minimum wage would be ended in 2020, Mr Corbyn will say.
One business group said there was "value" in having the minimum wage set by an independent group, as it is now.
Mr Corbyn had already pledged to raise the National Living Wage - a legally binding hourly rate for workers aged 25 and over - to £10 an hour next year, if Labour gained power.
He will say Labour's proposal would see workers aged 16 and 17 paid about £2,500 more a year.'

Reference:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48234398
Last edited by Themysticalegg; 1 week ago
2
reply
PQ
  • PS Reviewer
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 week ago
#2
The labour rep was on the news this morning saying that it would be funded by tax credits (possibly just for small businesses but I wasn’t listening too much) so the cost wouldn’t fall entirely on the employer and there would still be an incentive to employ and train up young people
0
reply
PQ
  • PS Reviewer
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 week ago
#3
(But then every time the minimum wage was introduced/raised people claimed it would reduce employment...every time that turned out to be guff. If a business isn’t profitable while paying a living wage to its staff then it isn’t profitable it’s just making profits for senior management and shareholders through keeping their key staff in poverty. Screw that as a business model - we can do better)
6
reply
TheRealSquiddy
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 week ago
#4
(Original post by Themysticalegg)
What do you think about Labour pledging to increase the minimum wage for under-18s?

From my initial thoughts I believe this is not a good idea, I'm pretty sure the only reason why I got my job at 16 was because I was cheap labour. This work experience I gained was invaluable in securing future opportunities and I would happily get paid £4.74 (my rate back in the day) to gain it. Surely now there's no incentive to hire someone younger when they can hire someone older who has more experience for the same pay.

Surely you also run the risk of increasing inflation if you increase wages this substantially for everyone.Background:'Labour will extend its plans for a higher £10 an hour minimum wage to include workers under the age of 18, party leader Jeremy Corbyn is to say.


Currently, under-18s are entitled to a minimum wage of £4.35 per hour, compared with £8.21 for over-25s.
But under a Labour government this "youth rate" for the minimum wage would be ended in 2020, Mr Corbyn will say.
One business group said there was "value" in having the minimum wage set by an independent group, as it is now.
Mr Corbyn had already pledged to raise the National Living Wage - a legally binding hourly rate for workers aged 25 and over - to £10 an hour next year, if Labour gained power.
He will say Labour's proposal would see workers aged 16 and 17 paid about £2,500 more a year.'

Reference:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48234398
I just honestly don't see the problem with wages as they are. 16/17 y/o in the MAJORITY of cases have much lower living costs, and won't see the benefit of increased wages as greatly as someone who works 40 hours a week, proportionally speaking.

Besides, most small businesses don't even pay that little. I was on £5 a hour at a tiny fish and chip shop when I was 16 and then £6.75 an hour working at a retail store when I was 17.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
5
reply
GlowInTheDark
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 week ago
#5
- Minimum wage increases
- Now there is more people on minimum wage (E.g. if it goes from £7.50 to £10 then now the people on £10 are now on minimum wage)
- Businesses realise their costs are higher and therefore increase prices
- Cost of living goes up, so the minimum wage is now just as useful as it was before, except now more people are on minimum wage
- People moan that minimum wage is too low
This cycle repeats indefinitely and just proves why free market capitalism is much superior to government interference.
7
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 week ago
#6
While most young people will indeed have the support of their parents, this isn't something that should be taken for granted, so I don't like that justification for having a lower minimum wage for younger people. However, what is typically true is that a younger person has less experience in the workplace, so is at a disadvantage that way. Being able to undercut other candidates for a job gives them some advantage (whether these two balance out is another matter) else nobody would ever get their first job without working for free (even worse).

(Original post by GlowInTheDark)
- Minimum wage increases
- Now there is more people on minimum wage (E.g. if it goes from £7.50 to £10 then now the people on £10 are now on minimum wage)
- Businesses realise their costs are higher and therefore increase prices
- Cost of living goes up, so the minimum wage is now just as useful as it was before, except now more people are on minimum wage
- People moan that minimum wage is too low
This cycle repeats indefinitely and just proves why free market capitalism is much superior to government interference.
Or they could change their pay structure to not increase so high. Someone earning £1million instead of £2million a year pays for well over 200 employees to move from £8.21/hr full time to £10/hr full time. Obviously it needs to be done gradually and encouraged by government, but a cap on pay relating to the lowest paid in a company is something Corbyn is in favour of, so this less prescriptive policy is in line with that.
1
reply
lilacdolphin
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 week ago
#7
To be honest, I don't care what the living costs of the majority of 16 year olds are. What I care about is the fact that two people, doing the same job, should be earning the same for that said work - not one of them earning double what the other is.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
7
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 week ago
#8
(Original post by lilacdolphin)
To be honest, I don't care what the living costs of the majority of 16 year olds are. What I care about is the fact that two people, doing the same job, should be earning the same for that said work - not one of them earning double what the other is.
How is a noob 16 year old supposed to compete with an older, more experienced candidate to get into work without either previous work experience or academic qualifications?
3
reply
ltsmith
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 week ago
#9
> Increase min wage for under-18s
=> Over-18 min wage workers demand more $$ from employer
=> Professional workers demand more $$ from employer
==> Employer costs go up or people get made redundant.
If costs go up:
RIP small business
If redundancy goes up:
Unemployment rate rises. More neds roaming the streets.
4
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 week ago
#10
(Original post by ltsmith)
> Increase min wage for under-18s
=> Over-18 min wage workers demand more $$ from employer
=> Professional workers demand more $$ from employer
==> Employer costs go up or people get made redundant.
If costs go up:
RIP small business
If redundancy goes up:
Unemployment rate rises. More neds roaming the streets.
Points 2 and 3 happen anyway, and don't follow from 1. Point 4 already happens because of 2 and 3, and to blame 1 alone, or even equally, is incorrect.
1
reply
ltsmith
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 week ago
#11
(Original post by ThomH97)
Points 2 and 3 happen anyway, and don't follow from 1. Point 4 already happens because of 2 and 3, and to blame 1 alone, or even equally, is incorrect.
elaborate.

people will always ask for raises if there is an opportunity. people will be mad if someone they deem as inferior/less experienced is getting a raise when they're not.
0
reply
angelike1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 week ago
#12
(Original post by PQ)
(But then every time the minimum wage was introduced/raised people claimed it would reduce employment...every time that turned out to be guff. If a business isn’t profitable while paying a living wage to its staff then it isn’t profitable it’s just making profits for senior management and shareholders through keeping their key staff in poverty. Screw that as a business model - we can do better)
Wouldnt it cause unnecessary inflation though?
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 week ago
#13
(Original post by ltsmith)
elaborate.

people will always ask for raises if there is an opportunity. people will be mad if someone they deem as inferior/less experienced is getting a raise when they're not.
The plan is to increase the minimum wage for all to £10 an hour, and end the existence of the lower band. Thus everyone on minimum wage gets a raise. People who are in minimum wage jobs aren't there because they are able to negotiate higher pay, they are there because they would easily be negotiated under if the government did not mandate the minimum.

As for your point 3, such employees are always going to be asking for raises. Point 1 might give them an extra thing to complain about, but it isn't as if they can threaten to leave their job for another firm who still pays under £10 to the bottom tier of employees.
0
reply
ltsmith
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 week ago
#14
(Original post by ThomH97)
The plan is to increase the minimum wage for all to £10 an hour, and end the existence of the lower band. Thus everyone on minimum wage gets a raise.
So if everyone on min wage gets a raise and a small business has many employees their costs will go up. Have you watched 'can't pay we'll take it away'? it's astounding how many small businesses have extreme cash flow problems.

10 pounds/hour is equivalent to 20k year. In retail, lots of experienced people currently earn that now. Why should a ditzy school leaver earn the same?
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 week ago
#15
(Original post by ltsmith)
So if everyone on min wage gets a raise and a small business has many employees their costs will go up. Have you watched 'can't pay we'll take it away'? it's astounding how many small businesses have extreme cash flow problems.
Businesses would just pay their higher paid employees less. Perhaps it would need another of Corbyn's policies of tying maximum pay to the lowest paid worker in a company, but definitely workable.
10 pounds/hour is equivalent to 20k year. In retail, lots of experienced people currently earn that now. Why should a ditzy school leaver earn the same?
Perhaps those with experience currently on £20k are being undervalued and the highest paid are being overvalued. You may disagree with paying a 16 year old that much, but restructuring pay within a company to still have meaningful pay progression from a higher starting point is a matter of course each time the minimum wage is increased so not a practical problem there.
0
reply
ltsmith
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 week ago
#16
(Original post by ThomH97)
Businesses would just pay their higher paid employees less. Perhaps it would need another of Corbyn's policies of tying maximum pay to the lowest paid worker in a company, but definitely workable.
That's not fair. Why should professionals lose their pay to low skilled workers?

Perhaps those with experience currently on £20k are being undervalued and the highest paid are being overvalued. You may disagree with paying a 16 year old that much, but restructuring pay within a company to still have meaningful pay progression from a higher starting point is a matter of course each time the minimum wage is increased so not a practical problem there.
it is a practical problem because we need policies that support SMEs. If min wage employees want to earn more they need to move into skilled work.
Last edited by ltsmith; 1 week ago
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 week ago
#17
(Original post by ltsmith)
That's not fair. Why should professionals lose their pay to low skilled workers?
If you disagree with the minimum wage even existing, then this becomes a different discussion. Because you're right, requiring companies pay low skilled workers more than they could otherwise be made to settle for is money that could go to someone on higher pay.

it is a practical problem because we need policies that support SMEs. If min wage employers want to earn more they need to move into skilled work.
This is a competing demand, not an impossibility. You could make the same argument against increasing the minimum wage every so often, but actually, SMEs make do.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 week ago
#18
(Original post by Themysticalegg)
What do you think about Labour pledging to increase the minimum wage for under-18s?

From my initial thoughts I believe this is not a good idea, I'm pretty sure the only reason why I got my job at 16 was because I was cheap labour. This work experience I gained was invaluable in securing future opportunities and I would happily get paid £4.74 (my rate back in the day) to gain it. Surely now there's no incentive to hire someone younger when they can hire someone older who has more experience for the same pay.

Surely you also run the risk of increasing inflation if you increase wages this substantially for everyone.Background:'Labour will extend its plans for a higher £10 an hour minimum wage to include workers under the age of 18, party leader Jeremy Corbyn is to say.


Currently, under-18s are entitled to a minimum wage of £4.35 per hour, compared with £8.21 for over-25s.
But under a Labour government this "youth rate" for the minimum wage would be ended in 2020, Mr Corbyn will say.
One business group said there was "value" in having the minimum wage set by an independent group, as it is now.
Mr Corbyn had already pledged to raise the National Living Wage - a legally binding hourly rate for workers aged 25 and over - to £10 an hour next year, if Labour gained power.
He will say Labour's proposal would see workers aged 16 and 17 paid about £2,500 more a year.'

Reference:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48234398
Labour promises the stupidest policy going should be the title.

There is a good reason the wage is lower and that is to encourage employers to give these people a go getting them on the jobs ladder.

Should the wage be higher? Yes.

Should there be less bands? Yes.

Under 18 under 21 and over 21
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
2
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 week ago
#19
I'd be more impressed if they capped the wages of these useless ****knuckles who sit in board rooms doing absolutely nothing.
Seriously, half of these MD's, CEO's etc. do absolutely nothing to merit their 9 figure pay packets.
0
reply
Stevo F
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 week ago
#20
(Original post by ThomH97)
If you disagree with the minimum wage even existing, then this becomes a different discussion. Because you're right, requiring companies pay low skilled workers more than they could otherwise be made to settle for is money that could go to someone on higher pay.
I don't think the person you were replying to was arguing against the concept of the minimum wage, they were simply saying that its not fair that having got experience and qualifications to get where they are they suddenly have to take a pay cut.

Which is what you're suggesting by the way, if a business wanted to keep its profit the same but had to increase the pay of their lowest paid staff (which in most cases will be most of their staff) they will have to give everyone above them a pay cut by more than the payrises.

Say you have 5 times as many lowest paid staff as higher, for ever extra pound per hour extra you give to the lowest paid staff you'd have to take £5ph off the higher paid staff, does that seem fair bearing in mind these are the people have put a lot of resources (financial or otherwise) in getting this higher paid job?
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
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 Edexcel GCSE Maths Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - feeling positive (522)
26.26%
The paper was reasonable (867)
43.61%
Not feeling great about that exam (389)
19.57%
It was TERRIBLE (210)
10.56%

Watched Threads

View All