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

looloo2134
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#41
Report 1 week ago
#41
I just wonder what employer would employ a 16 year old school leaver with a few GCSEs and no work experience which they have to train and have to pay them the same as an over 25-year-old with seven years of work experience and few GCSEs.
1
reply
PQ
  • PS Reviewer
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#42
Report 1 week ago
#42
(Original post by looloo2134)
I just wonder what employer would employ a 16 year old school leaver with a few GCSEs and no work experience which they have to train and have to pay them the same as an over 25-year-old with seven years of work experience and few GCSEs.
Read post 2 of the thread. Employers would still pay less it would be topped up by HMRC
0
reply
sean_james
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#43
Report 1 week ago
#43
I completely agree with this statement.

I know a small family shop owner based in my city, he has traded for years out of about 4 corner shops and what once was a profitable business is now becoming less and less so due to increases in living wage.

I don’t doubt that paying everyone a fair wage for the work they do is important. Yet in this scenario this trader is forced to find the money for increases in wages through increasing the cost of goods he sells which makes him even less competitive than the likes of Asda and Tesco.

It is my belief a minimum wage increase such as this mentioned for under 18s would simply kill off many small traders like this one mentioned here, and reward staff with an unnecessarily high remuneration in relation to the work they are doing.

I do note however this money is said to be partly paid by HMRC straight to traders, but even then this money will have to come from somewhere in the form of taxes or national insurance. with a crippling NHS and broken social security system I can see much better uses of this money.
(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.
Last edited by sean_james; 1 week ago
1
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#44
Report 1 week ago
#44
(Original post by sean_james)
I completely agree with this statement.

I know a small family shop owner based in my city, he has traded for years out of about 4 corner shops and what once was a profitable business is now becoming less and less so due to increases in living wage.

I don’t doubt that paying everyone a fair wage for the work they do is important. Yet in this scenario this trader is forced to find the money for increases in wages through increasing the cost of goods he sells which makes him even less competitive than the likes of Asda and Tesco.

It is my belief a minimum wage increase such as this mentioned for under 18s would simply kill off many small traders like this one mentioned here, and reward staff with an unnecessarily high remuneration in relation to the work they are doing.

I do note however this money is said to be partly paid by HMRC straight to traders, but even then this money will have to come from somewhere in the form of taxes or national insurance. with a crippling NHS and broken social security system I can see much better uses of this money.
If a business is profitable for its owner only because it relies on paying its staff the bare minimum, it's not really worth mentioning.
0
reply
random_matt
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#45
Report 1 week ago
#45
There is only one problem to discuss, businesses will not employ a 16 year old at the same wages as a person with vast experience. It completely screws over the youngster and the businesses who cannot afford to employ more people on that top wage.
0
reply
Jamesman1
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#46
Report 1 week ago
#46
I think labour has it just right. Not all under 18 are childish soy-boys. Some kids need to get away from there families or have no families. In the olden days youngsters were allowed to work like normal men if they needed too. Today teenagers are treated like 8year olds and that's why we have a failing male community of weak, egosentic, pretty dickwits men.
Last edited by Jamesman1; 1 week ago
0
reply
Tee_101
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#47
Report 1 week ago
#47
(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.
-minimum wage increases
-cost of production increases
-businesses higher less young workers- the point of young workers is that they are cheaper because they don't need the money as much which is why businesses like them
-other age brackets will increase as well otherwise it won't work if the youngest more inexperienced earn more than the more experienced
-cost of production increases even more
-firms fire more people to cut costs
firms may invest in machinery to do the jobs that the workers were doing
-unemployment rises
-benefits for unemployed increases
-more government spending needed
-less disposable income for the unemployed workers so less money spent in their local communities
-local shops suffer and have reduced revenue so have to cut costs of production to maximise profits

Now I'm not a Labour supporter but I just don't understand how the Labour Party, people who are well educated and meant to be representing half of the country, could not think about the consequences of this. Like its GCSE standard economics I'm pretty sure. My only conclusion is that they acc do know what they're doing and they did it so that young people could be like oh woowwww £10 that's madddd lets vote Labour when we can but they thought they'd be too stupid to realise how bad the policy is. Yet most people aren't that dumb
2
reply
lilacdolphin
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#48
Report 1 week ago
#48
(Original post by Good bloke)
So, when you get your first permanent job you will expect to earn what those people who have been doing the job for five to ten years will be earning? How will you compete in the market against more experienced people looking to move if the employer has to pay you the same as them?

Conversely, you will be happy, in order to ensure those following you can earn the same in the same role, not to receive pay rises (based on your improving expererience, skills and ability) until you can get a promotion to the next job up in the hierarchy?

I don't think you have thought this through.
This is absolutely not my point. What I am saying is that if, say, a 16 year old and a 26 year old start the same job on the same day they should get paid the same wage. I think the tiered system where you get pay rises according to your experience/loyalty is fair enough.

Converse to your point, though, how would you feel as an experienced 26 year old when an unexperienced 16 year old gets a job over you because they are cheap labour?

Also, someone straight out of uni at age 22 does not necessarily have more experience than a 16 or 17 year old. Just saying.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
1
reply
Suud500
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#49
Report 1 week ago
#49
(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
The argument against the minimum wage is that it will mean that people who would be hired at a lower wage are priced out.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#50
Report 1 week ago
#50
(Original post by lilacdolphin)
This is absolutely not my point. What I am saying is that if, say, a 16 year old and a 26 year old start the same job on the same day they should get paid the same wage. I think the tiered system where you get pay rises according to your experience/loyalty is fair enough.

Converse to your point, though, how would you feel as an experienced 26 year old when an unexperienced 16 year old gets a job over you because they are cheap labour?

Also, someone straight out of uni at age 22 does not necessarily have more experience than a 16 or 17 year old. Just saying.
Sorry but it’s a ridiculous argument the system works on the average not the exceptions.

There should be less bands than what there are and a higher wage in all those bands.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#51
Report 1 week ago
#51
(Original post by lilacdolphin)
This is absolutely not my point. What I am saying is that if, say, a 16 year old and a 26 year old start the same job on the same day they should get paid the same wage.
No. This is not your point, but it is a consequence of your point. Your suggestion here is despite the 26 year old having greater life experience, more useful and relevance experience and skills from his previous jobs and a greater likelihood of being more reliable - in short, being a better bet for the employer, typically.
0
reply
Tootles
Badges: 20
#52
Report 1 week ago
#52
Of course Labour are saying this. They always say stuff like that.
1
reply
Sinatrafan
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#53
Report 1 week ago
#53
Another bright idea from Labour that superficially sounds appealing but will do nothing but worsen youth unemployment.

The question is, why would anyone want to hire a 16 year old for £10 an hour? If I were a business owner I certainly wouldn’t. I’d employ the 25 year old who has also applied for the job and is also going to cost me £10 an hour.

16 year olds have no experience, may not even have GCSE level education (they may not have sat them yet) and they have no real track record for being able to show up to work on time and hold down a steady job.

The fact is that the market pays people based upon their productivity. If you’re costing a company £10 (even more when you factor in the costs of employing a member of staff) then you need to be bringing in more than that per hour in productivity to justify your employment. The reality is that 16 years old just don’t have the experience to offer the same level of productivity somebody older has.

Even if they can achieve the same productivity as someone older then they still are more of a risk to an employer because they have no track record to prove they are reliable in the longer term.

The solution to this has always been that 16 year olds are cheap to employ to make up for that deficit in productivity and reliability. They can then therefore gain experience which they can use to negotiate a bigger salary or move on to a better job.

The opposite is that they never get any job opportunity because they're too expensive and end up unemployed for years and years, when in fact they could have tolerated low pay for a few years to then open up a world of opportunity once they had gained some experience.

The minimum wage is just that; the minimum floor that somebody should be paid. The individual still has the opportunity and responsibility to negotiate for higher wages if that’s what they want. Fundamentally, if you don’t like what you’re being paid then you can leave and seek employment else where that pays you what you feel you’re worth. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to work for that level of pay.
Last edited by Sinatrafan; 1 week ago
1
reply
scorpiorules
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#54
Report 6 days ago
#54
Young people’s “competitive” advantage is that they are cheap, it makes up for lack of experience. Having a minimum wage for over 18s makes it harder for over 18s to get “starter” jobs. So jobs should be paid according to skill required not age. However, it should then be recognised that the jobs currently filled by 16 and 17 years old are only worth £5 an hour. This would then mean that most of them would continue to be filled by youngsters gaining experience. Another idea would be for such jobs to be limited to 8 hrs a week so that kids can get work experience without impacting exam results as it seems a lot of teens are “forced” into 16 hrs a week.
0
reply
Effaiii
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#55
Report 6 days ago
#55
10 for minimum wages is good, an addition to that is that employees wouldn’t need to pay tax for students who are in full time school or under 18 years working. So for this reason I don’t see why an employee wouldn’t want to employ a minor. The Labour Party should incorporate my last statement into reality
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
Last edited by Effaiii; 6 days ago
0
reply
-Eirlys-
  • Debate & Current Affairs Helper
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#56
Report 5 days ago
#56
If all wages increased, so that under 18s were still the cheaper option, it's a good idea. People were appalled to find out that I was getting £3.64 an hour at the age of 16, doing the same job as everyone else, often doing a better job too. Even when they said to my manager that I should get a raise, they refused. I think just raising it to £6-7 an hour is an improvement and 25+ year olds should get a minimum of £10 an hour. Wage increases seem to fall far behind the rate of inflation.
(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
2
reply
The_Internet
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#57
Report 5 days ago
#57
(Original post by ltsmith)
That's not fair. Why should professionals lose their pay to low skilled workers?



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.
I'm a "professional" and really what it does is encourage myself to go elsewhere too, and earn more money OR demand more money at my local place. I'm in a weird position where I'm still learning and I haven't hit my income potential at all yet, however that is what a lot of people do.

Also see

https://www.businessinsider.com/mini...18-9?r=US&IR=T
Last edited by The_Internet; 5 days ago
0
reply
ltsmith
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#58
Report 5 days ago
#58
(Original post by The_Internet)
I'm a "professional" and really what it does is encourage myself to go elsewhere too, and earn more money OR demand more money at my local place. I'm in a weird position where I'm still learning and I haven't hit my income potential at all yet, however that is what a lot of people do.
people on reddit (r/cscareerquestionsEU) suggest that job hopping is the only effective way to get a big raise in tech (software specifically)

would you agree?
0
reply
The_Internet
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#59
Report 5 days ago
#59
(Original post by ltsmith)
people on reddit (r/cscareerquestionsEU) suggest that job hopping is the only effective way to get a big raise in tech (software specifically)

would you agree?
It's the same for networks tbf... It is true mostly yeah. If you work for a large organisation however, you can move within and get a raise, and it isn't just true for STEM

At any rate, this is about the USA, however we have similar issues
https://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/new...lass/index.htm

This is UK centric however

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/wealth-tracker-18

The super rich are earning more than ever before, on the backs of the people who work for them. The middle classes, and even the working classes are not being compensated sufficiently. Minimum average wage has to rise worldwide really. In the UK, we do have the 5th highest minimum wage in the world (if you exclude about 10 states in the USA), however we have drastic issues. People can't afford to rent a place to live, because they're not being compensated sufficiently for their work.

Highly skilled professionals have this issue...
Last edited by The_Internet; 5 days ago
0
reply
The_Internet
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#60
Report 5 days ago
#60
(Original post by -Eirlys-)
If all wages increased, so that under 18s were still the cheaper option, it's a good idea. People were appalled to find out that I was getting £3.64 an hour at the age of 16, doing the same job as everyone else, often doing a better job too. Even when they said to my manager that I should get a raise, they refused. I think just raising it to £6-7 an hour is an improvement and 25+ year olds should get a minimum of £10 an hour. Wage increases seem to fall far behind the rate of inflation.
Personally I think we should have a standard where we make sure we have a liveable wage, and then that wage is linked with RPI inflation. By liveable, I mean "able to afford houses" Also some deregulation would help, but not too much. Just enough to stop NIMBYs being able to stop development because "muh house price value" I say this as someone who does actually rent out a property of my own, albeit abroad.

Really, if average wages kept up with house price inflation, a 30K job would now be paid 90K
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 AQA GCSE Physics Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (487)
31.1%
The paper was reasonable (603)
38.51%
Not feeling great about that exam... (257)
16.41%
It was TERRIBLE (219)
13.98%

Watched Threads

View All