National living wage - £7.20 from April 2016

Takeaway_Addict

GothicStirling wrote: »

13 million people will be worse off, warns IFS.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/budget-2015-live-george-osbornes-benefit-cuts-set-to-make-13m-families-significantly-worse-off-10378031.html

Yeah, I saw that.

Not as good as initially thought but it is reducing the dependancy on benefits which for me can only be a good thing, its reducing the artificial supply and demand issue (not completely as the new living wage in itself artificially affects supply and demand)

Sharon87

Is it just me or does being 22 or being 25 not that much different in living costs? This is the same for JSA. As a 22 year old and as a 28 year old I still have rent to pay, I still have bills, everything's the same except I'm further along in my career! Why does the government discriminating based on age?

Takeaway_Addict

Sharon87 wrote: »

Is it just me or does being 22 or being 25 not that much different in living costs? This is the same for JSA. As a 22 year old and as a 28 year old I still have rent to pay, I still have bills, everything's the same except I'm further along in my career! Why does the government discriminating based on age?

My guess is that it will encourage employers to hire those under 25 as they are cheaper. Probably actually benefit those under 25 considering they are the highest band of unemployed % wise.

mattcanary

GothicStirling wrote: »

All that will happen is that is that the cost of living will keep rising, so we'll be no better off. Still, I'll believe it when I see it.

They are also restricting tax credits. So perhaps there won't be such a huge increase in spending power as you think.
Having no tax credits and a higher minimum wage is far better than having a low minimum wage and tax credits to make up employee's low income.


It means an employee is more incentivised to get on in work if they want to, and additionally results in a lower benefits bill for the government to pay out.

mattcanary

skibadee wrote: »

Could someone clarify this for me please.
Will the Living Wage REPLACE the NMW from April 2016?

Not really.
I'm sure the organisation that has campaigned for a living minimum wage would be saying that this should be higher in 2020 than the level the Government has set their newly retitled Minimum Wage at.

ShadowPuma

Seen this before last time it went up. Those on just over the new minimum wage got no payrises in order to bring those who are on the minimum up in line with it. Suddenly the company had more people on the minimum since the grade "above" them got nothing until they were also on min wage.

mattcanary

ShadowPuma wrote: »

Seen this before last time it went up. Those on just over the new minimum wage got no payrises in order to bring those who are on the minimum up in line with it. Suddenly the company had more people on the minimum since the grade "above" them got nothing until they were also on min wage.

Maybe true - but having more people on a higher wage is still better than having some people on a lower wage and having the government prop up their income with tax credits.

szam_

GothicStirling wrote: »

All that will happen is that is that the cost of living will keep rising, so we'll be no better off. Still, I'll believe it when I see it.

I'm glad someone see's it.

This whole "it's great for people on minimum wage" argument is crap, and those on it in 5 years will still be complaining that they are still not paid enough, because the cost of living will be roughly around the same as it is now. They will have added £2.50 per hour to every over 25 retail worker - that is a LOT to cover, given the amount of people in retail on minimum wage - someone has to find the money for it? And it'll be the consumer. And that's just the retail industry, it doesn't cover other industries, or suppliers for the retail industry.

Greedy Directors and CEO's will always be greedy Directors and CEO's. Prices will rise to cover the cost of increased wages, or staff will be laid off and unemployment will rise - probably both. Shareholders won't want to see "profits took to 50% hit this year to cover the cost of increased minimum wage", nor will companies sit there and take it.

My OH is livid. She's on £8.75 an hour (she had something like a 5p increase in April) - if she continues in what she's doing at the moment, and she knows it's highly unlikely to rise to cover the increase in minimum wage in her industry, in 5 years time she will effectively be a minimum wage worker (she could earn a minimum of 50% more than she does now in GBP terms, in Australia, but whilst it's a sought after role, they don't do sponsorships on it). The general feeling from her now, is an idea we've been floating around for a bit, but getting a degree in nursing/midwifery and getting out of the country as soon as possible.

Baby_Angel

DH's salary only goes up when the minimum wage goes up. He works in London in 2 different jobs by two major companies. He does not get the London living wage as it is not compulsory. He has been working in both these 2 jobs for almost 6 years now. He is happy, even though he wasn't complaining before.

chicken2009

The living wage is 7.80 so how can this be called the living wage and it needs to be 9.50 an hour this year to stop people having to claim benefits.

Also why are under 25 year olds not on the same amount, if they are doing the same hours seems unfair.

If they want the young to save, then pay them the living wage and they can start saving for a deposit as well.