National living wage to rise to £8.72 in April - MSE News

Former_MSE_Naomi

The national living wage paid to workers aged 25 and over will rise from £8.21/hour to £8.72/hour from April, the Government has announced...

Read the full story:
'National living wage to rise to £8.72 in April'

Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply.

Blatchford

When George Osborne introduced the NLW in 2015, the Conservative Party promised was that it would rise to £10 per hour by 2020. So increasing it by an average of £930 for a full time worker/ 4 times the rate of inflation isn't quite what it seems. Based on the new level, the average full time employee is actually around £1600 a year worse off than they were promised. In order to achieve that promised incremental rise, it should also have risen more than it has each year since 2015. So each of those years people on there lowest wages have earned below the projected "minimum wage". 28p may not seem much, but for the lowest paid it's a huge difference - and another broken promise.

marlot

Blatchford wrote: »

When George Osborne introduced the NLW in 2015, the Conservative Party promised was that it would rise to £10 per hour by 2020.....

Actually, he said £9 per hour. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33437115

There's also the rise in the national insurance threshold,

Blatchford

Oops yes. I knew that and no idea why I put £10 when I knew the difference. Put it down to a flu head. Haven't had a clear head for a week. But yes, of course there are other changes. Including all the increases in bills.

Exodi

I've always found it strange that the government is able to freely manipulate NLW to gain public favour when they are virtually unaffected by the ramifications of their own proposals.

Meanwhile, UK businesses are facing soaring labour costs again, double/triple the rate of inflation, for which they need to account for - it will almost certainly lead to a culling of the labour force.

Blatchford

Manipulate the figures? Surely not? I think you've got it wrong. This will all be OK because come 1st February, Britain will be great again, our economy will totally blossom, and profits will roll in. You forgot to factor in the masses of spare money that we will be rolling in. Silly you.

PasturesNew

Very, very, very, very, very, very few people get this.
There is a vast majority of low paid jobs paying NMW, not NLW.

It's also smoke and mirrors as a "living wage" as two people earning that will clearly be hugely better off than one.

e.g. If 1 earns this and takes home £1200/month, they might have £200/month left after rent/council tax/basic bills to live on... toss in a 2nd person and they gain a further £1000/month between them, £600 each for fun and fripperies.

Life is skewed towards being in a couple, and/or having kids.

RichardD1970

Exodi wrote: »

I've always found it strange that the government is able to freely manipulate NLW to gain public favour when they are virtually unaffected by the ramifications of their own proposals.

Meanwhile, UK businesses are facing soaring labour costs again, double/triple the rate of inflation, for which they need to account for - it will almost certainly lead to a culling of the labour force.

There may be that argument for a small number of smaller, independent companies, but when you have major international companies making paying CEOs hundreds of thousands or even millions, and making millions in profit, paying people minimum wage, it doesn't really hold up.

Exodi

PasturesNew wrote: »

Very, very, very, very, very, very few people get this.
There is a vast majority of low paid jobs paying NMW, not NLW.

Unless I'm mistaken, the National Living Wage isn't optional for people aged 25 and over. Unless you mean to suggest that very, very, very, very, very, very few people are over 25 working minimum wage jobs?

PasturesNew

Exodi wrote: »

Unless I'm mistaken, the National Living Wage isn't 'optional' for people aged 25 and over. Unless you mean to suggest that the vast majority of low paid jobs are done by those under 25?

I hadn't realised that, that changed quietly. It used to be that firms had to declare they paid it and went on a list of employers who paid NLW. For everybody else they were still on NMW.

Apologies. I didn't keep up

Exodi

RichardD1970 wrote: »

There may be that argument for a small number of smaller, independent companies, but when you have major international companies making paying CEOs hundreds of thousands or even millions, and making millions in profit, paying people minimum wage, it doesn't really hold up.

I feel like this is Corbynist mindset will be the death of all of us. The huge multinational conglomerates that have CEO's earning sheds full of cash wouldn't, as you said, be that fussed about NLW increases.

To touch upon the 'small number' of 'smaller independent companies' you mention that will be effected, their sizes for your information:


Or

99.9% of all UK businesses are classed as SMEs (0-249 employees) and account for over 60% of all workers

Which is made up of:

0.6% are medium-sized businesses (50-259 employees)
Less than 4% are small businesses (10-49 employees)
More than 95% are micro-businesses (0-9 employees)
(source: https://www.merchantsavvy.co.uk/uk-sme-data-stats-charts/)