that minimum wage should be the same regardless of age

[auntiepicklebottom2]

the rates are

£6.08 - the main rate for workers aged 21 and over
£4.98 - the 18-20 rate
£3.68 - the 16-17 rate for workers above school leaving age but under 18

now to me a 20 year old may have the same bills ect as a 21 year old, also IMO it break the age discrimination law.

www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/ResolvingWorkplaceDisputes/DiscriminationAtWork/DG_10026429

As an employer, if I have 2 candidates for a job, one is 17 with no experience and the other 25 with several years experience, the only way for the younger person to be the more attractive to employ would be a lower wage to reflect the lack of experience and the level of training needed.

Employing a young person is often very training intensive, as they usually have a lack of working experience and life experience that and older person could draw from.

Housing benefit wise, a young person will more often than not have few possessions and a home with their parents, so if they want to leave home at a young age they need only limited space and resources given to them. I should imagine it would also serve as an incentive to not remain on benefit. On the other hand, a pensioner who has contributed to society, usually born children, have a lifetime of possessions etc absolutely should not then face the shame of being forced to rent a room in somebody else's house.

I would have thought it is blindingly obvious that if the minimum wage was not staggered youth unemployment would rise.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Add message | Report | Message poster Moominsarescary Wed 23-Nov-11 00:33:38
They bought in the minimum wage for apprentices when I was 21 and training as a hairdresser on £40 a week, my employer sacked me as she didn't want to pay me the rate, much cheaper to employ a 16 year old

She did write on my references that it was the only reason she was letting me go, but I still wasn't able to get another job as a trainee as obviously noone else wanted to pay me the extra either

2 bloody years I worked for over 40 hours a week on £40 all wasted because I couldn't finish. I also had a young child to support
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""

So if it wasn't for under 18s being cheaper and her wanting one of them instead, then you wouldn't have been sacked?

No I was able to take her to court for unfair dismissal as she had stated on my references that it was due to the minimum wage

It wasn't a small business either, she could have afforded to pay me the extra

As someone who used to work 7.30-5.30 7 days a week (70 hrs a week) for £102.15, (a figure seared into my brain), before minimum wage was introduced, in order to support myself and pay for a sink hole flat and a bit of independence, I applaud minimum wage.
I also think that it should be the same for all ages. DS comes to work with me sometimes, and gets paid half what Im paid. Yes, its still a good wage for a 15yo, but why really should he get half the pay for the same work?

TheQueenofDenial - blindingly obvious, yes, but then again, apparently not. Let's hope the policy wonks have a bit more sense.

The point is an employer will pay what is needed to get the job done. The only reason jobs are available for minimum wage (or less, as argued above), is there are more than enough capable people to do the job. If you are providing value to your employer, they will pay you more to keep you.
Unfortunately some jobs don't allow you to add additional value very easily. But the point is, if minimum wage was not available and benefits not there, people would move. I have moved several times for work to earn what I do. Saying I live in an area with no jobs/lots of competition so will stay on benefits should not be acceptable.