25 when did it become not an adult?

[Samcro]

so under 25 you don't get the new wage.
surely 25 is and adult. someone who has left education and home, hopefully been working a few years so why?
why is say (for example) a 23 yr old thought to be worth less?

lapsed "Would you choose to live in a house share? I wouldn't have after uni. Why would I want to live with other, unrelated adults? I wanted and still want my own space. "

I'd choose to live in a ten bed mansion if I could. But I can't afford that. So I live in the place I can afford. And if at 16, the only place I can afford is a single room in a shared house, then that is where I will live.

Why should I be living in a one-bedroom flat that I can't afford? Plenty of people share houses all over the UK and world, and just get on with it. Yes it's not ideal. But that's just life. :/

Why should I be living in a one-bedroom flat that I can't afford? * and then expect the governemtn to help me

001

I don't know if you're responding to my post, but I said my rent, inclusive of bills is ... I don't think £135 a week is quite going to cover that...

The McJobs and nursery staff are normally the young. So, it makes sense to pay them fuck all. Otherwise nursery fees (which the government pays lots of) and the McLobby's wage bill would skyrocket. The thing is, none of this matters, because if you're a rich Tory voter, you can support your kids, even if they're over 25, and, if you're not, well, Britain doesn't give a toss about you, anyway. So, off to the foodbank with you, quickly.

But there are also NMW jobs across the country. There's an argument for staying in London if you're living at home to save money. But why would you not apply for jobs around and across the country and move somewhere cheaper if you are moving out anyway? The specialist London niche market which means people cannot leave the capital rarely covers NMW jobs.

Dora, the overwhelming majority of the country fall somewhere between foodbanks and rich you know?

00100001
There is something very wrong with your maths.

You go to a house share - let's say that's... £300 a month inclusive of bills? You end up with £132 a month to live on... which is about £40 a week.
£132/month does NOT equate to £40/week. Also, not sure where you live, but £300 would not get you a house share where I live and £40 would definitely not cover food, transport etc.

You seem to be manipulating figures in order to try and prove a point.

Ugh, 001000001. Reading more of your posts, you clearly come across as severely lacking in empathy.

001 - who is asking the government to fund flats/hobbies? This thread is about young WORKING people not being paid the same 'living wage' as a 25 year old doing the exact same job.
WTF should my son go to work hungry? WTF shouldn't he be able to treat himself to a can of pop and a bar of chocolate to make his 10 hour shift a bit more bearable? WTF should he have to walk to work via Boots, so that he can spray himself with the deodorant sample, or 'go commando' because a pack of boxers costs 1/4 of what he has to live on FROM HIS EARNINGS?

twofinger please read my further posts. And yes, I understand it would be hard.... just not impossible.

woman why would your son go to work hungry? I did some re-adjusted sums, and your son would have approximately £35 a week to feed himself go out do whatever etc. after paying bills to love in a shared house.

Yes. it would be hard. I know that. But... life is hard.

Who even said they couldn't wash themselves? or wear no pants... That wasn't me...

woman assuming your son was 16 and living away from home and working full time*

But it is a start, WomanScorned. Because until yesterday, many firms would happily continue to pay 25 and 30yr olds the same crappy low wage. It's not fair that it just applies to 25+ but it will get there eventually and at least now the premise of a living wage will exist in law.

woman why shouldn't he buy a can of pop and chocolate bar? He can, he just can't buy a single can of Cocla Cola and Mars bar from the corner shop costing £2 each day, He might have to buy a multipack or opt for a supermarket own brand version... or value version. Costing maybe £1 instead.

or you know, just go without.

But why should he go without? He's working 40 hours a week!

I would love to be able to afford to do my hobby of horse-riding, but I can't afford that.. so I don't get to do it. I would love to go on holiday to Spain three times a year.... Should I be asking for some sort of hand-out from the government to pay for these things?

001 again. Really? Are you really comparing horse-riding and holidays to basic living?

And because £35 p/w will not cover clothing! A pack of cheap boxers is £6 - he would need to go without food for 2 days to buy them! How can he do 10 hours physical labour with no food?

001, I'm still catching up with this rather long thread, but no matter how many 'sums' you present, what it boils down to is that you're promoting a notion that people should be obliged to scrape by or go without. It's possible to live on the breadline for a short while. I've had to do so many times myself. But doing so long-term is depressing and unsustainable. Walking four miles to walk through rain and snow because you have no money is a joyless way to live. It's not just a question of buying 'own brand' confectionery because you fancy a treat and can't afford a 'real' Mars bar.

Furthermore, in a wealthy country like the UK it's actually shameful to think that people think younger people deserve to live like this because, well, because they're young and 'life is hard'.

People should be paid the same wage for doing the same job.

WomanScorned, why is your son only earning £35 a week for 40hours? Is he on a training scheme? My understanding is that they will be exempt anyway.

The bottom line is that we havea governemnt who thinks that it's OK NOT to treat people equally.
This is not the only areas where this is the case.
It's the young, the immigarnts, whoever else, usually NOT the group of people that will vote for them/will make a big difference in votes but that will make the core group of conservatives voters happy.

You have to wonder where they will stop at treating people inequally. What about not paying women with children as much because they will be off work more often (children illness etc...) as a next step?
After all most the 'excuses' used re the under 25 could be used in that case too...

That is utterly disgraceful but of course you can argue as much as you like that's OK to have to have the same obligations (taxes, etc etc) but not be entitled to the same wage or same benefits than others.... right.....

Who knows whether the NMW is a fair wage in a particular situation?

A large proportion of people will be paid the same for doing the same job though.

And of course, you will notice that this is still designed to have the most effect on the poorest people in the country.
The ones whose parents have money won't nearly as affected and they will also have better education which won't be as influenced by that stupid law.

Now take a teenager whose parents have a council house, who thanks to the bedroom tax, cannot keep him at home anymore. He isn't going to UNI and is looking for a job, gets one ... but isn't ALLOWED to real wage 'because he is supposed to have a roof over his head at his parents'. That's soooo logical.

A large proportion of people will be paid the same for doing the same job though.

But some arent. Based on age alone. By law! That's not OK. It is not ok that the law says a person with more experience in a job can be paid almost half of what their colleague is paid for doing the same job based on age alone.

A large proportion of people will be paid the same for doing the same job though.

Yes, as a country we are pretty stuffed if people are generally in NMW jobs.

I agree with MamanofThree though, this does disproportionately affect the very people who really need to earn their own money.