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?

some interesting posts. I do agree with the ones about how the privileged few who are in government don't know what it is like for the average person in the street.
not everyone goes to uni or stays in education after college, so a 19 yr old would have to work for 6 yrs to get the same pay as a 25 yr old who has never worked?
just seems so wrong.
very few families can afford to house an adult child for so long, yet they can't leave home.
yet as my son said to me, young people are the future.

Want2B Living in shared accomodation has become the new norm for those under 30

Agree with almost everything else you write, but surely that's always been the norm? It certainly was in my cohort when I graduated - most of us shared flats while students and then the same when we moved for our first jobs. There were some students who lived at home with their parents and then stayed at home while in their first jobs, but we always felt sorry for them as they never seemed to have the full university experience. we also used to laugh at the people whose parents came to help clean their room after uni

I'm 37, so it wasn't that long ago.

Saying that, the government does seem to be creating a hiding to nothing for those under 25s whose parents died without leaving them anything or who don't care that much, who don't have the option of living at home or help with uni costs. I do wonder now if I was in the same position, I might be thinking "whats the point?" in working so hard.

Want2b, what go you mean by 'a career in research' ? Do you mean that only those intending to become academics should go to university? So not our teachers or lawyers or accountants or architects or actuaries or vets etc?

Kickass, how is it giving them any more of an out than they have now? It's not as if 17yr olds are currently entitled to a certain salary and that is being taken away.

They can take on young employees, of whatever education level, and effectively pay them what they want

Although if you try to pay somebody below the market rate you won't get any applicants.

"Although if you try to pay somebody below the market rate you won't get any applicants."

I think you would... worryingly.

You might, but they wouldn't have the skills you wanted - otherwise you wouldn't be advertising at the market rate.

I don't get the fuss over "how will people leave home if the minimum wage for an over 25 goes up". I left home at 19 and was earning about £9000 a year. This wasn't in the distant reaches of time, it was 10 years ago. I paid my rent and didn't claim housing benefit. I then progressed through different jobs at varying levels of pay before I earned the money I'm on now.
There's always been a difference in minimum wage - 16-18 get a pitiful amount, 18-21 a bit better, and 22+ much better and more liveable. This isn't actually making people's lives worse, it's improving the money of those over 25. If you had 3 or 4 kids at 24, that's your choice so you should have been in an earning position to pay for them.

chandler I remember renting a small room when others were renting a room that could easily fit a double bed plus other furniture. Now the new norm is those proper double beds housing more than a single person in their 20s. Heck I know too many people who are over 30'and living in shared accomodation. As a couple they rent a room. That was not normal when I graduated.

itsnot there is no logical reason for any of those professions to spend 3+ years sitting at university when a hybrid course where the student works and learns through study release would achieve the same outcome. I say this as an accountant who fails to see why my employer hires graduates when hiring at 18 with proper training contracts would be better for both the employee and employer. Medicine is also an intergrated experience so why the huge focus on attending university? Law is also not that different. A degree doesn't qualify you, it's the certifications and licenses coupled with experience that does that. The degree requirements for jobs such as nursing and other health related careers is a joke. All it does is create barriers to those from lower income families.

I say this as an accountant who fails to see why my employer hires graduates when hiring at 18 with proper training contracts would be better for both the employee and employer.

In theory modern apprenticeships encourages employers to do this.

merrymouse I say this as an accountant who fails to see why my employer hires graduates when hiring at 18 with proper training contracts would be better for both the employee and employer.

Well, in some jobs you do need the rigorous years of academic study as a background. e.g. engineers need a certain level of mathematics, and its difficult to reach that level when there is already a job there for them as it requires very dedicated study.

Going to university has also been associated with ambition, and not just through the degree alone. Employers look for other experiences while at university, travel and work abroad, etc.. Moving away from home, renting that room in a shared house or flat and so on do tend to foster independence.

Its also opened up the world of work for women, as making a degree level qualification of a certain standard does limit to some degree the giving of jobs to men where they have lower qualifications.

I actually agree that too many are now going to university, but I think its very difficult to reverse - far too politically inexpedient.

Saying that's it's to help those under 25 that can't get a job... So, you get them a job and ... they can't live from said job anyway because it's so low. How is that supposed to help?

On the other side, because the MW for under 25yo is lower, so will all the wage for under 25yo. Don't be fooled. This will have some implication for all graduates. Because you see, the idea that they are worth less because they are young will be applied accross the board.
And by making it law, they are encouraging companies to give lower wages to people regardless.

All that at a time when the government wants compaies to increase wages to compensate for the lower level of benefits....

theChandler look at the numbers given at the start of the thread. As a country, we don't train enough graduates (aka number of people coming out with a degree compare to number of people needed for jobs with a degree).

There are plenty of areas where we need MORE people.

Maybe the issue is that there are too many degrees that don't actually lead to a job as such (eg studying history might not lead to a lot else than being a history teacher, correct me if I'm wrong but you get the idea).
I don't think we need less graduates though.

My father was an engineer. He left school in the fifties and took graduate level qualifications through his professional institute.

Higher apprenticeships can be degree level.

Accounting bodies have routes to qualification that don't require a degree.

I agree with want2b There is no intrinsic need to spend 3 years studying and then work.

You can teach somebody at an undergraduate level outside a university.

I think it's the less vocational more academic subjects like history that are suited to university.

I'm 22 with rent, a baby and a husband. I do domiciliary care and my company have already said that when it hits £9 an hour for 25+ they will have two seperate pay scales. Luckily I will be 25 by then but sorry, I would not do my job, identical to everyone else in my company and be paid £3 less an hour for it!!

Want2B, I disagree. I'm a teacher married to a lawyer and I'd say we are def more rounded individuals for having studied broadly before starting work. If I had just trained on the job I wouldn't have gained enough rigorous subject knowledge. Nor would I feel my education was broad enough to teach. Likewise, although DH did law at UG level, when looking to take on graduates, he prefers those who have done degrees such as history or something interesting such as geology then followed it up with a pg law course.

How do you expect someone to teach a subject they haven't themselves studied?

In 1992 there was no minimum wage at all.

But had you been paid less there would have been no nmw regulation to stop you from being paid less.

I take the point that the new regulations could be taken to imply that under 25 year olds can be paid less. However, salaries are generally guided by the market rate. As far as I remember jobs were not plentiful in 1992.

I think the under 25 nmw could have the effect of undermining the living wage because why pay more for a 30 year old when there are cheaper 23 year olds.

I was pregnant, had my own career/home/car etc at 24... How that can not be an 'adult' is beyond me?

I do remember the home-visitor making many remarks about me being a 'young mum'... she made me feel like a naughty teenager so she definitely wasnt welcome

Yes but to be fair the Tories are raising the school leaving age to 49, so that should help youth unemployment figures somewhat.

Seriously awful budget for young people, its like they,ve said " You just don't matter"
.