..to think that £6.15 an hour...

[BertrandRussell]

.....really is shit wages?

Yes. But what work is required for this wage.

Yep. It's not enough for someone to live on. Not all 18 year olds still live with their parents.

Does it matter what work it is?

Depends on age of person and what their financial commitments are. It would be decent enough for a sixteen year old school kid who lives at home

My job is a fucking killer and only pays that.

Not bad wages for Chris Hemsworth’s masseuse.

CareBear50

The minimum wage for a 16 year old is much lower then that.

It's more than the hourly wage my DD was paid in her office apprenticeship in London recently. She's now on over £9 an hour working is Asda!

For most people £6.15 is below minimum wage and is therefore illegal.

Isn't that above minimum wage for someone under 18? So it would really depend on what the job is and how old the worker is.

Does it matter what work it is?

Seriously OP, you have to ask this?

Of course it matters. If I'd been to University for 6 years, trained in job for 3 more years and then got a promotion to get paid £6.15 an hour I'd think it was a lot shitter than if I was 15, had no commitments and just had to put a few stamps on envelopes every hour in my own home.

Context is everything.

Bertrand only in so far as if it was that rate working from home, that could be the same as minimum wage or more take home pay in so far as no commuting costs and time spent commuting. I worked for minimum wage (just over £1 an hour more than your post) and had to commute 3 hours a day at £200 a month at one point. On a 40 hour week that would be £40 extra in my pocket and 60 hours more free time for £6.15 if working from home.

That's the only way it's even vaguely justifiable though. It's still shit!

Doing what? How old?

Yeah would definitely depend on the age of the worker.

It’s the minimum wage for someone 18-20.

I know this sounds dumb, does minimum wage depend on areas you live as well or is it just your age ?

Yes it's crap. I work in payroll and many employers begrudge paying even the minimum wage to workers.

Bertieandernie just age AFAIK apart from London weighting, but I'm not sure whether they apply that to the younger bands

I agree. I was paid that working in a supermarket whilst doing my A-Levels in the mid 00s.

@sparklfairy okay thank you very much! Did wonder I live in south London so wondered as I thought £6.15 sounded very low but could be because of age x

It's not great but I think the older rate is bad, given that they are likely to have more commitments and experience

Ds will be doing a job he has specific skills for, he wants to do and which he was directly recruited for. I was going to sub his travel anyway, but it’ll be essential now.

it isnt really shit though, it is minimum for a certain age group. and this age group tend to be happy with the pay.

It is low, I agree.

But. In 1996, I worked as a hotel chambermaid during my university holidays. I was 20, and worked alongside other women in their 40s. It was bloody hard work, and we saw some bloody disgusting things left behind by guests. We were all on £2.92/hour gross - this was before the days of NMW.

An online inflation calculator tells me that £2.92 in 1996 buys you £5.44 worth of goods and services today (I accept that housing prices in 2019 are not what they were in 1996).

NMW means that the women I was working as a chambermaid with are now on more than £5.44/hour gross.

I agree though that £6.15/hour is low.

It`s a lot better than the 3.52 or whatever that DD got at 18 for the first year of her apprenticeship in a nursery!
Yes she was being trained, but she was also doing a responsible and physical job looking after precious children for 40 hours a week.
Nurseries are disgracefully underfunded. They seem to need apprentices to survive.