..to think that £6.15 an hour...

[BertrandRussell]

.....really is shit wages?

“Are they paying for him to study as well?“

No, the course and the job are completely separate.

You don’t get the living wage- £8.21 an hour- until you’re 25!

You should be paid according to the work you do, not your age. An 18 year old working in a shop is doing exactly the same job as a 25 year old, so why should they be paid less Agreed.

Op, we have several apprentices earning just a little more than this - £6.50 ph - for 18 months.
They cost us money for the first 12 months, we might break even during the following 6 months, and then we usually offer them full time roles and a pay rise after 18 months.

We just have to hope they don’t go elsewhere. We aren’t making money from them up to that point.

Or we can not bother training anyone and try to pinch our competitor’ staff instead.

DD gets paid £5.39. She is 17. Goes up to £6.39 an hour when she's 18. She does the same as the older people, but gets paid less. Doesn't make sense.

Why is it essential to sub his travel op?
He is living at home.

Apprentice minimum wage is £3-something......

“Why is it essential to sub his travel op?
He is living at home.”

Because he isn’t working full time and his train fare is about an hour and a half’s wages every day.

It helps the young person get a foot in the door and some experience.
Otherwise why would you employ an inexperienced 18yo over a 24 yo?
At least I think that`s the logic.

I agree with others that I have never understood why there even is variation by age in the minimum wage; it is age discrimination against young people, who are being less for the same work, and it surely also encourages age discrimination against those who are older and so more expensive?

It's what I'd call a pocket money job. You couldn't make an honest living on it unless you owned your property outright and don't have to pay rent.

There will be plenty of occasions where a 16 year old is a better candidate than a 25 year old. Age is not an indication of quality at all and it should not affect the wage people get.

“It helps the young person get a foot in the door and some experience.”
It also means you can pay someone 6.15 an hour for 2 years.

I remember my first job in a bread factory just over 20 years ago - £1.25 per hour. I was strill living at home and thought I was rich!

It is shit, though. My firm has recently committed to paying the national living wage instead of NMW - there were only a 50 or so people who were on NMW so it won't make much difference to the overall salary bill, but it's been very popular.

Come on Bert it's not that bad. If he was full time you wouldn't need to sub his travel. It's presumably only because he's part time. Although dd's summer job pays the same and she pays her own (London) travel...

Thinking about it students tend to get around minimum wage in maintenance, and mine manage to pay rent, buy decent food, clothes, phone contract, travel and a festival or two out of that.

If you've got dependents it isn't enough, but you'll be able to claim tax credits/UC if that's the case.

Does he need to live on it?

Does the employer need the parents of 18-20 yr olds to subsidise their business?

I couldn't, but I have a mortgage and three children. Presumably most 16-18 year-olds don't have a mortgage and three children.

I’m good friends with a woman who had twins at 17 - and of course they didn’t have a mortgage as who’d lend to someone on £5-£6 an hour? Their rent is significantly more than our mortgage though.

And people wonder why work doesn’t seem appealing to so many. Anyone remember all the “make work pay” bollocks?

Dd gets 4.75 an hour, does the same stuff as other collegues and thats why i think its unfair, she has looked at other jobs but she enjoys what she does and still living at home it's doable, im broke though but wont charge rent etc until shes 18 and working. F/t

I’m not actually thinking about ds. We expect and plan to sub our children while they are university sort of age.

But there are a ton of kids not in that position. You can’t make many choices for yourself if you’re being paid that.

Otherwise why would you employ an inexperienced 18yo over a 24 yo?

By all means pay more for experience then, but why do that on age? In practice that would mean that most older people got paid more than most teenagers, because they're more likely to be experienced, but why enshrine that in law?

Does the employer need the parents of 18-20 yr olds to subsidise their business?

It is generally a disgrace how many employers are essentially dependent on other people to subsidise them - either the parents of their younger employees or the taxpayer for their older ones. It allows them to get away with paying wages that aren't actually sustainable.

But working full time on NMW is enough to live on, frugally maybe, but feasible.

My Ds earns 3.90 an hour as an apprentice chef in a Michelin star restaurant so they aren't short of a Bob or two.
Due to the shifts he can't commute home as public transport doesn't run. After paying rent he has hardly anything left to live on. How the government think anyone can live on an apprentice wage is beyond me and I guess they have never had to try it.

Does it matter what work it is?

Yes, people can't expect higher wages for a job if it requires no particular skills, ability, experience, etc. Some jobs simply aren't worth more.

“Yes, people can't expect higher wages for a job if it requires no particular skills, ability, experience, etc. Some jobs simply aren't worth more.”
Are they people who do them worth less too?