..to think that £6.15 an hour...

[BertrandRussell]

.....really is shit wages?

I would consider it a pocket money job to. To be fair, if most 18-20 year olds had to support themselves they would get a “proper” salaried job and begin their career rather than a min wage job at odd hours.

Of course plenty of 18-20 year olds and older work for minimum wage all their lives, but I think there is a distinction between this sort of job and an 18 year old working generally

YANBU. I think it's a fucking disgrace to be paid less until you're 25. A way to rip off adults. Should be illegal to pay anyone 18 or over less.

I think it's nuts that the rate applies to 25 and over. What about eg 20 year olds who live on their own etc. It's crazy. It should be one rate for under 18s and one rate for over 18s in my opinion. And I think there's even an argument for one rate for under 16 and one rate for over 16 as you could be living on your own at 16 too. It massively disadvantages under 25s who are already disadvantaged yet doesn't proportionately affect those who aren't disadvantaged so to me it's causing problems.

It's all well and good to say some jobs aren't worth more but what happens if people start refusing to do the jobs because it isn't worth it?

DS has worked in the same job for two years, until his 18th birthday last month he was on just over £4 per hour payroll increased it to £6,15 on his birthday. It does irk him because his boss agrees he works much harder than other youngsters there, but it is company policy everyone gets the same no rewards for being a better worker.

My first office job over a decade ago paid £18000. And I was 21. Employers in the public sector and professional office jobs don’t have different scales depending on your age.

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

You can't claim tax credits anymore, and if your status changes you are put on UC. No more tax credits. And - surprise! surprise!- under UC a child is only a 'qualifying young person' if between the ages of 16-19 and in FT non-advanced education or training). So if what they earn isn't enough, you can't claim anymore, in fact, their low wage might affect your own UC award, making you even poorer.

And depending on where you live, NMW is not enough to live on with a FT wage.

Isn’t it true that you can’t get housing benefit til 25 these days? So you have to live at home longer. I presume if you have been in care or can prove your parents kicked you out there are exceptions.

I’m not sure what you can do about firms not valuing labour higher, at least we have a minimum wage.

I bet the jobs people describe as not worthy enough are services they use frequently...

Its rubbish OP.

Employers in the public sector and professional office jobs don’t have different scales depending on your age.

The public sector certainly do if it's a minimum wage job.

I've just worked out my part time job when I was 18 paid the equivalent of £5.41 an hour. I lived at home and was quite happy with that at the time!

I work with children and in a shop and at both jobs this is my wage. I can't afford to pay bills without my partner, even with benefits. Constantly struggling. I strongly believe that anyone aged 16 and over should have the same minimum wage (which should be living wage) as that's when someone can move out of the family home.
That means under 16s don't lose out on job opportunities because they're inexperienced as they're still cheaper but people like me who rent and pay all their own bills can afford to do it without working four jobs like I've had to do in the past.

My daughter is 19 and an apprentice and gets £5 per hour. Only just enough to live on (social life minimal, bus fares and phone bill). They could legally only pay her £3.90 per hour if they wanted to as well. I think it goes up to nmw when she has finished her first year.

But I am subsidising her as regards to living rent free etc, if I wouldn't or couldn't do that she would be screwed.

A fucking killer job, sounds interesting

It's crap. And yes, we used to have it worse, I worked for £2.05 per hour aged 16-17 and got a pay rise to £2.25ph when I turned 18. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for better now. I had friends who had left home and had children at that age - who can pay rent and raise kids on £6.15 an hour? So you end up with the taxpayer (or parents) subsidising companies who won't pay their workers properly.

For example - the NHS, band 2 admin on say,£17800. Do they pay an 18 year old, 21 year old and 25 year old different pay rates? I always presumed that all NHS staff got the same.

A NHS band 5 healthcare professional aged 21 finishing university to be a nurse or whatever will start on the same money on the Agenda for Change scale, they will not earning be less because they are under 25.

under UC a child is only a 'qualifying young person' if between the ages of 16-19 and in FT non-advanced education or training). So if what they earn isn't enough, you can't claim anymore, in fact, their low wage might affect your own UC award, making you even poorer.

This. My neighbour's young son recently started work and she is really struggling as a result. Not exactly encouraging people into the world of work, is it

I think it is disgusting tbh, had a similar conversation with a friend who's DD was working in the same job, same place as my friend doing the exact same thing. Her daughter got paid the minimum wage for an 18 year old, yet her mum got paid significantly higher for doing the same job. Very unfair indeed!

DS is also a chef, but not an apprentice, though he is low in the pecking order. He was earning NMW for 18-20 age (originally £5.90 ph, then £6.15 ph) until the kitchen ran out of porters, when he was paid £9 ph for shifts in the dish pit of a five-star hotel. Now his rate is officially £9, and is going up to £20k pa when he starts on a proper contract. And even on NMW, he was working 11 or 12 hours a day, plus his share of tips and meals, so he was okay considering. Able to save a bit and run a car, but he lives at home for the time being, not that we see him that often.

All the posters pointing out they earned 2 and sixpence when they were 18 and were grateful for it are missing the point. It's not enough to live on now. There aren't discounts on your electric bill if you're under 21 and many, many young people do not have the option of living with their parents and being supported financially even if it was reasonable to expect that of an adult.

The entire policy is based on the experiences of the current party of government, very few of whom actually had to stand on their own two feet with no parental backup at that age. Actually it's designed to improve the youth unemployment figures, carefully ignoring the fact that high levels of employment are meaningless if large numbers of people are having to be subsidised by either their parents or the state because they literally aren't being paid enough to live.

I don't think min wage should be age specific, as it makes places employ the younger ones due to it being cheaper.

And people talking about it being a pocket money job- well that’s fine for lucky kids like mine. Most aren’t.

BertrandRussell

“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?

No. It really irritates me when posters conflate worth in the job market with worth as a human being.

It is low, and hard to live on this, but possible. You have to be renting a room. So for a 40 hour week it is £246. You will pay very little tax, so most is take home pay.

It's why I feel sorry for people whose parents have a "you're 18, you're on your own" attitude