19 Aug
11:45am, 19 Aug 2024
45,759 posts
|
SPR
What @larkim said.
|
20 Aug
7:04am, 20 Aug 2024
190 posts
|
Yakima Canutt
"They changed the name to signal something didn't they?" They did. It was the biggest change to the minimum wage policy since it was introduced by New Labour. I know we're not going t to agree in this, but my final point is that Labour's changes are not adopting the Living Wage Foundation nor it's calculations as the arbiter of the living wage - but they don't seem to be bothered about changing the name back. They are sticking with the low pay commission and changing the terms of reference a bit (and getting rid of the age bandings which I agree with). We will still have the national living wage and the "real" living wage and they remain two different things. |
20 Aug
8:10am, 20 Aug 2024
21,559 posts
|
Dave W
Labour investment in cycling and walking will be unprecedented, says Louise Haigh Exactly like the Tories. You can’t get a fag paper between them. |
20 Aug
8:15am, 20 Aug 2024
28,983 posts
|
richmac
It's woke gone mad I tell you. They need to be on the side of the driver and mandate less efficient engines in transits that are as tax free as the earnings of the builders that drive them. |
|
20 Aug
8:16am, 20 Aug 2024
28,984 posts
|
richmac
That was sarcasm for the avoidance of doubt
|
20 Aug
9:01am, 20 Aug 2024
25,389 posts
|
larkim
Yakima Canutt wrote: "They changed the name to signal something didn't they?" They did. It was the biggest change to the minimum wage policy since it was introduced by New Labour. If "adding one new band" is a big change in policy then we agree on that. Though to be fair to the Tories, the acceleration of the rate of the effective main band of the NMW was definitely something to be welcomed for employees. |
|
20 Aug
9:22am, 20 Aug 2024
45,763 posts
|
SPR
Yakima Canutt wrote: "They changed the name to signal something didn't they?" They did. It was the biggest change to the minimum wage policy since it was introduced by New Labour. I know we're not going t to agree in this, but my final point is that Labour's changes are not adopting the Living Wage Foundation nor it's calculations as the arbiter of the living wage - but they don't seem to be bothered about changing the name back. They are sticking with the low pay commission and changing the terms of reference a bit (and getting rid of the age bandings which I agree with). We will still have the national living wage and the "real" living wage and they remain two different things. Whatever the changes they made, it was still a minimum wage. It's not really surprising that Labour aren't changing the name back, my initial post on this said they should but no one really expects that. There's other policies that Tories implemented that they aren't changing, even ones that they were very critical of like the NI cut. As for changing the terms of reference a bit, actually including considering the cost of living in setting the minimum should make it closer to a real living wage. It's yet to be seen how that is calculated but the gap should close. |
|
20 Aug
11:13am, 20 Aug 2024
25,390 posts
|
larkim
What actually makes no sense is that only the over 21s get a "national living wage" which begs the question as to whey 16-21yos (or at the very least, 18yos) aren't entitled to something which is "living", vs something which is "minimum". An 18yo maybe someone with a good vocational qualification working on a full time job and living independently of their family, so is just as deserving of a "living" wage as someone 3 years older.
|
|
20 Aug
11:53am, 20 Aug 2024
45,764 posts
|
SPR
There's no reason for you to be paid less just because you might live with your parents anyway. They've just been excluded from the way the higher minimum is calculated because they can be without too much consequence I guess (I presume businesses would have said they would be less likely to hire younger workers etc and there wasn't much push back). livingwage.org.uk |
|
20 Aug
1:02pm, 20 Aug 2024
25,392 posts
|
larkim
No, true. But broadly speaking it is cheaper as an economic unit for a family of two parents plus 1 child age 14 to continue as an economic unit of two parents plus 1 child aged 17, 18 or 19, rather than divide the household and need to "fund" two properties, two utility bills etc etc. So I could sort of comprehend a situation where the lower age NMW was deliberately lower to recognise that sort of arrangement. Encouraging employers to take on "cheap" labour at younger ages is definitely part of the rationale, recognising that they may also need to develop workplace specific skills in their early years of FT work.
|
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Oct 2024
-
Economics
Aug 2023
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018
