Project Fear

elegran there are millions of people of all ages only earning the minimal amount. Families who do so are supported by the tax payer. Companies are in effect being subsidised on the bottom line by the tax payer.

Information

www.livingwage.org.uk/what-real-living-wage

Elegran, very few young sixteen year old people seek employment at that age, rather they stay in education.

Also, if you read my recent posts in this thread, you will witness that in my own industry a few young people with higher A level standards are engaged, or they are recruited from University Graduates. However, most new employee comes into my company by way of gaining their qualifications through being on site workplace industrial safety officers in any number of companies.

The above stated, undoubtedly life for Britains young people under the age of twenty-five is far more difficult than it was when many of us on this forum first entered the world of work. However, it would seem that there are those that had it more comfortable in their younger days, who now do not wish to see today's young people be given any extra help in these much harder times whatsoever.

Some people may describe that as a somewhat selfish attitude.

Corbyn has specifically included 16-17 year-olds, so as to catch the yoof vote. Here is a blog which is realistic about the expenses incurred by the typical worker of that age, which do not include a mortgage or feeding a family. The writer concludes "if Jeremy Corbyn really wants to help young people he should forget hiking the minimum wage and instead offer tax cuts to small businesses so they can hire more staff (including young people) and focus on providing a better range of apprenticeships."
Soutiam Goodarzi and yes, before you dismiss her for it, she is a 16-year-old Conservative. Sometimes they do talk sense.

Elegran, many would expect that from a Conservative party member. After all, the Tory party stated exactly the same when the minimum wage was being introduced. In that, what happened, things became much better all round not only for low paid workers and the whole country. ?

I am all for paying people a living wage BUT I don't think a 16-17 year-old apprentice living at home and learning a trade has as much of a demand on his/her paypacket as a 25-year-old maintaining a family home.

If the 16-year-old is living independently and completely supporting themselves, that is a different matter, and they almost certainly are subsidised (as you say, by the taxpayer) but the norm for someone of that age is to still live at home, where parents still provide support. Most of their expenses are for travel to work, light meals and entertainment, probably with a modest contribution to the household.

The political affiliation of the 17-year-old writer of that article does not negate her agreement with that. Don't throw out her views because of her politics.

Elegran, as already stated, very few young people at the age of sixteen enter the world of work. They either stay at school to engage in obtaining A-Level qualifications or enter any number of colleges to obtain better GCSE certifications or learn a practical skill.

That does not mean that they and those that enter higher education should not be paid at least the minimum wage when they work to help with living expenses and keep down the debts they incur in present times in higher education.

These are far different times for young people under the age of twenty five than when many on this forum where that age.

Also to add to my above post Elegran, please tell me why a young person under the age of twenty-five should be paid less than a person over that age when they are both engaged in doing exactly the same job, such as making and serving coffee.

"engaged in doing exactly the same job" Doing exactly the same job, at the same level of skill and experience? Is someone who has just started work with NO knowledge and experience doing exactly the same job as someone who has been doing it for ten years and gained skill and responsibility?

You have said that the people you recruit already have knowledge and experience, so they are ready to do the same work. The apprentices that Gillybob speaks of begin with no knowledge, no experience. They are attending classes for part of the week, and working (at a low skill and knowledge level) the other part of the week. They are not doing the same job as established workers, nor have the same productivity. The business pays them for a week's work while only receiving part of the benefit of employing them, and also has added costs connected with their study course (Gilly may give more details on that.) and with spending time on teaching them the practical part of the job. Once they are trained they are free to go and work elsewhere, so there is little longterm reward.

Education of any sort has advantages to the person being taught, (which could be seen as part of the pay of apprenticeship) and, in a business, costs of time and missed earnings to the person teaching. Taking on an apprentice is an expensive undertaking, and if it gets TOO expensive, fewer firms will undertake it and national skill levels drop.

Companies may well take on apprentices, at a cost as has been noted in other posts but...and it's a big BUT, those apprentices could move to other better paying positions once they gain the necessary qualifications.
The investment laid out by the original employer becomes a kick in the teeth when loyalty is not reciprocated.
One has only to look at the NHS, where doctors go through 7+ years to gain their qualifications then move on to a more lucrative private practice or indeed, abroad.
Nurses get paid much more (as do teachers) working as 'bank' staff.
Very few employees are loyal and will follow the money.
I personally know someone who changes their job (within the same industry) every couple of years or less for the past 16 years, always for a more senior or higher salaried role and there have been no gaps.
IMO, there are few who would be content to stay in a job with lesser pay if it was within their means to move into a higher salary bracket elsewhere.

Grandad I would challenge "undoubtedly life for Britains young people under the age of twenty-five is far more difficult than it was when many of us on this forum first entered the world of work." You are male and therefore would have earned significantly more than a female. Today they are paid the same. I most certainly could not have maintained myself at that age, I struggled much later on to be independent.

My first job, as a trainee window dresser with JL, paid me £1 17s 6d pw
£1 7s 6d went to mum and my share was 10s.
My first wages went on a brooch of a daffodil with the word 'Mother' across it and a bunch of daffs from the market...for mum obvs.
I also bought myself a pale blue top with a sweetheart neckline decorated with rhinestones from Tolls on London Rd Liverpool.

GabriellaG54

What a lovely post and memory