The "Living Wage" apparently comes into operation today !!

Apparently the Living wage that has been described as "Not the living wage" by the ..Living Wage Foundation.. comes into operation today..

With the cuts in work support however two million families are set to lose £1600 a year.....

The introduction of the Universal Credit apparently will see in-work support fall for 2.3 million of the 3.1 million families currently on Tax credits...

It's a shame so many British people show so much Political apathy......Unlike some stuck in the middle of these statistics..I won't be affected... but I made my way down to the station to tick the Labour box....Although in fairness it has to be said mainly to get rid of the Liberal moron........

But what can you do.....My heart goes out to Wheelie who bangs his head against a brick wall trying to educate people that they are going to be screwed..

Big believer in fairness and while Labour have this Corbyn joke not sure people are going to see any !!....Especially with boundary changes a-comin....

It's also only for those over the age of 25. Presumably those who are under 25 don't actually need to live?

Didn't know that mate...

Perhaps they want them to move back in with the families they are screwing over.

Well they're not close to being able to afford to rent as things stand. Wages are far too low.

Yawn

Pr4wn wrote:Well they're not close to being able to afford to rent as things stand. Wages are far too low.

Just ignore the troll...

Affordable housing is a problem. ..

21-24s still get £6.70 ph. Means nothing in London & SE, but £12k pa for a 21 yr old with no skills or qualifications north of the watford gap is pretty decent.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:It's also only for those over the age of 25. Presumably those who are under 25 don't actually need to live?

Funny that IDS who did most of this resigns because the govt has no heart..

Couldn't make it up

As a comparison, in my gap year getting work experience in London my £200 pw as a 21 yr old equated to £5.70 ph and I had to pay £90 of that wage in travel costs and £30 (admittedly token amount) in accommodation costs.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:It's also only for those over the age of 25. Presumably those who are under 25 don't actually need to live?

Or maybe their living costs are lower?? Maybe they are statistically less likely to have dependents and statistically more likely to benefit from other forms of support (remember NLW only has one determinant, age, it is not means tested and takes nothing else into account).

TopHat24/7 wrote:As a comparison, in my gap year getting work experience in London my £200 pw as a 21 yr old equated to £5.70 ph and I had to pay £90 of that wage in travel costs and £30 (admittedly token amount) in accommodation costs.

That was over ten years ago.

Care to take a look at the cost of accommodation in London since then?

Also, commuting to London from north of Watford when on minimum wage is extremely expensive.

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:As a comparison, in my gap year getting work experience in London my £200 pw as a 21 yr old equated to £5.70 ph and I had to pay £90 of that wage in travel costs and £30 (admittedly token amount) in accommodation costs.

That was over ten years ago.

Care to take a look at the cost of accommodation in London since then?

Also, commuting to London from north of Watford when on minimum wage is extremely expensive.

Our house (or should I say her house) is valued around £450,000.......

Imagine you could get a tent for that in London.....and I hate camping !!.

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:As a comparison, in my gap year getting work experience in London my £200 pw as a 21 yr old equated to £5.70 ph and I had to pay £90 of that wage in travel costs and £30 (admittedly token amount) in accommodation costs.

That was over ten years ago.

Care to take a look at the cost of accommodation in London since then?

Also, commuting to London from north of Watford when on minimum wage is extremely expensive.

Like I said, my accommodation costs were token therefore I know not comparable. Point is this is a base level for base level jobs - people with little or nothing to offer an employer. Why should someone handing out coffees in Pret or hanging clothes in TopShop get a tenner an hour??

I was also pretty clear that it's not helpful or relevant in London. But outside of London it does bite and is helpful. Places where you can rent a 2 bed home for £400 pcm.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:As a comparison, in my gap year getting work experience in London my £200 pw as a 21 yr old equated to £5.70 ph and I had to pay £90 of that wage in travel costs and £30 (admittedly token amount) in accommodation costs.

That was over ten years ago.

Care to take a look at the cost of accommodation in London since then?

Also, commuting to London from north of Watford when on minimum wage is extremely expensive.

Like I said, my accommodation costs were token therefore I know not comparable.  Point is this is a base level for base level jobs - people with little or nothing to offer an employer. Why should someone handing out coffees in Pret or hanging clothes in TopShop get a tenner an hour??

I was also pretty clear that it's not helpful or relevant in London.  But outside of London it does bite and is helpful.  Places where you can rent a 2 bed home for £400 pcm.

Because that's how much it costs to live? Hence the living wage?

The real question is, why in 2016 Britain should anybody doing any job get paid less than the actual cost of living?

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:As a comparison, in my gap year getting work experience in London my £200 pw as a 21 yr old equated to £5.70 ph and I had to pay £90 of that wage in travel costs and £30 (admittedly token amount) in accommodation costs.

That was over ten years ago.

Care to take a look at the cost of accommodation in London since then?

Also, commuting to London from north of Watford when on minimum wage is extremely expensive.

Like I said, my accommodation costs were token therefore I know not comparable.  Point is this is a base level for base level jobs - people with little or nothing to offer an employer. Why should someone handing out coffees in Pret or hanging clothes in TopShop get a tenner an hour??

I was also pretty clear that it's not helpful or relevant in London.  But outside of London it does bite and is helpful.  Places where you can rent a 2 bed home for £400 pcm.

Because that's how much it costs to live? Hence the living wage?

The real question is, why in 2016 Britain should anybody doing any job get paid less than the actual cost of living?

Costs different to 'live' everywhere in the country. Do you expect the goverment to enact a living wage that's different in every single county? That's absurd. As is asking employers in the North to be saddled with £9-10 ph (or whatever it is/should be) just so London workers are covered. It's a NATIONAL living wage.

Though, to answer your question, it's due to a absence of either the intelligence or the attitude to do better (or a combination of the two).

Correction: It's called a national living wage. It isn't actually a national living wage. That much has been established.

Asking London businesses to pay regional living wages is perfectly reasonable, especially when compared to the status quo, which is "pay rubbish wages and let the taxpayer top you up so you can pay exorbitant bonuses to your exec".

It's feeble arguments like yours that were presented in the face of the first minimum wage proposals.

I’m confused top hat, am sure previously on here you have railed against tax credits and you having to support those in low income roles. If you don’t like tax credits making up the shortfall in wages and don’t seem particularly keen on employers being forced to pay someone enough to eke out a basic lifestyle on what do you want? Your posting history suggests you have little time for those who do the lower skilled roles, be it working in Top Shop or serving you coffee, but surely even you would acknowledge somebody needs to do these jobs. If we acknowledge the filling of these is pretty much essential, which surely we must, surely it follows a method must be found by which those filling these jobs can actually survive.

I don’t eat out a lot but on the occasions I do I struggle to imagine the experience would be enriched by being served by some homeless waiter, who stinks to high heaven, has not washed his clothes and spends the meal trying to nick food off my plate to stave off his hunger.

Pr4wn wrote:Correction: It's called a national living wage. It isn't actually a national living wage. That much has been established.

Asking London businesses to pay regional living wages is perfectly reasonable, especially when compared to the status quo, which is "pay rubbish wages and let the taxpayer top you up so you can pay exorbitant bonuses to your exec".

It's feeble arguments like yours that were presented in the face of the first minimum wage proposals.

What? None of that post makes sense.

'London business'? Do you mean business with stores in London and the North should pay the same, London-level, wage at both stores? That's pathetic.

By London do you mean HQ? Or tax domiciled?? What about all the companies based in that little tax haven you call home and work? What 'living wage' should they pay?????

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Correction: It's called a national living wage. It isn't actually a national living wage. That much has been established.

Asking London businesses to pay regional living wages is perfectly reasonable, especially when compared to the status quo, which is "pay rubbish wages and let the taxpayer top you up so you can pay exorbitant bonuses to your exec".

It's feeble arguments like yours that were presented in the face of the first minimum wage proposals.

What? None of that post makes sense.

'London business'? Do you mean business with stores in London and the North should pay the same, London-level, wage at both stores? That's pathetic.

By London do you mean HQ? Or tax domiciled?? What about all the companies based in that little tax haven you call home and work? What 'living wage' should they pay?????

Apologies, it's been a long day and I'm exhausted.

Take BHS for example. Employees working in its London store should be paid a London living wage. Employees in its Leeds store should be paid a Leeds living wage. Wasn't anything to do with domicile. Please lay off the personal remarks.

It's like watching Norman Lamont trying to spin black wednesday..

Rowley wrote:I’m confused top hat, am sure previously on here you have railed against tax credits and you having to support those in low income roles. If you don’t like tax credits making up the shortfall in wages and don’t seem particularly keen on employers being forced to pay someone enough to eke out a basic lifestyle on what do you want? Your posting history suggests you have little time for those who do the lower skilled roles, be it working in Top Shop or serving you coffee, but surely even you would acknowledge somebody needs to do these jobs. If we acknowledge the filling of these is pretty much essential, which surely we must, surely it follows a method must be found by which those filling these jobs can actually survive.

I don’t eat out a lot but on the occasions I do I struggle to imagine the experience would be enriched by being served by some homeless waiter, who stinks to high heaven, has not washed his clothes and spends the meal trying to nick food off my plate to stave off his hunger.

And that's the difference between a socialist (you) and a marketeer (me). I don't think your absurd strawman analogy would ever come to pass as the business in question would have to pay the requisite market wage in order to secure the appropriate quality & standard of labour.

To me, Rowley's point is robust. You've not addressed it at all, Toppy.

Pr4wn wrote:To me, Rowley's point is robust. You've not addressed it at all, Toppy.

You don't seem surprised..

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Correction: It's called a national living wage. It isn't actually a national living wage. That much has been established.

Asking London businesses to pay regional living wages is perfectly reasonable, especially when compared to the status quo, which is "pay rubbish wages and let the taxpayer top you up so you can pay exorbitant bonuses to your exec".

It's feeble arguments like yours that were presented in the face of the first minimum wage proposals.

What? None of that post makes sense.

'London business'? Do you mean business with stores in London and the North should pay the same, London-level, wage at both stores? That's pathetic.

By London do you mean HQ? Or tax domiciled?? What about all the companies based in that little tax haven you call home and work? What 'living wage' should they pay?????

Apologies, it's been a long day and I'm exhausted.

Take BHS for example. Employees working in its London store should be paid a London living wage. Employees in its Leeds store should be paid a Leeds living wage. Wasn't anything to do with domicile. Please lay off the personal remarks.

Ok, I understand your point now. To me that's just a "wouldn't it be nice if....." point. Yeh, it would. Be nice if they all paid double the living wage even. Be nice if my mortgage was half or my pay double. Doesn't mean it's right for a government to autocratically force it.

Pr4wn wrote:To me, Rowley's point is robust. You've not addressed it at all, Toppy.

That's because you refuse to see anything through anything other than the particular tint of (hypocritically) socialist tinted spectacles.

I doubt your understanding of economics could be so under-developed as to not see why Rowley's homeless waiter example if such a strawman.

I doubt your understanding of debate could be so under-developed as to not take note of Rowley's pointing out of your own hypocrisy in the paragraph above that. You don't support tax credits topping up wages yet you don't support a living wage either.

If that is indeed the case top hat and businesses can be relied on to pay their staff enough to live on why have we ever had tax credits, why have we ever had a minimum wage or a living wage? The fact governments, on both side of the political spectrum, have felt the need to put measures in place to boost or supplement wages would very much suggest the market cannot be relied upon to ensure their staff earn sufficient to survive comfortably.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Correction: It's called a national living wage. It isn't actually a national living wage. That much has been established.

Asking London businesses to pay regional living wages is perfectly reasonable, especially when compared to the status quo, which is "pay rubbish wages and let the taxpayer top you up so you can pay exorbitant bonuses to your exec".

It's feeble arguments like yours that were presented in the face of the first minimum wage proposals.

What? None of that post makes sense.

'London business'? Do you mean business with stores in London and the North should pay the same, London-level, wage at both stores? That's pathetic.

By London do you mean HQ? Or tax domiciled?? What about all the companies based in that little tax haven you call home and work? What 'living wage' should they pay?????

Apologies, it's been a long day and I'm exhausted.

Take BHS for example. Employees working in its London store should be paid a London living wage. Employees in its Leeds store should be paid a Leeds living wage. Wasn't anything to do with domicile. Please lay off the personal remarks.

Ok, I understand your point now.  To me that's just a "wouldn't it be nice if....." point. Yeh, it would. Be nice if they all paid double the living wage even.  Be nice if my mortgage was half or my pay double. Doesn't mean it's right for a government to autocratically force it.

But why shouldn't a government autocratically force it? The wages aren't enough for these people to live on and the taxpayer ends up footing the bill because the company is too tight. Is that acceptable?

I think you're mistaking a straw man argument with someone attempting to make a point through the means of comic exaggeration, which is a fairly widely used device in debates.

Pr4wn wrote:I doubt your understanding of debate could be so under-developed as to not take note of Rowley's pointing out of your own hypocrisy in the paragraph above that. You don't support tax credits topping up wages yet you don't support a living wage either.

1. Did I say I didn't support a living wage?

2. Why does not supporting tax credits prejudice my views on NLW? Surely it is more likely that I'm a free market a-hole that simply thinks people pay what they're worth and if they don't like it they should do better. I don't think that tax payers should top up their wages by funding tax credits and, whilst this isn't my position, this would not contradict a view that I don't support a NLW being put in place. I do support the NLW policy, given how far it has gone, I just don't support it being raised to a level that is punitive on businesses.

Blame Blair's toadying to the business sector for Tax credits..Making us tax payers top up pay packets instead of making them pay a decent wage..

However big believer in fair pay..

Rowley wrote:I think you're mistaking a straw man argument with someone attempting to make a point through the means of comic exaggeration, which is a fairly widely used device in debates.

It was a preposterous analogy that failed to prove or support any form of point due to it's absurdity and, if there were even the tiniest element of seriousness, its myopia.

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Correction: It's called a national living wage. It isn't actually a national living wage. That much has been established.

Asking London businesses to pay regional living wages is perfectly reasonable, especially when compared to the status quo, which is "pay rubbish wages and let the taxpayer top you up so you can pay exorbitant bonuses to your exec".

It's feeble arguments like yours that were presented in the face of the first minimum wage proposals.

What? None of that post makes sense.

'London business'? Do you mean business with stores in London and the North should pay the same, London-level, wage at both stores? That's pathetic.

By London do you mean HQ? Or tax domiciled?? What about all the companies based in that little tax haven you call home and work? What 'living wage' should they pay?????

Apologies, it's been a long day and I'm exhausted.

Take BHS for example. Employees working in its London store should be paid a London living wage. Employees in its Leeds store should be paid a Leeds living wage. Wasn't anything to do with domicile. Please lay off the personal remarks.

Ok, I understand your point now.  To me that's just a "wouldn't it be nice if....." point. Yeh, it would. Be nice if they all paid double the living wage even.  Be nice if my mortgage was half or my pay double. Doesn't mean it's right for a government to autocratically force it.

But why shouldn't a government autocratically force it? The wages aren't enough for these people to live on and the taxpayer ends up footing the bill because the company is too tight. Is that acceptable?

If people want better wages, go out and earn them. Forcing synthetic changes through just screws everyone else, whether by forcing better earners to pay more tax to pay tax credits or by forcing the rest of society to take the burden of higher prices which businesses will pass on to recover the cost of unrealistically high wages. Which in turn creates price inflation which pushes the cost of living higher which reinstates that gap between wage levels and living costs which would need to be corrected through another hike in the 'NLW' and so on and so forth. Hello hyperinflation and economic ruin.

If we didn't have people doing blue collar jobs like serving in shops..

The Country would fall to its knees.

For heaven sake..

I'm a bit confused by what Toppy's argument is, exactly. Let's start with the IMO reasonable premise that the people who tend to be on the lower wages - baristas, cleaners, waiters, supermarket cashiers, etc. - are, while not completely indispensable (no one is, really), at least, vitally important to the national economy, and to people's everyday lives. It's nice to be able to grab a coffee on the go, to eat out occasionally, to have a clean office to work in, and to be able to buy food at the supermarket. If these jobs weren't filled by people, surely the country would have a serious problem? So, let's say these jobs do need to be filled. They thus need people to fill them. There are, as I see it, only three sensible options in such a case.

1) Businesses who employ these people pay them a living wage, that is, a wage which will cover their living costs.
2) Businesses who employ these people pay them less than they need to subsist on, and the state steps in to ensure they have enough to live off, through tax credits, benefits, etc.
3) Businesses pay a sub-living wage, and the state doesn't step in. Hence people have not enough money to actually live off.

Now unless I'm much mistaken Toppy is arguing against 1) on the usual (IMO spurrious) arguments that it will mean people lose their jobs, or prices are inflated, creating a vicious circle. These were the traditional business arguments against the minimum wage, and didn't come to pass, so it seems to me a not wholly convincing argument. Businesses don't employ people out of the kindness of their hearts, they do so because a job needs doing, so they need someone to do it. They also by and large set the prices at what they think the market will pay. Anyway, if that's what Toppy thinks he's perfectly entitled to his opinion.

But on previous threads he's also argued against tax credits, which rules out 2). So he must be arguing for 3)? i.e. that people who fulfill an important/necessary function in today's society and economy should not in fact have enough money to live with, which seems to me to be a completely absurd (and abhorrent - the idea that anyone should be thus abandonned in a society like today's Britain repels me) viewpoint...

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I'm a bit confused by what Toppy's argument is, exactly. Let's start with the IMO reasonable premise that the people who tend to be on the lower wages - baristas, cleaners, waiters, supermarket cashiers, etc. - are, while not completely indispensable (no one is, really), at least, vitally important to the national economy, and to people's everyday lives. It's nice to be able to grab a coffee on the go, to eat out occasionally, to have a clean office to work in, and to be able to buy food at the supermarket. If these jobs weren't filled by people, surely the country would have a serious problem? So, let's say these jobs do need to be filled. They thus need people to fill them. There are, as I see it, only three sensible options in such a case.

1) Businesses who employ these people pay them a living wage, that is, a wage which will cover their living costs.
2) Businesses who employ these people pay them less than they need to subsist on, and the state steps in to ensure they have enough to live off, through tax credits, benefits, etc.
3) Businesses pay a sub-living wage, and the state doesn't step in. Hence people have not enough money to actually live off.

Now unless I'm much mistaken Toppy is arguing against 1) on the usual (IMO spurrious) arguments that it will mean people lose their jobs, or prices are inflated, creating a vicious circle. These were the traditional business arguments against the minimum wage, and didn't come to pass, so it seems to me a not wholly convincing argument. Businesses don't employ people out of the kindness of their hearts, they do so because a job needs doing, so they need someone to do it. They also by and large set the prices at what they think the market will pay. Anyway, if that's what Toppy thinks he's perfectly entitled to his opinion.

But on previous threads he's also argued against tax credits, which rules out 2). So he must be arguing for 3)? i.e. that people who fulfill an important/necessary function in today's society and economy should not in fact have enough money to live with, which seems to me to be a completely absurd (and abhorrent - the idea that anyone should be thus abandonned in a society like today's Britain repels me) viewpoint...

Probably the best & fairest analysis of what I've written so far, to be fair, thank you.

I've probably got bogged down in arguing to much to be clear. In attempt to do so I'll say that my position is a (somewhat unhelpful) rough hybrid of 1) and 3).

I supported the minimum wage when it was brought in and I support this new NLW. Let that sink in a bit for the people that seem to keep missing it.

However I also caution that an actual living wage is hard to calculate and that, just because some spend irresponsibly and/or live/desire to live beyond their means, doesn't mean that ever higher NLWs should be forced upon businesses.

For example, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation sticks in £200 per month each for food and 'social/cultural participation' in its calculation, accounting for a shade under half its total. To me that's steep and I don't think a fair calculation of a financial burden businesses across the country should have to bear (especially as it will differ massively in Brighton versus Barrow).

Therefore a general NLW is something I support and something I would hope covers the absolute basics and essentials in life, but I don't think it should be recalibrated solely so people can spend more on other things.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Why should someone handing out coffees in Pret or hanging clothes in TopShop get a tenner an hour??

Thanks for the clarification that you're in favour of the living wage top hat. God only knows why anybody would have got the impression your position was ever anything to the contrary.

Rowley wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Why should someone handing out coffees in Pret or hanging clothes in TopShop get a tenner an hour??

Thanks for the clarification that you're in favour of the living wage top hat. God only knows why anybody would have got the impression your position was ever anything to the contrary.

That doesn't contradict what I said to MIC.

Happy for them to get the brought in NLW, what I disagree with is someone 'sexing up' the cost of living to justify an inflated wage (such as a tenner an hour) for menial work.

So what he's saying is that the NLW is fine for people living in poorer areas, but that poor people aren't allowed anywhere near London and London should not have shops or cleaners. Or, at least, cleaners and shop workers should not be allowed to live in or near the biggest city in the country.

You don't subscribe to Ayn Rand, do you Toppy?

I thought a London wage was fairly standard practice anyway?

Or is that just 'professional' jobs?

Scottrf wrote:I thought a London wage was fairly standard practice anyway?

Or is that just 'professional' jobs?

I believe it's up to the individual employer whether they pay it or not, the NHS does but under a different name and I believe the Met also pay it. I would imagine that private business would be less likely to pay it to those on a low income unless they are finding it hard to fill the role.

My old flatmate earned >£7.20 ph as a bog standard shop worker at Miss Selfridge by Oxford Circus. Lots already do get more in London (i.e. the market works fairly well) but there are some that don't (think non-domestic cleaners struggle).

Pr4wn wrote:So what he's saying is that the NLW is fine for people living in poorer areas, but that poor people aren't allowed anywhere near London and London should not have shops or cleaners. Or, at least, cleaners and shop workers should not be allowed to live in or near the biggest city in the country.

You don't subscribe to Ayn Rand, do you Toppy?

How do YOU calculatate the NLW, Prawn? I don't mean hypothetically and I don't mean 'you' as in 'one', I mean you personally. You seem so assured that you what is wrong and what, exactly, the right answer is. So how did you calculate the NLW and where does it sit according to your caculations.

Would it be so difficult to make it a Regional Living Wage? It seems straight forward enough to calculate cost of living across different countries, so why not regions, taking into account the cost of housing/rent, transport and other necessities. Cities within a region are likely to be more expensive but again surely that can be taken into account on a yearly basis?

TopHat24/7 wrote:My old flatmate earned >£7.20 ph as a bog standard shop worker at Miss Selfridge by Oxford Circus.  Lots already do get more in London (i.e. the market works fairly well) but there are some that don't (think non-domestic cleaners struggle).

And for as long as there are people being paid less than is required to live on it seems fairly self evident that the government needs to intervene. I would prefer it to be done through a living wage than tax credits personally, it softens the burden on other tax payers and also is less degrading for those on low income, better they can support themselves through their wages than relying on hand outs.

Not sure why it is so difficult for the government to come up with a different number for London as opposed to the rest of the country. The government acknowledges it is more expensive to live there in some of its own regulations. If an overseas national wants to study in the UK they have to show they have sufficient funds to support themselves through the duration of their studies. Should your university be located within certain post codes (London and surrounding areas) the amount you are obliged to hold is greater than students applying for places outside of the capital. If they can introduce such a policy in this instance there is no practical reason a similar measure cannot be introduced in a Living Wage. If they can calculate what a student needs to live on in London it does not take too much of a leap in imagination to assume an hourly rate of pay which is sufficient for people to live on can be calculated.

Rowley wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:My old flatmate earned >£7.20 ph as a bog standard shop worker at Miss Selfridge by Oxford Circus.  Lots already do get more in London (i.e. the market works fairly well) but there are some that don't (think non-domestic cleaners struggle).

And for as long as there are people being paid less than is required to live on it seems fairly self evident that the government needs to intervene. I would prefer it to be done through a living wage than tax credits personally, it softens the burden on other tax payers and also is less degrading for those on low income, better they can support themselves through their wages than relying on hand outs.

How do you know what this level is though, since you're so confident £7.20 ph doesn't cover it? How have you calculated your NLW??

I agree with you ref preferring wage legislation to tax credits for the reasons you mention.

When have I said 7.20 does not cover it? What I would say is it is considerably more expensive to live in London than say Rotherham, where I live. Given this it would seem fairly obvious one of two things apply. Either those receiving 7.20 in Rotherham are living lives some way beyond merely getting by, or those receiving it in London are struggling. I'm reasonably confident its not the former, as that is not supported by what I see every day. That kind of suggests it is probably the latter. Surely stripping aside political leanings or the like this is just basic maths and logic?

A one bed in Rotherham costs 300 a month to rent. Take home off £7.20 is 13k, leaving £9,400. Food of £25 a week is sufficient to live, leaving £8,100 for bills. Should be enough.

In that case you're not really suggesting a solution, are you?

You have deduced (by not unreasonable means) that the NLW is too low for London therefore where do you think it should sit?

Also, 'what you see every day' doesn't reflect someone earning the NLW on a full time basis (which is how it is intended). It will reflect the unemployed and those in only part time work.

Based on the Joseph Rowntree Foundation analysis, I'd say £7.20 ph is more than ample in somewhere like Rotherham for example (based on average full time working hours). For London I came out at a wage of £8 ph.

Scottrf wrote:A one bed in Rotherham costs 300 a month to rent. Take home off £7.20 is 13k, leaving £9,400. Food of £25 a week is sufficient to live, leaving £8,100 for bills. Should be enough.

Based on JRF cost of living estimates (which excl rent) and your rent assumptions above, the adjusted NLW for Rotherham would be £6.80 ph.


Let's also remember that a lot of people at the NLW threshold won't be in the private rented market (which is why JRF excludes the cost). As an example I valued a legacy council flat for a housing association a few years back - located in Chelsea in one of the most exclusive areas of London, the residents were paying £90 pw for the entire 2 bed flat. I was paying £125 pw for my room in a shared house in Kilburn at the same time....