| Age/group | Previous hourly rate | New hourly rate |
| National Living Wage (25+) | £7.20 | £7.20 |
| 21-24 year olds | £6.70 | £6.95 |
| 18-20 year olds | £5.30 | £5.55 |
| 16-17 year olds | £3.87 | £4.00 |
| Apprentices | £3.30 | £3.40 |
On Saturday (1 October), the minimum wages for workers under 25 go up, with hourly pay for 21-24 year olds rising by 3.7 per cent and hourly pay for 18-20 years rising by 4.5 per cent. The new rates are the highest ever for these groups of minimum wage workers in real terms, surpassing their pre-recession peaks.
But why do younger workers not enjoy the same pay rate as those aged 25 and over, who are entitled to receive the National Living Wage?
Even before the introduction of the NLW the LPC faced a variant of these questions, with workers aged 20 and younger being entitled to lower rates than those aged 21 and above. The creation of a new rate for 25 and overs from April this year effectively created a further age band for 21-24 year olds.
The basic reason for lower minimum wages for younger workers is to protect employment. The existing age structure of the minimum wage was designed by the Government in light of evidence that younger workers are more at risk of being priced out of jobs than older workers, with worse consequences if they end up unemployed.
Under the LPC’s remit we face different requirements for workers of different ages. For those over 25, we are required to advise on the pace of increase of the National Living Wage (NLW), such that it meets the government’s ambition of reaching 60 per cent of median earnings by 2020, subject to sustained economic growth. For workers under 25 and apprentices, we are required to recommend rates that will not damage employment. So, in determining our recommendations for the relative value of the rates for younger workers, we have to consider what is affordable, based on labour market evidence.
Research has shown that youth unemployment has scarring effects, with a wage penalty for early spells out the labour market apparent in reduced earnings into people’s 40s.
It also reflects the reality that average wages of younger workers are sharply lower than those of older workers, perhaps a consequence of lower average experience, higher training costs or a weaker bargaining position.
Looking at 21-24 year olds:
• Unemployment for 21-24 year olds not in full-time education is twice as high as for 25-30 year olds.
• Median pay is much lower - £8.26 an hour for this group in 2015 compared with £11.01 for 25-30 year olds - likely reflecting lower average experience.
• A leading indicator of possible stress in employment arising from the minimum wage is its value relative to median wages, or ‘bite’. Lower median pay for 21-24 year olds means that the bite is much higher for 21-24 year olds than for older workers. Indeed, it was already (at £6.70, the minimum wage until today) the highest of any age group at nearly 79 per cent (compare the government’s target for workers aged 25 and over of 60 per cent by 2020).
In light of this evidence we concluded when thinking about the pay floor for this age group that it could not currently be set to the same level as the NLW without risks to employment. Doing so would mean very large increases in the bite and coverage of the rate, with the latter rising by half immediately and tripling by 2020. Under the approach we have taken, employers are of course still free to extend the NLW to younger workers and, in practice, many appear to be doing so.
Looking ahead, in the absence of changes in relative performance, the pay floor for younger workers may well increase less rapidly than that of workers aged 25 and over towards 2020. However, we have previously said that we also intend to take into account concerns that - if too large a gap opens between the pay floor for different ages - this will also cause problems (for example, disincentives to hire or retain employees near the boundary and substitution by younger workers).
This balance is reflected in today’s increase for 21-24 year olds: 3.7 per cent to £6.95 an hour means that the real value of the minimum wage for this group will be at its highest ever level. The increase for 18-20s is also significant, with 16-17s getting slightly lower rises in view of weaker employment and pay growth.
As we have said before, none of this means that the LPC is relaxed about the pay of younger workers. Quite the opposite – high bites of the 21-24 Year Old Rate (and the other rates for workers aged 20 and under) emphasise our concern to push the level as far as the market can bear. We have previously committed to larger increases for younger workers than for adults when economic circumstances permit. But younger workers are a litmus test for the minimum wage: as required by our remit, we will continue to seek to strike a balance.
3 comments
Comment by Iona Henderson posted on
I believe this is a very conflicting topic that is not always fully analysed or thought throw as I read this I was wondering why they thought the age was the reason why young adults were not getting full living wage. I bileve throw reading this it was because young people would be less likely to get jobs however I do not believe this as I have noticed throw working and seeing people get hired it is more the experience than they age and I feel young people are sometimes more exploited for the work they do and the amount they get paid I have had to deal which a situation were someone older than me felt they had authority over me while we were both doing the same job but she then said I get paid this because I do this which I found very insulting and disrespectful. I think no matter the age you are if you have to live on your own and do the same job as someone you could get the same pay as everyone else .
Sorry for the rant I believe equal pay is important for age and sex and discrimination is real and this helps it carry on.
Comment by Alex Taylor posted on
I have worked 4 years working 45 hours a week but because im only 21 I cant be paid the same rate as my 25 year old colluges who have less experience than me.
Despite this I have the same bills and tax because I am independently living? You make wage slaves out of the young so they can be exploited as cheap labour, the worst part is if you start working young you have longer to wait before you are paid more than somoone who never worked till they were 25.
These excuses for low wages for younger people are pathetic as adults with adult taxes and adult lives and adult houses and adult familys should all 18+ year olds not be paid the same?
You make it legal to pay young people less then wonder why young people wont move out of their parents houses on pitiful wages and why they wont have children when they can hardly afford to feed themselves.
Your stunting generational growth because you are afraid companies wont hire them?
Insentivise the companies.
Dont punish your young working class.
Comment by Steven Clapham posted on
I was a ward of court from age 2 to 18. At 18 no longer a ward of court I am thrown into the world to defend for myself. With that being said, having to work, rent a home and pay bills, why should I have been payed half that of someone doing exact same job because he or she is 7 years older? Do I get to pay half the rent, the gas, the electric or do I get to pay half for my clothing and food. Can I use my age as an excuse to get half price on goods?
No, I get to pay the exact same price as someone 25 yet under the UK's slave laws it is legal for companies to pay a wage I could not live on.
Companies exploit the apprentice system, I knew of one that replaced apprentices every year. Not because the apprentice had qualified, it was cheap labor under the U.K. slave labor laws and they were taking advantage of it.
Morrisons, Sainsbury, Tesco in fact all night street store exploit the system. They would rather pay for two school leavers on a wage they can't live on rather than employ someone on a living wage.
I am shocked no one has challenged this 4 tier minimum wage system under European laws on equal rights and age discrimination.