"More than 300,000 people working for employers who have voluntarily signed up to the Real Living Wage are getting a pay boost of 40p to £9.90 an hour."
"This is not to be confused with the compulsory National Living Wage, which is currently £8.91 an hour for anyone over the age of 23.
Real Living Wage employers in London will pay £11.05 an hour, a 20p rise.
Almost 9,000 employers throughout the country have signed up to the policy - 3,000 of them during the pandemic."
Increases in hourly rates of pay can only help people living in today’s expensive towns and cities. However, why are there two differing hourly wage rates and this is even more divided by having age bands? Surely it costs the same for any person to live and pay their way. An 18-year-old needs the same income as a 23-year-old to do this so why does everything have to be made so complicated?
Are you in favour of these differing hourly rates of pay and ages, or should they all be the same?
Baz, I agree with differing wages for different parts of the country…I suppose reluctantly. London, as we all know, has higher living costs than elsewhere. However I do not agree with the age difference…as you point out, an 18 year old’s bill is the same, probably, as a 23 years old so I don’t understand that bit.
Those working in London often have an additional pay allowance called ‘London Weighting’, as it costs more to live and work there. Not sure which sectors this applies to, other than police and probably similar kinds of occupations. Some while ago this used to be as much as £4,000 a year additional to what are usually better rates of pay in London anyway. That is often why people commute to London for work, although with the cost of train fares and the hours spent travelling I often wonder if it’s worth it.
