Low Pay Commission Presentation to OECD

15 December 2015Richard Dickens (Commissioner) and

Tim Butcher (Chief Economist)

The Low Pay Commission and Implications of the National Living

Wage

2

Overview1. Low Pay Commission and National Minimum Wage

• The LPC: What is it? What does it do?• The NMW: What is it? How is it set?

2. Impact of the NMW • What it says?• What it means for the LPC?

3. The New Remit in the Summer Budget 2015

• The National Living Wage• What it says?• What it means for the LPC?

4. Impacts • Bite• Coverage• International comparisons

5. Conclusion • Summary

The Low Pay Commission and the National Minimum Wage

4

Low Pay Commission• Set up in 1997 to define the National Minimum

Wage and recommend its introductory level.

• Independent advisory Non-Departmental Public

Body (National Minimum Wage Act in 1998).

• No specific aim/objective under the NMW Act 1998,

but given specific remit by Government each year.

• Independent of Government

• Social Partnership – 9 Commissioners

– Balance - 3 independents, 3 with employer experience and

3 with union experience

– Appointed as individuals (NOT MANDATED) through

advertised public appointments process

– All Commissioners have equal vote

– To date, always unanimously agreed recommendations• Small secretariat (Analysis, Policy and Admin)

5

Independents

Employee representative background

Employer representative background

David Norgrove, Chair Professor Richard Dickens, University of Sussex

Professor Sarah Brown, University of Sheffield

Kay Carberry, Assistant General Secretary, TUC

John Hannett, General Secretary, Usdaw

Brian Strutton, GMB National Secretary

Neil Carberry, Director of Employment and Skills, CBI

Peter Donaldson, Managing Director, D5 Consulting Ltd

Clare Chapman, non-executive director and Remuneration Committee Chair at Kingfisher PLC

6

What is the National Minimum Wage?• It is a WAGE FLOOR NOT A ‘LIVING WAGE’• It is NATIONAL (the same across England, Scotland,

Wales and Northern Ireland)• No differences by industry, occupation or firm size• It is HOURLY (with special arrangements for piece

rates)• It is CASH (benefits-in-kind except accommodation

offset do not count)• It is SIMPLE (just four rates)• It does vary by AGE (and apprenticeship)• It is COMPREHENSIVE – it covers nearly all workers and

types of contract, with few exemptions

Recommending the Rate

8

The National Minimum Wage (NMW) was intended to raise pay and tackle exploitation

…without any significant

adverse impact on

employment

To help as many low paid

workers as possible…

• No formal aim in the NMW Act but:intended both to raise pay and

to prevent exploitation. Take the NMW out of politics

and build consensus

• The level is determined by affordability, not need.

9

Finding the right level• When the NMW was introduced the two most major concerns

were that it would lead to: – Job loss– Wage inflation (which would fuel price inflation)

• “…coming up with a minimum wage that will not seriously harm the economy, and destroy jobs, will require the wisdom of Solomon – or extraordinary luck.”

The Economist (5 June 1997)• The NMW should:

– support a competitive economy– be set at a prudent level– Be simple and straightforward– Make a difference

Low Pay Commission First Report (1998)9

10

Evidence-based• Evidence-based judgement not a formula

– The impact so far– State of the economy– Prospects for the economy– Stakeholder views– Impact of other Government legislation

• Evidence gathering– In-house analysis– Commissioned and independent research– Formal consultation (Written and Oral evidence)– Visits around the UK– Secretariat meetings with stakeholders– International developments

11

Phases of the NMW“We have taken a prudent approach in

choosing the initial rate, to find the balance between improving low pay and avoiding damage to efficient businesses and employment opportunities” George

Bain, the Chair of the LPC (1998)

Initial caution, 1999-2000

“…we believe that there is a case for increasing the effective rate of the minimum wage, implying a series of increases for a number of years above average earnings…” Fourth Report (2003)

Above average earnings growth increases, 2001-6

“we have no presumption that further increases above average earnings are required” LPC 2006 Reportagain little evidence of employment effects up to 2013 but awaiting further evidence of the impact of recession

Caution again in uncertain times, 2007-13

“a move towards restoring the real value of the NMW” LPC 2014 Report

A new phase? 2014 - 16

The

NM

W h

as b

een

char

acte

rised

by

a fle

xibl

e ap

proa

ch

12

Between 1999 and 2015, the adult NMW has grown faster than average earnings and price inflation

Source: LPC estimates based on ONS data, AEI including bonuses (LNMQ), 1999, AWE total pay (KAB9), 2000-2015, RPI (CHAW), 1999-2015, and CPI (D7BT), 1999-2015, monthly; and GDP (YBHA), 1999-2015, quarterly, seasonally adjusted (AWE, AEI and GDP only), UK (GB for AWE and AEI).

3.50

3.75

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6.25

6.50

6.75

7.00

7.25

3.50

3.75

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

6.25

6.50

6.75

7.00

7.25

199

9 A

pril

199

9 O

cto

ber

200

0 A

pril

200

0 O

cto

ber

200

1 A

pril

200

1 O

cto

ber

200

2 A

pril

200

2 O

cto

ber

200

3 A

pril

200

3 O

cto

ber

200

4 A

pril

200

4 O

cto

ber

200

5 A

pril

200

5 O

cto

ber

200

6 A

pril

200

6 O

cto

ber

200

7 A

pril

200

7 O

cto

ber

200

8 A

pril

200

8 O

cto

ber

200

9 A

pril

200

9 O

cto

ber

201

0 A

pril

201

0 O

cto

ber

201

1 A

pril

201

1 O

cto

ber

201

2 A

pril

201

2 O

cto

ber

201

3 A

pril

201

3 O

cto

ber

201

4 A

pril

201

4 O

cto

ber

201

5 A

pril

201

5 O

cto

berUp

rate

d v

alu

e o

f N

atio

na

l Min

imu

m W

age

(£

pe

r h

ou

r)

Month

Total AWE CPI RPI GDP Adult NMW

66.3%

86.1%

57.1%

39.0%

£5.99

£5.65

£7.1498.4%

£6.70

£5.00

13

Thus, the bite at 54.5% is its highest ever

Source: LPC estimates based on ASHE without supplementary information, April 1999-2004; ASHE with supplementary information, April 2004-2006; ASHE 2007 methodology, April 2006-2011; and ASHE 2010 methodology, April 2011-2015, standard weights, UK.Note: 21 year olds became entitled to the adult rate in October 2010.

40

50

60

70

80

90

40

50

60

70

80

90

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Bite

of a

pp

lica

ble

min

imu

m w

age

at m

ed

ian

ea

rnin

gs (

pe

r ce

nt)

April of each year

21-24 18-20 25+ 21+

76.9

18-20

54.5

78.9

52.5

44.7

46.2

68.5

62.1

21-24

21+

25+

14

… and across all sizes of firm and the economy

67.2

60.1

54.9

49.8

53.2

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1

201

2

201

3

201

4NM

W a

s a

pro

po

rtio

n o

f me

dia

n e

arn

ings

fo

r th

ose

age

d 2

2 a

nd

ove

r (p

er

cen

t)

April of each year

Micro Other small Medium Large All

Low-paying Sector 1999 2008 2010 2012 2013 2014

Cleaning 81.9 90.1 89.3 93.5 92.5 92.7

Hospitality 78.6 85.3 85.4 86.9 88.1 88.1

Hairdressing 83.5 80.4 83.2 85.8 84.4 85.3

Childcare 69.6 80.9 82.8 84.2 83.5

Retail 69.5 76.7 76.6 79.5 78.1 79.4

Social care 60.8 72.2 73.8 76.8 78.4 78.7

Agriculture 67.5 71.7 71.5 75.1 71.8 72.9

Textiles 62.1 69.9 71.3 71.7 71.0 71.0

Leisure 59.3 66.8 67.4 69.5 70.8 71.0

Employment agencies 67.7 68.4 68.0 68.1 70.9

Food processing 55.6 65.2 68.0 70.4 68.4 70.0

Low-paying sectors 67.5 75.5 76.6 79.4 78.9 79.7

Non low-paying sectors 42.2 45.6 45.2 46.0 45.9 46.2

Total 47.1 51.2 51.4 52.8 52.5 53.2

Source: LPC estimates based on ASHE without supplementary information, April 1999-2004; ASHE with supplementary information, April 2004-2006; ASHE 2007 methodology, April 2006-2011; and ASHE 2010 methodology, April 2011-2014, standard weights, UK.Note: 22 year olds +, adult rates, in April of each year.

15

5th 10th 25th Median

(50th)70th 90th

1975-79 13.5 14.3 12.9 13.3 13.4 13.6 13.9

1979-82 15.5 13.6 13.7 14.3 15.2 16.3 17.1

1982-89 7.7 6.8 6.8 7.1 7.7 8.1 8.7

1989-92 8.5 7.5 8 8.2 8.3 9 9.5

1992-97 3.2 2.4 2.7 2.8 3.3 3.6 3.7

1997-04 4.1 4.9 4.2 3.5 3.5 3.6 4.2

2004-08 3.7 4.4 3.9 3.9 3.6 3.4 3.4

2008-11 2.2 2.4 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0

2011-14 1.0 1.9 1.9 1.4 1.5 1.2 0.6

Annual hourly wage growth (%)

Mean

Percentile

Indeed, the low paid have fared much better than in previous recessions and recoveries

Source: LPC estimates based on NES and ASHE, UK, 1975-2014.

1970s Incomes policy NMW

16

Little impact on employment to date• In general, the lowest paid (on the minimum wage) have

had higher wage increases than those at the median• The minimum wage has covered about 1 million workers (4-

5%) every year• The bite, its value relative to the median is about 54%• Little evidence of any adverse impact on employment of

individuals or on employment levels in the lowest-paid areas, although there is some weak evidence of slower growth rates in those areas

• Evidence suggests that some of the additional wage costs may have been absorbed with a small reduction in hours worked, a small increase in prices to consumers and a squeeze on profits, however, this has not led to an increase in business failure.

• Non-wage costs may also have been cut and pay structures adjusted.

17

Business had adapted reasonably well

• Evidence shows modest negative responses by business, outweighed by benefits

• Some evidence NMW has spurred increases in productivity.

Nine ways businesses can respond to a higher minimum wage

• Fewer jobs: make redundancies or forego hiring

• Fewer hours, less secure contracts

• Squeeze benefits

• Squeeze differentials (and career ladders)

• Increase prices

• Reduce profit

• Substitute younger staff on the age-related NMW rates

• Raise productivity by training, investment or reorganisation

• Non-compliance

18

Even The Economist appeared comfortable with minimum wages

“Evidence is mounting that moderate minimum wages can do more good than harm.”

“Bastions of orthodoxy, such as the OECD, a rich-country think tank, and the International Monetary Fund now assert that a moderate minimum wage does not do much harm and may do some good. Their definition of moderate is 30-40% of the median wage. Britain's experience suggests it might even be a bit higher. The success of the Low Pay Commission points to the importance of technocrats rather than politicians setting wage floors.”

The Economist (24 November 2012)

19

BUT since October 2007, the real value of the NMW has fallen. However, its relative value has increased

Source: LPC estimates based on ONS data, AEI including bonuses (LNMQ), 1999, AWE total pay (KAB9), 2000-2013, RPI (CHAW), 1999-2013, and CPI (D7BT), 1999-2013, monthly; and GDP (YBHA), 1999-2013, quarterly, seasonally adjusted (AWE, AEI and GDP only), UK (GB for AWE and AEI).

5.30

5.40

5.50

5.60

5.70

5.80

5.90

6.00

6.10

6.20

6.30

6.40

6.50

6.60

6.70

6.80

6.90

5.30

5.40

5.50

5.60

5.70

5.80

5.90

6.00

6.10

6.20

6.30

6.40

6.50

6.60

6.70

6.80

6.90

200

7 O

cto

ber

200

8 J

an

uary

200

8 A

pril

200

8 J

uly

200

8 O

cto

ber

200

9 J

an

uary

200

9 A

pril

200

9 J

uly

200

9 O

cto

ber

201

0 J

an

uary

201

0 A

pril

201

0 J

uly

201

0 O

cto

ber

201

1 J

an

uary

201

1 A

pril

201

1 J

uly

201

1 O

cto

ber

201

2 J

an

uary

201

2 A

pril

201

2 J

uly

201

2 O

cto

ber

201

3 J

an

uary

201

3 A

pril

201

3 J

uly

201

3 O

cto

ber

201

4 J

an

uary

201

4 A

pril

201

4 J

uly

201

4 O

cto

ber

Up

rate

d v

alu

e o

f N

atio

na

l Min

imu

m W

age

(£

pe

r h

ou

r)

Month

Total AWE CPI RPI GDP Adult NMW

22.0%

23.4%

12.6%

17.8%

£6.74

£6.81

£6.21

£6.63

20.1%

The National Living Wage

21

Summer Budget 2015• The Government introduced a National Living Wage (NLW),

a higher minimum wage, for workers aged 25 and over.• The Government set the NLW at 50p above the NMW,

effective from April 2016, making the NLW £7.20 an hour for those aged 25 and over

• From April 2017, in addition to setting the main NMW, the LPC was tasked with recommending a yearly profile that takes the hourly NLW applying to those aged 25 and over to 60 per cent of the median hourly earnings of that group by April 2020.

• The NMW of £6.70 an hour will continue to apply to 21-24 year olds

• The main NMW will continue to be set for those aged 21 and over

22

Implications • A surprise (the LPC was not consulted)• Political decision to accept trade-off against jobs• Faster gains for the low paid – aimed to tackle long-

standing UK problem: low wage and low productivity• Political risks – the NMW process was widely accepted• Businesses will adjust but adjustment will differ by

sector, geography and size of firm• Success will depend on growth and productivity and

response in pressured sectors• New role of Low Pay Commission (LPC)

23

A New Role for the LPC

1. To calculate rate of NLW & advise on path “subject to sustained economic growth”

2. To recommend youth, adult and apprentice NMW rates

Four main sorts of evidence:

1. Analysis of pay, labour market, competitiveness

2. Evidence from stakeholders and experts;

3. Visits programme across UK;

4. Academic research on the impact of past NMW increases.

24

Future structureFrom April 2016National Living Wage (25+)

£7.20 – 55% ‘bite’ (2020 target of 60% bite - >£9)

Adult rate (21-24s) £6.70

18-20 Year Old Rate £5.30

16-17 Year Old Rate £3.87

Apprentice Rate £3.30

• A bite (not cash) target, and tolerance of employment risk

• 60,000 job losses (20,000-110,000) versus 1.1 million created by 2020 (OBR).

• In effect a formula, calculated by LPC, and ‘subject to sustained economic growth’.

So what will it mean?

Impact of the National Living Wage

26

National Living Wage• Set initially at £7.20 in 2016• This is an increase of 7.5% on the NMW but it

is an increase of 10.8% on September 2015• Chancellor has tasked the LPC to make

recommendations on the path to a target of 60% of median earnings by 2020. When announced in July, that implied a NLW of £9.35 (a further increase of nearly 30% over 4 years – a period when average wages are only expected to rise by around 21%)

Increase in bite to 2020 as big as increase since 1999

44.0

46.0

48.0

50.0

52.0

54.0

56.0

58.0

60.0

62.0

44.0

46.0

48.0

50.0

52.0

54.0

56.0

58.0

60.0

62.0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

April October Mid-year

Source: ASHE 2014 Final and 2015 Provisional. OBR Supplementary Economic Tables, July 2015 and November 2015.

28

Significant Increase in Bite

• Bite increases from 52.5% in 2015 to 55.1% in 2016 and 60.0% in 2020

• By 2020, bite expected to be much higher in:– Small and micro firms (up to 76%)– Low-paying sectors (reaching 100% in cleaning,

hospitality and retail)– Some regions (over 67 per cent in N. Ireland,

Wales, Yorkshire & Humberside, and Eat Midlands)

29

Large increase in coverage

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

(exc

sup

p inf

o)

2004

(inc

sup

p inf

o)20

05

2006

(inc

sup

p inf

o)

2006

(07

met

hodo

logy)

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

(SOC 2

000)

2011

(SOC 2

010)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

April each year

Nu

mb

er o

f w

ork

ers

pai

d a

t o

r b

elo

w

thei

r ap

pli

cab

le

NM

W/N

LW

ra

te (

5p b

and

)

30

Significant Increases in Coverage• Coverage increases from 1 million in 2015 to

1.8 million in 2016 and 3.7 million in 2020• That is an increase from around 5% to around

15% of all UK employees aged 25 and over• By 2020, coverage expected to be much

higher in:– Small and micro firms (up to around 25%)– Private sector (up from 7% to 19%)– Public sector (up from <1% to 5%)

31

Difficulties making international comparisons

• Definition of wage– Hourly, daily, monthly, annual– Assumptions required about hours to get hourly

comparisons• Different age coverage• Availability and reliability of earnings data• Exchange rates and purchasing power parity• Take-home pay or gross pay• It is difficult to account for age structure, hours

and data source differences

32

NLW doesn’t raise the UK position by much for full-time employees

Source: OECD. MW as percentage of full-time earnings, averaged over 2014. LPC estimates of UK 2016 and 2020 using OBR forecasts and OECD methodology.

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

United States

Czech Republic

Mexico

Japan

Spain

Estonia

Ireland

Canada

Korea

Greece

Slovak Republic

Netherlands

United Kingdom

2014

Lithuania

UK 2016 25 and over

Poland

Belgium

Latvia

UK 2016 21 and over

UK 2020 25 and over

Romania

Australia

Hungary

UK 2020 21 and over

Israel

Luxembourg

Portugal

New

Zealand

Slovenia

France

Chile

Turkey

33

However, if we use the real hourly minimum wage in £PPP, then NLW will take UK to near the top

Source: OECD. Real Hourly MW in £UK, Purchasing Power Parity, averaged over 2014.Note: OECD used $US. Low Pay Commission calculations using £UK. Forecasts to 2020 use OBR forecasts of CPI.

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

Mexico

Chile

Estonia

Slovak Republic

Czech Republic

Hungary

Portugal

Greece

Poland

Turkey

Spain

Israel

Korea

Japan

United States

Slovenia

Canada

United Kingdom

New

Zealand

United Kingdom

2016

Ireland

Netherlands

Belgium

Australia

France

United Kingdom

2020

Luxembourg

34

Making allowances for age and hours structures, the UK’s bite increases but will

may remain below France and New Zealand

Source: LPC estimates using hourly wages for all employees from country data sets.Notes: UK: using ASHE 2014 and OBR forecasts; France: using DADS 2012; Australia using HLDA 2014; and New Zealand using NZIS 2014.

Bite 21-24 15+ 21+ 25+New Zealand 2014 82.6 64.8 62.0 59.7France 2012 61.3 63.5 63.0 61.3Australia 2014 59.2 57.4UK 2014 78.9 56.0 53.9 51.8UK 2014 - OECD 79.5 56.5 54.3 52.2UK 2016 85.3 60.6 58.3 56.0UK 2016 - OECD 83.9 59.6 57.3 55.1UK 2020 91.5 65.0 62.5 60.0UK 2020 - OECD 89.6 63.7 61.2 58.8

35

AND minimum wage coverage in UK (already relatively high) is set to become the highest (under OECD definition)

Source: OECD and various country surveys. Notes: The number of minimum-wage earners cannot usually be established with certainty and can vary between data sources and studies. Counts of minimum-wage earners are commonly based on survey data, which are affected by measurement error, both in earnings and in working hours. It is therefore common to include those with wages below the minimum and slightly above it. Data sources and approaches differ however. Results reported are from the EU Structure of Earnings Survey (SES) and refer to those earning less than 105% of the legal minimum applicable to each worker’s age group. Importantly, SES data exclude workers in small firms with fewer than 10 employees. As minimum-wage workers tend to be overrepresented in small firms, shares can often be higher than reported when small firms are included. * “Country-specific” results are from a range of sources as specified below and generally include employees in smaller firms, but may not include workers paid less than the minimum. Results for Colombia refer to the formal sector only. UK for 2014, 2016 and 2020 uses ASHE and OBR forecasts.

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

Spain

Belgium

Greece

Japan*

New

Zealand*

Slovak Republic

Portugal

Czech Republic

Australia

United States*

Hungary

Estonia

Netherlands*

Canada*

Poland

France

United Kingdom

2010

United Kingdom

2014

Luxembourg

United Kingdom

2016

Latvia

Korea*

United Kingdom

2020

36

Overall: the LPC and NMW a success story?• In general, the lowest paid (on the minimum wage) have had

higher wage increases than those at the median• The minimum wage has covered about 1 million workers every

year (4-5% of all workers)• The bite, its value relative to the median is now about 53%• Since its introduction, the adult rate of the NMW has increased

faster than average earnings growth or price inflation• Little evidence of any adverse impact on employment of

individuals or on employment levels in the lowest-paid areas• Evidence suggests that some of the additional wage costs may

have been absorbed with a small reduction in hours worked, a small increase in prices to consumers and a squeeze on profits, however, this has not led to an increase in business failure.

• Non-wage costs may also have been cut and pay structures adjusted.

• Weathered recession and change of government• But now has to cope with National Living Wage