Sources · A much higher minimum wage
This house would significantly raise the minimum wage.
Fact bank v1 · 16 cards
- MW-01True
“In the UK, the National Living Wage rose to £12.71 an hour in April 2026 for workers aged 21 and over.”
Confirmed: the NLW rose by 4.1% to £12.71 on 1 April 2026.
The NLW is the statutory minimum for workers aged 21+, set on Low Pay Commission advice, with two-thirds of median hourly earnings as the reference point. In April 2026 the 18-20 rate became £10.85 and the 16-17 and apprentice rates £8.00.
“The NLW rises by 4.1 per cent in April 2026 to £12.71.”
Low Pay Commission (GOV.UK)·The National Minimum Wage in 2026Government / parliament · 1 Apr 2026 ↗ - MW-02True
“When the UK brought in the minimum wage in 1999, critics said it would destroy jobs, but employment went on to hit record highs.”
Confirmed: the Low Pay Commission's 20-year review found no strong evidence of job losses from the minimum wage, and employment rates reached record levels.
The minimum wage started on 1 April 1999 at £3.60 an hour for workers aged 22+. By 2019 the LPC had commissioned more than 30 studies on jobs and hours. Some found small falls in hours, but the results were not consistent. Record employment does not by itself prove the minimum wage had no effect.
“rather than destroy jobs, as was originally predicted, we now have record employment rates”
Low Pay Commission (GOV.UK)·20 years of the National Minimum Wage: A history of the UK minimum wage and its effectsGovernment / parliament · 1 Apr 2019 ↗ - MW-03True
“The UK's Low Pay Commission says recent National Living Wage increases have not significantly harmed employment.”
Confirmed: the LPC's 2025 report judged that recent NLW increases had no significant negative impact on employment.
The same report says that between 2016 and 2025 the real weekly pay of NLW earners rose 20%, against 4% for the median job, and that the NLW's bite reached a record high. It also warns that the April 2025 rise coincided with higher employer National Insurance, which makes effects harder to separate.
“Considering all the evidence, our judgement is that recent NLW increases have not had a significant negative impact on employment.”
Low Pay Commission (GOV.UK)·Low Pay Commission Report 2025Government / parliament · 18 Mar 2026 ↗ - MW-04True
“IFS research found the National Living Wage's introduction and early rises had no statistically significant effect on employment.”
Confirmed: for the 2016-2019 upratings, the IFS central estimate was a 0.1% fall in employment per uprating, with a 95% confidence interval of -0.4% to +0.2%. This was not statistically significant.
The study compared low-wage and high-wage regions of the UK. It found large wage gains and spillovers up to about the 20th percentile. It also found some borderline-significant evidence of a larger negative effect on women's employment, of about -0.44%.
“any impacts on employment of the introduction of the NLW and its upratings were small, and not statistically significantly different from zero”
Institute for Fiscal Studies·The impact of the National Living Wage on wages, employment and household incomes (IFS Report Summary)Independent research institute · 1 Dec 2021 ↗ - MW-05True
“A major US study of 138 state minimum wage rises found that the number of low-wage jobs was essentially unchanged five years later.”
Confirmed: Cengiz, Dube, Lindner and Zipperer studied 138 state-level increases between 1979 and 2016 and found no change in the overall number of low-wage jobs over five years.
The study is a bunching analysis published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics (2019). Jobs paying below the new minimum disappeared and were matched by new jobs at or just above it. The authors did find some reduced employment in tradable sectors.
“We find that the overall number of low-wage jobs remained essentially unchanged over five years following the increase.”
National Bureau of Economic Research·The Effect of Minimum Wages on Low-Wage Jobs: Evidence from the United States Using a Bunching Estimator (NBER Working Paper 25434)Independent research institute · 1 Jan 2019 ↗ - MW-06True
“In the UK, the share of low-paid jobs has fallen to its lowest level on record.”
Confirmed: 2.5% of employee jobs were low-paid in April 2025, down from 3.4% in 2024 and the lowest since the series began in 1997.
The ONS defines low pay as below two-thirds of median hourly earnings, which was £11.97 in April 2025. The NLW for workers aged 21 and over (£12.21 then) was above that threshold. Low pay was most concentrated among employees aged 16 to 21, part-time jobs and hospitality. The figures cover jobs paid at adult rates, which excludes trainee and junior rates, and the 2025 estimates are provisional.
“The proportion of low-paid employee jobs fell to 2.5% in April 2025 from 3.4% in 2024, the lowest since the series began in 1997”
Office for National Statistics·Low and high pay in the UK: 2025Official statistics · 23 Oct 2025 ↗ - MW-07True
“The OBR forecast that the National Living Wage would cost around 60,000 jobs.”
Confirmed: in November 2015 the OBR estimated that unemployment would be around 60,000 higher than without the NLW.
This was a forecast built on an assumed response of hours worked to higher labour costs, split between fewer jobs and shorter hours. It was not a measured outcome. Later LPC and IFS evaluations found no statistically significant employment loss from the NLW.
“unemployment would be around 60,000 higher than in the absence of the NLW”
Office for Budget Responsibility·The effects of the National Living Wage (Economic and fiscal outlook, November 2015, Box 3.2)Government / parliament · 1 Nov 2015 ↗ - MW-08Mostly true
“The OBR estimated that raising the National Living Wage to two-thirds of median earnings would push unemployment up by about 140,000.”
The OBR gave this figure in October 2018, but when the two-thirds target was adopted in March 2020 it cut its estimate to a rise in unemployment of around 50,000 by 2024.
In October 2018 the OBR illustrated that a two-thirds NLW could raise unemployment by 0.4 percentage points, about 140,000 people, plus a similar cut in hours. In March 2020, citing limited evidence that past rises had significantly affected employment, it lowered its assumed responsiveness of hours to pay. Both were model estimates, not measured outcomes. The LPC has not found a significant negative employment impact from recent NLW rises.
“That corresponds to a rise in unemployment of around 50,000”
Office for Budget Responsibility·The National Living Wage (Economic and fiscal outlook, March 2020, Box 2.5)Government / parliament · 11 Mar 2020 ↗ - MW-09Mixed
“When Seattle raised its minimum wage to $13, low-wage workers lost hours and ended up with less pay overall.”
Contested: a University of Washington study (2017, revised 2018) found the rise to $13 in 2016 cut hours in low-wage jobs by 6-7% and pay per low-wage job by $74 a month, but the same team's 2018 follow-up found workers already in low-wage jobs gained $8-12 a week on average.
Seattle raised its minimum from $9.47 to up to $11 in 2015 and up to $13 in 2016. In the follow-up, all of the earnings gains went to more experienced workers; less-experienced workers saw no significant change in weekly pay, and fewer new workers entered the workforce. The team's 2022 journal article says its aggregate analysis likely overstates employment effects. The findings are specific to one city.
“On net, the minimum wage increase from $9.47 to as much as $13 per hour raised earnings by an average of $8-$12 per week.”
National Bureau of Economic Research·Minimum Wage Increases and Individual Employment Trajectories (NBER Working Paper 25182)Independent research institute · 1 Oct 2018 ↗Further sources for this card
- National Bureau of Economic Research · Minimum Wage Increases, Wages, and Low-Wage Employment: Evidence from Seattle (NBER Working Paper 23532) ↗
- American Economic Association · Minimum-Wage Increases and Low-Wage Employment: Evidence from Seattle (American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, May 2022) ↗
- University of Washington Evans School of Public Policy & Governance · The Minimum Wage Study ↗
- MW-10True
“The US Congressional Budget Office estimated that a $15 federal minimum wage would cost about 1.4 million jobs.”
Confirmed as CBO's average estimate for 2025 in its February 2021 analysis. The same analysis estimated that 900,000 fewer people would be in poverty, and 17 million workers would be directly affected.
CBO put a 33% chance on job losses between zero and 1 million, and a 33% chance on losses between 1 million and 2.7 million. The US federal minimum has been $7.25 since July 2009.
“the number of people in poverty would decline by 900,000, but employment would also drop by 1.4 million people, according to CBO's average estimate”
FactCheck.org·Biden's Minimum Wage ExaggerationFact-checker / wire service · 11 Feb 2021 ↗ - MW-11Mostly true
“Youth employment in the UK is falling, with about 69,000 fewer employees under 25 in the year to August 2025.”
The 69,000 fall was for the year to August 2025. ONS early estimates show a much smaller fall of 15,000 payrolled employees under 25 in the year to August 2026.
The Low Pay Commission reported that employees aged under 25 fell by around 69,000 (1.8%) in the year to August 2025. The latest figure is an early estimate that may be revised; total payrolled employees fell by 145,000 (0.5%) over the same year. Young people are concentrated in hospitality and retail, and in April 2026 the LPC said it was not aware of any robust evidence that higher youth rates had contributed to the falls.
“Between August 2025 and August 2026, there was a decrease of 15,000 payrolled employees aged under 25 years.”
Office for National Statistics·Earnings and employment from Pay As You Earn Real Time Information, UK: September 2026Official statistics · 15 Sept 2026 ↗ - MW-12False
“Most minimum wage workers in the US are teenagers earning pocket money.”
In 2024, workers under 25 (not just teenagers) made up 43% of those paid at or below the US federal minimum. A majority were 25 or older.
Only about 1.0% of US hourly workers earned $7.25 or less in 2024: 82,000 at exactly $7.25 and 760,000 below it, some of whom are exempt from minimum wage laws. About two-thirds worked in leisure and hospitality. Many states set higher minimums.
“they accounted for 43 percent of those paid the federal minimum wage or less”
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics·Characteristics of minimum wage workers, 2024 (BLS Report 1115)Official statistics · 1 Jun 2025 ↗ - MW-13Mostly false
“The CBO says a $15 minimum wage would put close to 4 million Americans out of work.”
CBO's 2019 median estimate was 1.3 million jobs lost. The 3.7 million figure was the top of a range, with a two-thirds chance of losses between about zero and 3.7 million.
Senator Rand Paul made this claim in 2021, citing the upper bound as if it were the forecast. In the same analysis CBO estimated that 1.3 million people would move out of poverty and 17 million workers would get higher pay.
“refers to the high end of CBO's range of potential outcomes”
FactCheck.org·Paul Distorts CBO's Estimate on Impact of $15 Minimum WageFact-checker / wire service · 22 Jan 2021 ↗ - MW-14Mostly false
“Raising the minimum wage drives up inflation across the whole economy.”
The UK Low Pay Commission finds the minimum wage is a major cost driver in some industries, but its effect on headline inflation is negligible.
Firms in low-paying sectors often pass minimum wage rises on through higher prices, and the LPC says this has become a more common response. So price rises in those sectors are real, but the LPC finds the NLW has only a minimal effect on overall inflation.
“while the minimum wage is an important cost driver in some industries, its impact on headline measures of inflation is negligible”
Low Pay Commission (GOV.UK)·Low Pay Commission Report 2025Government / parliament · 18 Mar 2026 ↗ - MW-15Mostly false
“Raising the minimum wage is the best-targeted way to help the poorest households in the UK.”
The IFS found that the biggest cash gains from NLW rises went to middle-income households. The bottom and top 10% each gained under 35p a week per uprating, and in the 2nd and 3rd income deciles almost half of the earnings gain was clawed back through reduced benefits and higher taxes.
Some of the lowest-income households have no one in paid work, so they gain nothing directly. Looking only at households with someone in work, the gains are more progressive.
“the biggest cash gains go to the middle of the household income distribution”
Institute for Fiscal Studies·The impact of the National Living Wage on wages, employment and household incomes (IFS Report Summary)Independent research institute · 1 Dec 2021 ↗ - MW-16Mixed
“The famous Card and Krueger study proved that New Jersey's minimum wage rise actually increased fast-food jobs.”
Card and Krueger's study (1993 working paper, published 1994) found New Jersey fast-food employment rose 13% relative to Pennsylvania after the minimum went from $4.25 to $5.05 in April 1992. A re-analysis of payroll records from 230 restaurants by Neumark and Wascher found a 4.6% relative fall instead.
Card and Krueger's own 1998 reanalysis of BLS ES-202 payroll data found similar or slightly faster job growth in New Jersey than in eastern Pennsylvania, and attributed the Neumark-Wascher difference to a small set of restaurants owned by one franchisee. It remains a single, contested case study that supports small or no job losses from this rise more than it proves that minimum wage rises create jobs.
“the New Jersey minimum wage increase led to a 4.6 percent decrease in employment”
National Bureau of Economic Research·The Effect of New Jersey's Minimum Wage Increase on Fast-Food Employment: A Re-Evaluation Using Payroll Records (NBER Working Paper 5224)Independent research institute · 1 Aug 1995 ↗Further sources for this card
- National Bureau of Economic Research · Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania (NBER Working Paper 4509) ↗
- National Bureau of Economic Research · A Reanalysis of the Effect of the New Jersey Minimum Wage Increase on the Fast-Food Industry with Representative Payroll Data (NBER Working Paper 6386) ↗
The judge is an AI model. It can only rule on claims these cards cover. Everything else stays unverified, and it never rules on opinions. See every motion's cards.