UK Retailer Next CEO Warns of Dramatic Fall in Entry-Level Jobs

Two years ago, a job posting at a Next high-street shop attracted around 10 applicants. Today, that same posting draws 19. For Simon Wolfson, the Conservative peer and chief executive of one of Britain's largest fashion retailers, the doubling is not a sign of Next's employer appeal — it is "indicative of just how big the crisis is in youth unemployment at the moment" [1].

In a September 2025 interview with Reuters, Wolfson warned that vacancies across the UK economy would decline "quite dramatically," with entry-level positions bearing the heaviest losses [1]. His remarks are the latest and most detailed articulation of a message the retail industry has been pressing since the October 2024 Budget: that the combined weight of higher employer National Insurance contributions, a rising National Living Wage, and incoming regulation on zero-hours contracts is making it more expensive to employ low-wage workers than to replace them with technology.

The Budget That Changed the Calculus

In her October 2024 Autumn Budget, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced two changes to employer National Insurance contributions (NICs) that took effect in April 2025. The rate rose from 13.8% to 15%, and the salary threshold at which employers begin paying was lowered from £9,100 to £5,000 [2]. Simultaneously, the National Living Wage increased by 6.7%, adding over £2.7 billion to retailers' wage bills nationwide [3].

The British Retail Consortium (BRC) calculated that retail employment costs rose by £5 billion in 2025 as a result [4]. The cost of employing a full-time entry-level worker increased by roughly 10%, while for a part-time worker it rose by more than 13% [4]. The regressive structure of the changes — a flat threshold cut that hits low-wage, part-time roles hardest — meant that, as Wolfson noted, the tax increase on a £60,000-a-year job was about 2%, while on a part-time living-wage position it was approximately 6.5% [5].

Source: Next plc / BRC estimates

Data as of Apr 1, 2025CSV

For Next specifically, the combined NIC and wage increases added approximately £67 million to £70 million to its annual wage bill [5][6]. The company responded with a 1% price increase on like-for-like goods (offsetting roughly £13 million) and planned operational savings of £19 million to £23 million through warehouse and distribution efficiencies, including a new mechanised warehouse facility where picking and packing costs are lower [6][7].

The Scale of Projected Losses

Next employs approximately 31,600 people as of January 2026, down from nearly 33,000 a year earlier — a reduction of about 1,300 workers, or 4% [8]. Wolfson has not published a specific numerical target for future entry-level reductions, instead framing the decline in broader economic terms: fewer vacancies, fewer hours, and fewer first jobs for young people entering the workforce.

The BRC has been more precise. In early 2025, the consortium reported that a quarter of a million retail jobs had been lost over the preceding five years, with total retail employment falling from over 3 million in 2015 to approximately 2.71 million [4]. Looking ahead, the BRC estimates that 160,000 part-time roles — more than one in ten across the sector — are at risk of disappearing within the next three years [9].

Source: British Retail Consortium / ONS

Data as of Jan 1, 2026CSV

A survey of retail chief financial officers reinforced the trend: 52% planned to reduce staff hours or overtime, 48% intended to cut head office headcount, and 32% expected to reduce store-level staffing [4]. Some 61% of retail finance chiefs indicated plans to reduce staff hours or overtime in 2026, with 42% planning shop-floor cuts [3].

Sector-Wide Response: Tesco, Sainsbury's, and Beyond

Next is far from alone. More than 70 companies — including Tesco, Sainsbury's, Asda, Morrisons, Amazon UK, Boots, Marks & Spencer, Currys, and JD Sports — signed a BRC-organised letter to the Chancellor warning that the NIC hike, minimum wage rise, and new packaging levies could increase the retail industry's costs by up to £7 billion per year [2].

Sainsbury's announced plans to cut more than 3,000 roles, including a 20% reduction in senior management, citing the employer NIC increase alone as adding £140 million annually to its costs [10]. Tesco cut 400 positions across stores and head office; its CEO Ken Murphy said the NIC changes would add £250 million to the industry's wage bills [11]. Marks & Spencer joined Tesco and Sainsbury's in announcing plans to accelerate automation investments ahead of the higher charges [11].

The Centre for Retail Research projected 17,300 store closures in 2025, of which roughly 14,500 would be independent shops, with an estimated 200,000 associated job losses across the sector [12].

Who Loses Their Job First

The workers most exposed to entry-level retail cuts are disproportionately young, female, and part-time. Almost a third of retail employees are under 25, and women make up 58% of the retail workforce [13]. Half of all retail employees work part-time [13].

Young workers face particular vulnerability. Some 13% of workers aged 16-24 are employed on zero-hours contracts, compared with 2.4% of those aged 25 and over. Young women are even more likely to be on zero-hours arrangements, at 16% [14]. Median hourly pay for 18-to-21-year-olds stands at £10.90, compared with £15.83 across all employees [14].

The youth unemployment rate has been climbing. ONS data show it reached 14% for the November 2025 to January 2026 period — the highest rate in five years — with some monthly readings as high as 16.2% [15]. The number of young people aged 16-24 who are NEET (not in education, employment, or training) and unemployed reached 411,000 in the October-to-December 2025 quarter, up 45,000 from the previous quarter [15].

Source: ILOSTAT — International Labour Organization

Data as of Dec 31, 2024CSV

The question of where displaced retail workers go is not well answered by the data. Retail has historically served as a labour market entry point, particularly for workers without higher education. When those positions disappear, the transition pathways are unclear. The BRC has warned that the jobs at risk are precisely those that offer low-barrier access to employment for workers who may struggle to find equivalent roles elsewhere.

The Steelman Case Against Wolfson

Not everyone accepts the framing that government policy is the primary cause of retail job losses. Several lines of counter-argument deserve examination.

First, retail employment has been declining since well before the October 2024 Budget. The BRC's own data show a steady downward trend from 3.09 million in 2015, driven largely by the shift to online shopping and ongoing investment in self-checkout, warehouse automation, and AI-driven scheduling. The April 2025 cost increases may have accelerated an existing trajectory rather than created a new one.

Second, academic research on the employment elasticity of minimum wages suggests the effects are typically modest. A meta-analysis of 72 published studies found a median own-wage elasticity of -0.13, meaning that only about 13% of potential earnings gains from minimum wage increases are offset by job losses [16]. UK-specific evidence is mixed: some studies find small negative effects on employment at age thresholds where the minimum wage changes, but many find no statistically significant disemployment effects [16].

Third, Wolfson himself is a Conservative life peer with a record of opposing Labour government policies. His £7.4 million pay packet in 2025 [6] and Next's strong financial performance — revenue of £6.9 billion in fiscal 2026, up 12.8%, with profit guidance raised to £1.14 billion [7] — raise legitimate questions about whether warnings of job destruction are partly a negotiating posture aimed at softening future policy.

The counter-counter-argument is that Next's profitability does not insulate its lowest-paid workers. If automation becomes cheaper per unit of output than an entry-level employee burdened with higher NICs, the business case for replacing humans with machines exists regardless of whether the company is profitable overall.

What Replaces the Workers

Retailers are directing investment toward several categories of labour-replacing technology. The BRC survey found that 68% of retailers planned to "drive higher productivity" and 61% intended to increase "investment in automation" to compensate for smaller workforces [3].

Next's specific investments centre on its new mechanised warehouse (known as E3), which reduces picking and packing costs relative to legacy facilities, saving an estimated £19 million annually [7]. The company has not disclosed specific capital expenditure figures for checkout automation or AI scheduling systems, but its operational savings programme targets efficiencies across "warehouses, distribution networks and stores" [5].

Across the broader sector, self-checkout terminals, warehouse robotics, and AI-driven demand forecasting and staff scheduling are the primary technologies being deployed. Industry-wide, companies plan to spend an average of $1.6 million on materials handling equipment and solutions in 2026, up from $1.5 million in 2025, with 82% of chief supply chain officers planning to increase technology investment [17]. The rise of Robotics-as-a-Service (RaaS) models has lowered the upfront capital barrier, allowing mid-size retailers to deploy robotic fleets under subscription arrangements rather than large one-time purchases [17].

International Comparisons

The UK is not the only country grappling with the relationship between employer-side labour costs and retail employment. Germany offers the most instructive comparison.

Germany introduced its first national minimum wage in 2015 and has raised it repeatedly, most recently from €12.82 to €13.90 per hour in January 2026, with a further increase to €14.60 planned for 2027 [18]. Research on the German experience found that the beneficial effects on real wage growth "came at no significant price," with employment prospects of affected workers not deteriorating substantially [18]. However, more granular analysis identified a small negative effect on dependent employment of 0.5%, no significant effect on employment subject to social security contributions, and a more substantial negative effect of approximately 2.4% on marginal employment — Germany's equivalent of zero-hours or mini-job arrangements [19].

Source: ILOSTAT — International Labour Organization

Data as of Dec 31, 2024CSV

France, with its long-established SMIC (minimum wage) system and higher employer social charges than the UK, has similarly not experienced the kind of precipitous retail employment collapse that industry warnings have periodically predicted. The pattern across comparable economies suggests that wage floor increases tend to produce gradual adjustments — reduced hours, slower hiring, accelerated automation — rather than sudden, large-scale layoffs.

This does not mean Wolfson's warning is wrong. The UK's April 2025 changes were unusually front-loaded: the NIC threshold cut from £9,100 to £5,000 is a 45% reduction applied in a single year, and the rate increase was simultaneous rather than phased. Wolfson has specifically called for the NIC changes to be staggered, arguing that a phased approach would allow businesses to adjust without sharp headcount reductions [5].

The Safety Net Question

If entry-level retail jobs do decline at the projected scale, the question becomes whether government programmes are equipped to absorb displaced workers. The UK government announced a major skills strategy in May 2025, including 120,000 new training opportunities in sectors facing labour shortages, 30,000 additional apprenticeship starts, and a £136 million investment in short-term skills bootcamps running up to 16 weeks [20].

From January 2026, public funding is being redirected away from Level 7 apprenticeships (equivalent to master's degrees) toward Level 2 and Level 3 courses targeting immediate labour market needs [20]. A 32% increase in the Immigration Skills Charge is expected to fund nearly 50,000 new training places, focused on construction and early years education [20].

The mismatch, however, is structural. The government's retraining programmes target construction, healthcare, and digital sectors — industries that require different skill sets, often involve physical demands or shift patterns that may not suit displaced retail workers, and are concentrated in different geographic areas. A 42-year-old former retail worker in a market town is not easily reskilled into construction through a 16-week bootcamp.

The £3 billion apprenticeship budget [20] is substantial, but it is spread across all sectors, not ring-fenced for retail displacement. There is no dedicated programme specifically designed to manage a transition out of retail employment at the scale the BRC projects.

The Larger Picture

The debate over entry-level retail employment sits at the intersection of several longer-term forces: the structural shift from physical to online retail, the increasing capability and falling cost of automation, the political pressure to raise wages for the lowest-paid workers, and the fiscal pressure on a government that chose employer NICs as its primary revenue-raising mechanism because — unlike income tax, VAT, or corporation tax — it was not covered by Labour's manifesto commitments.

Wolfson's argument is straightforward: the government has made it significantly more expensive to employ low-wage workers, and the predictable result is fewer low-wage jobs. The opposing view is that retail has been shedding entry-level positions for a decade, that the employment effects of wage floor increases are historically modest, and that a profitable company warning of job cuts while paying its CEO £7.4 million deserves scepticism about motivation.

Both positions contain truth. The policy changes are real and substantial. The pre-existing trend toward fewer retail workers is also real. The workers caught between these forces — young, part-time, often female, often without alternative qualifications — are the ones who will bear the consequences of whichever narrative proves more accurate.