"Are you pissing on my leg?"
"What? No, it's just a bit rainy today."
"Eh? I'm pretty sure that's piss."
"Oh, you're just getting confused. Rain isn't the same thing as the Real Rain that comes out of the sky. But this is definitely rain, even if it's not the same as Real Rain."
I understand perfectly what I'm talking about, my employer is a living wage employer (as a result of workers previously organising to demand it, not out of the goodness of their hearts or anything), and our member was worried about them withdrawing from it, which as we discussed was unlikely. At no point did anyone go "well actually did you know that in 2016 George Osbourne rebranded the minimum wage as the National Living Wage?", because that would have been completely irrelevant and unhelpful.
As brogdale says above, the so-called National Living Wage is in effect the minimum wage, since the great majority of workers are over 23. I greatly doubt there's any 22-year-olds posting on this thread, so for everyone who's part of this discussion the National Living Wage is the minimum amount that we can legally be paid.
This BBC article uses the phrases "minimum wage" and "National Living Wage" interchangeably, while also mentioning that it'll apply to all over-21s from April, which will make it even more transparent that the NLW is just a rebranding of the minimum wage.
I think it is worth insisting on this point, it makes sense to use "living wage" to refer to the original living wage which existed prior to 2015/16, rather than to George Osbourne's snide rebranding, which afaics was just an attempt to confuse and undermine wage demands by introducing a so-called "living wage" that's not actually tied to the cost of living.