3 ms·
The age is relevant because he is a dependent and does not need to pay for any living expenses. So, forcing an employer to pay him a "living wage" makes no sen
by jpcfl 5y ago
The age is relevant because he is a dependent and does not need to pay for any living expenses.
So, forcing an employer to pay him a "living wage" makes no sense. The rationale behind that law is invalid. You can invent new rationale, as you've done here, but it doesn't change the fact that his standard of living doesn't depend on his paycheck.
- HWR_14 5y agoI'm not inventing a new rationale. I'm saying he deserves minimum wage because that's what we pay everyone. It's part of him being human. That the minimum wage has to be sufficient to allow some standard of living is also true but not relevant. Other people think that the minimum wage should only apply to adults for some reason. Thats them changing rationales. We don't have a lower minimum wage for couples or higher minimum wage for parents. And that the 15-year-old isn't spending the money right now doesn't mean he won't spend it later. But sure, If you really want I guess you could argue that we should t let teenagers work at all. After all, they don't need the money.