5 ms·

Should a 17 year old who is still in high school while living with his parents be paid $25/hour for working at McDonald's? There is no reason he needs a "living

Should a 17 year old who is still in high school while living with his parents be paid $25/hour for working at McDonald's? There is no reason he needs a "living wage" since his parents are already providing what he needs.

Inityx 4y ago
>Should a 17 year old who is still in high school while living with his parents be paid $25/hour for working at McDonald's? Yes. >his parents are already providing what he needs And what about people who aren't in this particular situation? What is the policy solution to filter out people who you feel don't deserve this level of compensation for their labor?
- credit_guy 4y ago
  One potential solution: the government pays the workers a part of difference between what their wage and $25/h based on various criteria. If you live with your millionaire parents, the fraction is zero. If you are the only wage earner in a family of four, the fraction is 1. The guiding principle should be that if the government/society thinks some people need assistance, then they should just provide it directly, rather than just force others to provide it for them.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  "And what about people who aren't in this particular situation? What is the policy solution to filter out people who you feel don't deserve this level of compensation for their labor?" They simply should try to get the skills for a higher paying job. And if they cannot (for whatever reasons, there are actually plenty of very legitimate reasons) - you can help them out with social welfare/charity money, especially if they have a family to feed. And then you can further help them, by providing free education with low barriers (that you can even do, while having little kids) etc. so one day they can stand on their own. There are many things that can be done, before you have to negate the right of 2 free parties to make a contract under their own terms. So my ideal policy would be the economy should be simply as policyfree as possible to sort itself out. That doesn't mean, society cannot help those, who need help. It can and it should. But this is called charity and not economy, so why mix both up?
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  >Yes Why? The point of a living wage is to ensure a person can live on their wage. In this situation the person can live of their wage. >And what about people who aren't in this particular situation? If the best a person can do in life is a cashier at a fast food restaurant than they either have a problem (substance abuse or mental) and should get help or lack any motivation to grow. I don't think we need to make rules out of exceptions like that. The point of jobs like that aren't to stay at it for the rest of your life. >What is the policy solution to filter out people who you feel don't deserve this level of compensation for their labor? I don't believe somebody who can't get a simple order correct should get $25. Maybe if they got it right 99% of the time that would be one thing, but they aren't even close. I don't know what you mean by policy solution? Somebody should get a better job if they want more pay.
klyrs 4y ago
If that kid doesn't have a future beyond living with his parents, sure. But it's a pretty flimsy argument when you consider the future and his parents' living conditions. Personally, I'd like kids like that to be able to save up for college and retirement. But in the alarmingly common situation where that 17 year-old is helping a single parent get by, that $25/hour salary starts to make a lot of sense.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  You are making a flimsy argument. If you want kids to be able to save up why not make it $100 an hour? That would make it more likely they could afford college and a good retirement. The point of a teenager having a job is not to support his family, but to have some extra spending money and to gain experience. I don't think a person should make a career out of minimum wage jobs. They have them to gain experience or to fall back on in hard times.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    > The point of a teenager having a job is not to support his family, but to have some extra spending money and to gain experience. That was my privilege growing up in a middle class family, too. But a whole lot of my friends had jobs to support their families as soon as they were old enough to legally work.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      I am talking about what teenage jobs should be, not what they are for many people. I think raising the minimum wage to $25 is going to make it harder for teenagers with no experience to get a job. Right now they can get $10 an hour, if the minimum wage is $25 they won't get the job and will get $0. Which is better for the poor family?
      - klyrs 4y ago
        > I am talking about what teenage jobs should be, not what they are for many people. Wilful ignorance is not a good-faith approach to conversation. Have a nice day.

Inityx 4y ago

>Should a 17 year old who is still in high school while living with his parents be paid $25/hour for working at McDonald's? Yes. >his parents are already providing what he needs And what about people who aren't in this particular situation? What is the policy solution to filter out people who you feel don't deserve this level of compensation for their labor?

credit_guy 4y ago
One potential solution: the government pays the workers a part of difference between what their wage and $25/h based on various criteria. If you live with your millionaire parents, the fraction is zero. If you are the only wage earner in a family of four, the fraction is 1. The guiding principle should be that if the government/society thinks some people need assistance, then they should just provide it directly, rather than just force others to provide it for them.
hutzlibu 4y ago
"And what about people who aren't in this particular situation? What is the policy solution to filter out people who you feel don't deserve this level of compensation for their labor?" They simply should try to get the skills for a higher paying job. And if they cannot (for whatever reasons, there are actually plenty of very legitimate reasons) - you can help them out with social welfare/charity money, especially if they have a family to feed. And then you can further help them, by providing free education with low barriers (that you can even do, while having little kids) etc. so one day they can stand on their own. There are many things that can be done, before you have to negate the right of 2 free parties to make a contract under their own terms. So my ideal policy would be the economy should be simply as policyfree as possible to sort itself out. That doesn't mean, society cannot help those, who need help. It can and it should. But this is called charity and not economy, so why mix both up?
_-david-_ 4y ago
>Yes Why? The point of a living wage is to ensure a person can live on their wage. In this situation the person can live of their wage. >And what about people who aren't in this particular situation? If the best a person can do in life is a cashier at a fast food restaurant than they either have a problem (substance abuse or mental) and should get help or lack any motivation to grow. I don't think we need to make rules out of exceptions like that. The point of jobs like that aren't to stay at it for the rest of your life. >What is the policy solution to filter out people who you feel don't deserve this level of compensation for their labor? I don't believe somebody who can't get a simple order correct should get $25. Maybe if they got it right 99% of the time that would be one thing, but they aren't even close. I don't know what you mean by policy solution? Somebody should get a better job if they want more pay.

klyrs 4y ago

If that kid doesn't have a future beyond living with his parents, sure. But it's a pretty flimsy argument when you consider the future and his parents' living conditions. Personally, I'd like kids like that to be able to save up for college and retirement. But in the alarmingly common situation where that 17 year-old is helping a single parent get by, that $25/hour salary starts to make a lot of sense.

_-david-_ 4y ago
You are making a flimsy argument. If you want kids to be able to save up why not make it $100 an hour? That would make it more likely they could afford college and a good retirement. The point of a teenager having a job is not to support his family, but to have some extra spending money and to gain experience. I don't think a person should make a career out of minimum wage jobs. They have them to gain experience or to fall back on in hard times.
- klyrs 4y ago
  > The point of a teenager having a job is not to support his family, but to have some extra spending money and to gain experience. That was my privilege growing up in a middle class family, too. But a whole lot of my friends had jobs to support their families as soon as they were old enough to legally work.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    I am talking about what teenage jobs should be, not what they are for many people. I think raising the minimum wage to $25 is going to make it harder for teenagers with no experience to get a job. Right now they can get $10 an hour, if the minimum wage is $25 they won't get the job and will get $0. Which is better for the poor family?
    - klyrs 4y ago
      > I am talking about what teenage jobs should be, not what they are for many people. Wilful ignorance is not a good-faith approach to conversation. Have a nice day.