4 ms·

>It's not a cap, it's a minimum. misphrased, fixed. >This is so people can employ kids who have very little economic value and train them to have lots of it.

• robertlagrant 3y ago
  > But 18 year olds are not kids anymore and are capable of providing just as much economic value as a 25 year old. Especially if the employer is a coffee shop or restaurant. I'm not sure that's true - experience counts in those industries. I speak as a former 18-year-old coffee shop person. I think this is a result of minimum wage not being enough for people who can only get a minimum wage job, but are getting on in years a little. I.e. it's been lobbied into effect by those representing slightly older people to increase their wages, rather than decrease the wages of 18 year olds.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • matrss 3y ago
    > I'm not sure that's true - experience counts in those industries. I speak as a former 18-year-old coffee shop person. You are assuming that age equals experience, but a 19 year old might be working at the coffee shop for a year already when a 25 year old is just starting. Shouldn't the 19 year old have a higher pay then?
    • dgfitz 3y ago
      Only if the shop owner wants to keep the 19 year employed.
    • robertlagrant 3y ago
      That's up to the shop owner. Minimum wage is a minimum, not a cap.
      • matrss 3y ago
        Sure, but why should the minimum wage be lower for younger people then, if age does not equal experience? Is there any other reason, or is it just age discrimination?
        • robertlagrant 3y ago
          As I say, it's probably more complaining for higher wages for people who are likely to have higher expenses, than lower wages for younger people.
          • matrss 3y ago
            Why should someone older inherently have higher expenses? Cost of living is much more dependent on the location than on age. It might be a result of lobbying from this direction, but it makes no sense and is still age discrimination.
            • robertlagrant 3y ago
              I didn't say inherently. E.g. if you draw a graph of what age people have kids it's going to show you that the older you are, up to a point, the more likely you are to have kids. Kids are a massive expense, up to and including dictating where you live and how big it is. That's not inherent, hence why it's silly to invent that straw man, but it is a trend. As for age discrimination: is only letting people vote at a certain age, age discrimination?
              • matrss 3y ago
                > Kids are a massive expense That's why someone's financial situation should be considered before deciding to have kids. It is a conscious decision that is actively taken and therefore no reason to put younger people at a disadvantage. > As for age discrimination: is only letting people vote at a certain age, age discrimination? Yes, that is age discrimination. It is usually accepted, because there is an argument for it: in the public's view you should be mature enough to understand the importance of elections and inform yourself before you can vote. That maturity certainly depends on age to some degree. Nevertheless, since it is still age discrimination, the specific age is often debated and here in germany it was reduced multiple times in the past, for different elections. I have even seen arguments that said kids should have a sort of "proxy" vote through their parents, by deciding who to vote for together.
• dylan604 3y ago
  I would argue a 25 year old is still a kid too. I know every 20 something would vehemently disagree which is kind of proof in and of itself. I don't mean it in a disrespectful manner.
  • wizardwes 3y ago
    "All X are Y, and their denial proves it" seems a very poor argument to me. By its very nature you can't really disprove it.
    • dylan604 3y ago
      A kid arguing they are not a kid is a very kid like thing to do is my point. Kids always want to convince people they are not a kid. I'm not 3, I'm 3 1/2. I'm not a kid, I'm 22. Jokingly, when you start trying to convince people you are younger is when you're probably old enough to be considered an adult.
      • robertlagrant 3y ago
        If you told an 80 year old they're a kid they would also tell you they aren't. There is no proof by irony.
  • cedws 3y ago
    Your reply made me smile because it's dead on. I'm 22. Though, I don't agree. There's things to learn at all ages.
    • dylan604 3y ago
      I'm well past 2x your age, and I feel that if I didn't learn something new every day it was wasted. Nobody's claiming that there's not things to learn, but somebody doing the same job for 20 years compared to a 20-something that's just started is kind of ridiculous to think they aren't just beginning. The true sign of a 20-something is thinking they know everything because they have the book learning fresh outta school. But having 20 years on the job experience teaches you so so many more things that is never so much taught as, ahem, experienced.
• danaris 3y ago
  > But 18 year olds are not kids anymore and are capable of providing just as much economic value as a 25 year old. TBH, this isn't even the most relevant argument here. We don't have minimum wage laws because we think that every person produces at least (say) $15/hr of economic value. We have minimum wage laws because we believe that no human being should have to work more than 40 hours a week to earn enough to live. And there are 16-year-olds who are working to provide for their families (parents are dead, or disabled, etc, etc).
  • robertlagrant 3y ago
    > WWe don't have minimum wage laws because we think that every person produces at least (say) $15/hr of economic value. I agree - that's what creates some of the adverse outcomes. Jobs that are worth less than that need to have automation added in to increase the value of those jobs per-person hour.
• robjan 3y ago
  If they truly provide the same economic value this creates the incentive to hire younger people into these roles so this may actually prevent age discrimination.