3 ms·

> 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 o

> 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.

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.