3 ms·

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 fr

by 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.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > 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. That is a good ideal world principle, but given minimum wage itself is a non-idealised concept, instead designed to ameliorate real life, I don't know how much it apples. > Yes, that is age discrimination If you're just defining age discrimination as "a legal differentiation based on age" then I agree with you. That is tautologically true. A bit like not letting 7-year-olds drive on public roads.
    - matrss 3y ago
      > That is a good ideal world principle, but given minimum wage itself is a non-idealised concept, instead designed to ameliorate real life, I don't know how much it apples. I'd say minimum wage should at least ensure that everyone with a job can live a life without poverty and in dignity. That does not sound like a non-idealised concept. If the real-world minimum wages satisfy this ideal is a different matter. > If you're just defining age discrimination as "a legal differentiation based on age" then I agree with you. Is there another good definition? You have to recognise that some rules are disadvantageous to some groups of people (in this case grouped by age) to properly weigh their disadvantage against the advantage the given rule is meant to create (e.g. to not have toddlers recklessly drive around in cars) and then decide if the given rule is reasonable and fair. I guess you could argue that a law is not really that discriminatory if its positives outweigh the disadvantages it puts some people at, but it would still put some people at said disadvantage and in the case of different minimum wages by age I simply see no such reasoning for its positives (i.e. none) to outweigh the negatives, and therefore it is discriminatory. > A bit like not letting 7-year-olds drive on public roads. While not exactly with 7, where I live 8-year-olds can drive on public roads and from age 10 onwards they are even required to do so. Of course I am talking about bicycles and only if there is no (usable) bike lane. Not having 7-year-olds drive cars is just another case of "it is in the publics best interest, and it also does not hurt them much".
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        > That does not sound like a non-idealised concept. No, I mean in an ideal world everyone has a job that pays, and progresses towards better jobs. Minimum wage is to cope with this not being the case. > Is there another good definition? Yes - age discrimination as defined in law: some things are illegal to discriminate on. Using the same phrase as the legal one is confusing, which is why I was trying to clarify. > Not having 7-year-olds drive cars is just another case of "it is in the publics best interest, and it also does not hurt them much". This is what a lawmaker judged the minimum wage age-based cases to be as well.
        matrss 3y ago

by matrss 3y ago

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.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > 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. That is a good ideal world principle, but given minimum wage itself is a non-idealised concept, instead designed to ameliorate real life, I don't know how much it apples. > Yes, that is age discrimination If you're just defining age discrimination as "a legal differentiation based on age" then I agree with you. That is tautologically true. A bit like not letting 7-year-olds drive on public roads.
  - matrss 3y ago
    > That is a good ideal world principle, but given minimum wage itself is a non-idealised concept, instead designed to ameliorate real life, I don't know how much it apples. I'd say minimum wage should at least ensure that everyone with a job can live a life without poverty and in dignity. That does not sound like a non-idealised concept. If the real-world minimum wages satisfy this ideal is a different matter. > If you're just defining age discrimination as "a legal differentiation based on age" then I agree with you. Is there another good definition? You have to recognise that some rules are disadvantageous to some groups of people (in this case grouped by age) to properly weigh their disadvantage against the advantage the given rule is meant to create (e.g. to not have toddlers recklessly drive around in cars) and then decide if the given rule is reasonable and fair. I guess you could argue that a law is not really that discriminatory if its positives outweigh the disadvantages it puts some people at, but it would still put some people at said disadvantage and in the case of different minimum wages by age I simply see no such reasoning for its positives (i.e. none) to outweigh the negatives, and therefore it is discriminatory. > A bit like not letting 7-year-olds drive on public roads. While not exactly with 7, where I live 8-year-olds can drive on public roads and from age 10 onwards they are even required to do so. Of course I am talking about bicycles and only if there is no (usable) bike lane. Not having 7-year-olds drive cars is just another case of "it is in the publics best interest, and it also does not hurt them much".
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > That does not sound like a non-idealised concept. No, I mean in an ideal world everyone has a job that pays, and progresses towards better jobs. Minimum wage is to cope with this not being the case. > Is there another good definition? Yes - age discrimination as defined in law: some things are illegal to discriminate on. Using the same phrase as the legal one is confusing, which is why I was trying to clarify. > Not having 7-year-olds drive cars is just another case of "it is in the publics best interest, and it also does not hurt them much". This is what a lawmaker judged the minimum wage age-based cases to be as well.
      - matrss 3y ago