4 ms·
> 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 muc
by 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> Yes - age discrimination as defined in law: some things are illegal to discriminate on. So it must be defined as illegal in the law to be considered discrimination? If we remove e.g. race or gender from that law, then those types of discrimination are suddenly OK? That seems like a bad argument. But yes, those laws should explicitly mention age. Unfortunately, here in Germany, that is not the case. > This is what a lawmaker judged the minimum wage age-based cases to be as well. If a lawmaker judged that the positive "none" outweighs the negative of "lower minimum wage for younger people" then that lawmaker simply made a bad decision. Just because they are a lawmaker does not mean they can't be criticised.
- robertlagrant 3y ago> So it must be defined as illegal in the law to be considered discrimination? No, I'm saying it's confusing to use terminology that's also separately legal teminology to describe something. > Just because they are a lawmaker does not mean they can't be criticised. True but I don't see the relevance.
- matrss 3y ago> > So it must be defined as illegal in the law to be considered discrimination? > No, I'm saying it's confusing to use terminology that's also separately legal teminology to describe something. Well, you seem to argue that one should not use the term "discrimination" if it is not legally defined to be such, because that would be confusing. Let's assume a hypothetical situation in which the law did not state that you cannot discriminate based on sex/gender and the minimum wage law stated that woman have a lower minimum wage than men. Would you consider this to be gender discrimination? If yes, what are the fundamental differences between this hypothetical situation and the real world situation of lower minimum wages for younger people? Why would you consider one to be discriminatory and the other to not be? If no, then I have no further questions. We seem to have a very different understanding of what discrimination is. I for one would definitely consider this hypothetical example to be discrimination and obviously apply the same logic to the actual situation as well.