6 ms·

It's not a question of anyone asking. Lets imagine that there is a job with parameters (including wages) where only high schoolers would take the job. Should

by nullc 1y ago

It's not a question of anyone asking. Lets imagine that there is a job with parameters (including wages) where only high schoolers would take the job. Should that job be required to pay above the market wage to make it also attractive to independent adults? Then what job will the highshoolers have? If I've got to pay a full adult wage anyways, I'm probably not going to employ a highschooler. It creates a deadweight loss. In this example are kids that would benefit from working, at low wages, from both the experience and income and they're left out. There would be useful work done that probably just doesn't get done, creating harms in the form of missing products and services. Now sure, non-existence of a minimum wage would create other harms and losses so there is a balancing act-- but in the special case of students being discussed here those other costs don't apply. (and that's also why in practice there are minimum wage exceptions like the 'youth minimum wage program').

toomuchtodo 1y ago
This is a bit of a wild way to explain away "we're going to pay people under 18 less because we think we can justify it." Just raise the minimum wage and pay them the same. If they don't take the jobs, they don't. If the jobs go unfilled, raise the pay to a clearing price where they are. If employers can't make the economics work, that's unfortunate. How you see this issue is likely governed by where on the spectrum between "human" and "labor" you see a person, admittedly. In this context, we're going through contortions to argue to pay people less by age "because we can."
- nullc 1y ago
  Have you ever lived in poverty? Have you ever earned minimum wage (or below)? I have and I am extremely grateful for the oppturnities it brought me and the life I was eventually able to make out of it. There are myriad ways to dehumanize a person. One is saying they should be denied some opportunities they would freely choose to take out of a paternalistic desire to help them. It's a complicated subject, you don't need to justify your position by besmirching the empathy of those who have views you disagree with. Reasonable people can simply disagree!
  - toomuchtodo 1y ago
    Yes and yes. It is why I believe there is no room for negotiation and weaseling out of paying humans a wage required that enables them to live with dignity (as it relates to a minimum wage) [1]. Edit: > There are myriad ways to dehumanize a person. One is saying they should be denied some opportunities they would freely choose to take out of a paternalistic desire to help them. It's a complicated subject, you don't need to justify your position by besmirching the empathy of those who have views you disagree with. Reasonable people can simply disagree! I don't know what else to tell you my dude. McDonalds made $14B in profit last year. I can show you many examples where the economic resources surely exist based on the profits being made, in whatever industry or vertical you want to pick from, to pay people a living wage. I'm not saying no profits, I'm not cheering on communism. I'm simply arguing for the existing system to pay people enough to survive in comfort, regardless of age, with some combination of decreased profits and increased costs. If I can show you the economic value and wealth exists, and we still go through contortions to argue we cannot pay living wages to people (when the evidence is robust that we can), I can either come to the conclusion that someone has not built a robust mental model on all of the variables in play or they just don't think we should pay people enough to live. We're just arguing unnecessary economic system complexity (living wages for some, lower wages for teenagers even though a majority of minimum wage workers are not teenagers [2]) to paper over exploitation for some combination of consumer excess and shareholder returns. No attempt at dehumanizing is being made. [1] https://livingwage.mit.edu/ https://livingwage.mit.edu/ [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43840936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43840936
    - nullc 1y ago
      As a worker being denied the ability to get work I wanted to accept at an agreed wage because someone far away who never met me and doesn't understand my life thought it was too low for my own good isn't particularly dignified. That's why I'm arguing with your presentation even though I don't oppose having a minimum wage. It's not just a question of lacking empathy for someone or living with dignity, because in those terms a minimum wage can have the opposite effect. And dismissing contrasting views as unemphatic or suggesting that no one can be poorly paid with dignity detracts from having a useful conversation... it also says little about what the minimum wage should be. Certainly $1m/yr is more dignified than less! :P
- eadmund 1y ago
  > If employers can't make the economics work, that's unfortunate. Yes, minimum wages are unfortunate for those who don’t have sufficient skills to work at minimum wage. That’s why there are almost no more human order-takers at fast food restaurants. Kind of sucks for the kids — and poorer folks — who could have worked those jobs and used them as a springboard to something else.
  - toomuchtodo 1y ago
    You are stating these things like they are natural or physical laws, when they are simply agreed upon politically and can change. Look no further than California raising the minimum wage to $20/hour for fast food workers, increasing costs roughly ~1.5%. So, let us not say that it can't be done, only that those with the power to change this are unwilling to (for obvious, economic advantageous and exploitation reasons). California's $20 fast-food minimum wage improves pay at small cost to consumers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43806608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43806608 - April 2025
    - nullc 1y ago
      I'm in California. Two of my favorite fast food restaurants have closed (or closed their locations here) others have radically reduced their workforce and replaced humans with machines. It'll be interesting to see if this effect turns out to be statistically signficant in time. ( https://reason.com/video/2024/12/19/no-californias-20-minimum-wage-for-fast-food-workers-did-not-create-jobs/ https://reason.com/video/2024/12/19/no-californias-20-minimu... ).
    - eadmund 1y ago
      You are not addressing my point. The cost to consumers does not consider the cost to potential employees who no longer have jobs. Note the very first comment (at this time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43806765 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43806765): ‘The fast food chains seem to have a bifurcated response. Some, like McDonalds, seem to have cut crew, while retaining relatively low prices.’ And yes, it is a natural law that increasing the cost of something reduces its usage. That’s why we many governments tax alcohol and cigarettes. Raising the cost of labour means that less of it is bought. Raising the cost of labour puts labourers out of work.
cycomanic 1y ago
> It's not a question of anyone asking. > Lets imagine that there is a job with parameters (including wages) where only high schoolers would take the job. Should that job be required to pay above the market wage to make it also attractive to independent adults? Then what job will the highshoolers have? If I've got to pay a full adult wage anyways, I'm probably not going to employ a highschooler. > It creates a deadweight loss. In this example are kids that would benefit from working, at low wages, from both the experience and income and they're left out. There would be useful work done that probably just doesn't get done, creating harms in the form of missing products and services. Why would kids benefit from working? Shouldn't the benefit be from going to school? If they need to supplement their parents income doesn't that just mean that their parents salary is not high enough? It seems the only benefit of allowing kids to work is to the employers, enabling them to depress salaries, because somebody trying to support a family would not take the job. I find it interesting that often the same people (not saying you are) arguing against immigration because the immigrants take away jobs, argue for children to work because it's a "great experience". > Now sure, non-existence of a minimum wage would create other harms and losses so there is a balancing act-- but in the special case of students being discussed here those other costs don't apply. (and that's also why in practice there are minimum wage exceptions like the 'youth minimum wage program').
- nullc 1y ago
  > Why would kids benefit from working? Shouldn't the benefit be from going to school? There is a purely 'academic' educational advantage, -- it's like asking why should there be chemistry lab, shouldn't chemistry be learned by pure manipulation of field equations??-- People learn different things by studying a subject and doing a thing, and some students learn better one way or another. Most people will learn more from splitting their educational time among multiple approaches than from using only a single approach. But also our goal in education should be the creation of complete adults. We do try to artificially teach a broader set of life skills in school than the purely academic, e.g. that's why assignments have deadlines if all we cared about was teaching material there would be little reason for any deadline other than the end of the semester. Communication, timelyness, responsibility, etc. are all part of a complete education and aren't as well taught via the contrivances of school. As they say the difference between theory and practice is that in theory they're the same and in practice they are not the same. It's also the case that the education environment is very unlike the rest of our lives. Most educational environments are very means driven-- you must use the answer you're taught or its wrong, but life is much more results driven. The problems set out for you in education have usually tidy answers which can be arrived at via the tools you've already been provided, in work force (or life in general) that is often not true. In school the (or at least at the sub-gratudate level) the teacher knows best, they're only asking you questions that they know the answers to. In work it's not uncommon that you know best. Your boss knows what he wants done, sure but you know the facts on the ground. If someone asks you a question in work they do not know the answer. Work is also artificial (like.. you have a "boss"??) but at least it's an artificial thing that you'll likely be part of for most of your adult life. Now one could simulate more 'work like' learning, but education already takes up an incredible amount of time. Being able to spend endless time on unproductive education is a luxury of wealth that some cannot afford. Even if the state were to provide some of it during schooling, an employer still prefers employees with _experience_ and for those who aren't born into every opportunity having early experience can make a real difference. Work is also not just something people have to do-- the right work in the right conditions is something that people love to do. It can contribute additional meaning in their lives. I would personally rather mop a floor for an hour transcribe a bunch of geometry identities that I could just look up. The grinding school work is nothing that hasn't been done before, it doesn't improve anything in the world, it's hardly something to be proud of (except perhaps if I do remember it a year later, which often students don't). At least if you mop a floor you get a clean floor and the pride of completing a task that in appreciated by others. And of course, having money that you earned and coming to terms with managing it, spending it on things you want without having to justify it to others and regretting some of those decisions is also an important part of education. And I think it's useful to have the experience of putting in effort to get it, that putting in more effort can get you more of it, and so on. Of course, wealthier families can and do also provide this education for their children through other means... but if there isn't excess money in the household for Jr. to be paid it for chores or whatever, then they'll have to work outside the home to get it. > It seems the only benefit of allowing kids to work is to the employers Kids aren't generally great workers. Part of the reason we don't have more youth employment in the US is that employers generally aren't falling all over themselves to get more of them. There are some benefits to employers that make it worthwhile, e.g. occasionally you get a minor employee that is much better than you'd be able to score as an adult, you make your business a more integrated part of the community, and sure you may lower some labor costs particularly for menial tasks that it might be harder to hire a capable adult for. It's also the case that many adults like working with young people, the instinct to teach is human and not just confined to professional teachers. With respect to your immigrants comments, I think if you talk in terms of immigrants who are taking jobs that generally citizens don't want, who are operating just seasonally or for a limited time, etc. you'll see a lot more support ("well I don't mean THOSE immigrants"), and that situation is more analogous to youth employment. But beyond that to the extent that youth employment has some negative effect on the broader adult labor market I think most people would feel it to be justified as an investment in the future of their community. The same argument ought to apply to immigrants too but immigrants aren't seen as part of the community unless they've integrated enough and then, presumably, they stop being seen as immigrants. :) For kids it's obvious that they grow up to adults, it's less obvious to people that many immigrants to America 'grow up' to be Americans (by whatever definition makes a person feel good about them being here :) ).
orwin 1y ago
In my country, with a minimum wage, highschool students work seasonal jobs (including McDonalds) at a decent pay. They are hired because it's expected they will only work 2 months, and are needed because we have 5-8 weeks of vacation per year and employers can assign 3 of those (usually in summer, when they hire students).

by nullc 1y ago

toomuchtodo 1y ago

This is a bit of a wild way to explain away "we're going to pay people under 18 less because we think we can justify it." Just raise the minimum wage and pay them the same. If they don't take the jobs, they don't. If the jobs go unfilled, raise the pay to a clearing price where they are. If employers can't make the economics work, that's unfortunate. How you see this issue is likely governed by where on the spectrum between "human" and "labor" you see a person, admittedly. In this context, we're going through contortions to argue to pay people less by age "because we can."

nullc 1y ago
Have you ever lived in poverty? Have you ever earned minimum wage (or below)? I have and I am extremely grateful for the oppturnities it brought me and the life I was eventually able to make out of it. There are myriad ways to dehumanize a person. One is saying they should be denied some opportunities they would freely choose to take out of a paternalistic desire to help them. It's a complicated subject, you don't need to justify your position by besmirching the empathy of those who have views you disagree with. Reasonable people can simply disagree!
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  Yes and yes. It is why I believe there is no room for negotiation and weaseling out of paying humans a wage required that enables them to live with dignity (as it relates to a minimum wage) [1]. Edit: > There are myriad ways to dehumanize a person. One is saying they should be denied some opportunities they would freely choose to take out of a paternalistic desire to help them. It's a complicated subject, you don't need to justify your position by besmirching the empathy of those who have views you disagree with. Reasonable people can simply disagree! I don't know what else to tell you my dude. McDonalds made $14B in profit last year. I can show you many examples where the economic resources surely exist based on the profits being made, in whatever industry or vertical you want to pick from, to pay people a living wage. I'm not saying no profits, I'm not cheering on communism. I'm simply arguing for the existing system to pay people enough to survive in comfort, regardless of age, with some combination of decreased profits and increased costs. If I can show you the economic value and wealth exists, and we still go through contortions to argue we cannot pay living wages to people (when the evidence is robust that we can), I can either come to the conclusion that someone has not built a robust mental model on all of the variables in play or they just don't think we should pay people enough to live. We're just arguing unnecessary economic system complexity (living wages for some, lower wages for teenagers even though a majority of minimum wage workers are not teenagers [2]) to paper over exploitation for some combination of consumer excess and shareholder returns. No attempt at dehumanizing is being made. [1] https://livingwage.mit.edu/ https://livingwage.mit.edu/ [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43840936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43840936
  - nullc 1y ago
    As a worker being denied the ability to get work I wanted to accept at an agreed wage because someone far away who never met me and doesn't understand my life thought it was too low for my own good isn't particularly dignified. That's why I'm arguing with your presentation even though I don't oppose having a minimum wage. It's not just a question of lacking empathy for someone or living with dignity, because in those terms a minimum wage can have the opposite effect. And dismissing contrasting views as unemphatic or suggesting that no one can be poorly paid with dignity detracts from having a useful conversation... it also says little about what the minimum wage should be. Certainly $1m/yr is more dignified than less! :P
eadmund 1y ago
> If employers can't make the economics work, that's unfortunate. Yes, minimum wages are unfortunate for those who don’t have sufficient skills to work at minimum wage. That’s why there are almost no more human order-takers at fast food restaurants. Kind of sucks for the kids — and poorer folks — who could have worked those jobs and used them as a springboard to something else.
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  You are stating these things like they are natural or physical laws, when they are simply agreed upon politically and can change. Look no further than California raising the minimum wage to $20/hour for fast food workers, increasing costs roughly ~1.5%. So, let us not say that it can't be done, only that those with the power to change this are unwilling to (for obvious, economic advantageous and exploitation reasons). California's $20 fast-food minimum wage improves pay at small cost to consumers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43806608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43806608 - April 2025
  - nullc 1y ago
    I'm in California. Two of my favorite fast food restaurants have closed (or closed their locations here) others have radically reduced their workforce and replaced humans with machines. It'll be interesting to see if this effect turns out to be statistically signficant in time. ( https://reason.com/video/2024/12/19/no-californias-20-minimum-wage-for-fast-food-workers-did-not-create-jobs/ https://reason.com/video/2024/12/19/no-californias-20-minimu... ).
  - eadmund 1y ago
    You are not addressing my point. The cost to consumers does not consider the cost to potential employees who no longer have jobs. Note the very first comment (at this time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43806765 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43806765): ‘The fast food chains seem to have a bifurcated response. Some, like McDonalds, seem to have cut crew, while retaining relatively low prices.’ And yes, it is a natural law that increasing the cost of something reduces its usage. That’s why we many governments tax alcohol and cigarettes. Raising the cost of labour means that less of it is bought. Raising the cost of labour puts labourers out of work.

cycomanic 1y ago

> It's not a question of anyone asking. > Lets imagine that there is a job with parameters (including wages) where only high schoolers would take the job. Should that job be required to pay above the market wage to make it also attractive to independent adults? Then what job will the highshoolers have? If I've got to pay a full adult wage anyways, I'm probably not going to employ a highschooler. > It creates a deadweight loss. In this example are kids that would benefit from working, at low wages, from both the experience and income and they're left out. There would be useful work done that probably just doesn't get done, creating harms in the form of missing products and services. Why would kids benefit from working? Shouldn't the benefit be from going to school? If they need to supplement their parents income doesn't that just mean that their parents salary is not high enough? It seems the only benefit of allowing kids to work is to the employers, enabling them to depress salaries, because somebody trying to support a family would not take the job. I find it interesting that often the same people (not saying you are) arguing against immigration because the immigrants take away jobs, argue for children to work because it's a "great experience". > Now sure, non-existence of a minimum wage would create other harms and losses so there is a balancing act-- but in the special case of students being discussed here those other costs don't apply. (and that's also why in practice there are minimum wage exceptions like the 'youth minimum wage program').

nullc 1y ago
> Why would kids benefit from working? Shouldn't the benefit be from going to school? There is a purely 'academic' educational advantage, -- it's like asking why should there be chemistry lab, shouldn't chemistry be learned by pure manipulation of field equations??-- People learn different things by studying a subject and doing a thing, and some students learn better one way or another. Most people will learn more from splitting their educational time among multiple approaches than from using only a single approach. But also our goal in education should be the creation of complete adults. We do try to artificially teach a broader set of life skills in school than the purely academic, e.g. that's why assignments have deadlines if all we cared about was teaching material there would be little reason for any deadline other than the end of the semester. Communication, timelyness, responsibility, etc. are all part of a complete education and aren't as well taught via the contrivances of school. As they say the difference between theory and practice is that in theory they're the same and in practice they are not the same. It's also the case that the education environment is very unlike the rest of our lives. Most educational environments are very means driven-- you must use the answer you're taught or its wrong, but life is much more results driven. The problems set out for you in education have usually tidy answers which can be arrived at via the tools you've already been provided, in work force (or life in general) that is often not true. In school the (or at least at the sub-gratudate level) the teacher knows best, they're only asking you questions that they know the answers to. In work it's not uncommon that you know best. Your boss knows what he wants done, sure but you know the facts on the ground. If someone asks you a question in work they do not know the answer. Work is also artificial (like.. you have a "boss"??) but at least it's an artificial thing that you'll likely be part of for most of your adult life. Now one could simulate more 'work like' learning, but education already takes up an incredible amount of time. Being able to spend endless time on unproductive education is a luxury of wealth that some cannot afford. Even if the state were to provide some of it during schooling, an employer still prefers employees with _experience_ and for those who aren't born into every opportunity having early experience can make a real difference. Work is also not just something people have to do-- the right work in the right conditions is something that people love to do. It can contribute additional meaning in their lives. I would personally rather mop a floor for an hour transcribe a bunch of geometry identities that I could just look up. The grinding school work is nothing that hasn't been done before, it doesn't improve anything in the world, it's hardly something to be proud of (except perhaps if I do remember it a year later, which often students don't). At least if you mop a floor you get a clean floor and the pride of completing a task that in appreciated by others. And of course, having money that you earned and coming to terms with managing it, spending it on things you want without having to justify it to others and regretting some of those decisions is also an important part of education. And I think it's useful to have the experience of putting in effort to get it, that putting in more effort can get you more of it, and so on. Of course, wealthier families can and do also provide this education for their children through other means... but if there isn't excess money in the household for Jr. to be paid it for chores or whatever, then they'll have to work outside the home to get it. > It seems the only benefit of allowing kids to work is to the employers Kids aren't generally great workers. Part of the reason we don't have more youth employment in the US is that employers generally aren't falling all over themselves to get more of them. There are some benefits to employers that make it worthwhile, e.g. occasionally you get a minor employee that is much better than you'd be able to score as an adult, you make your business a more integrated part of the community, and sure you may lower some labor costs particularly for menial tasks that it might be harder to hire a capable adult for. It's also the case that many adults like working with young people, the instinct to teach is human and not just confined to professional teachers. With respect to your immigrants comments, I think if you talk in terms of immigrants who are taking jobs that generally citizens don't want, who are operating just seasonally or for a limited time, etc. you'll see a lot more support ("well I don't mean THOSE immigrants"), and that situation is more analogous to youth employment. But beyond that to the extent that youth employment has some negative effect on the broader adult labor market I think most people would feel it to be justified as an investment in the future of their community. The same argument ought to apply to immigrants too but immigrants aren't seen as part of the community unless they've integrated enough and then, presumably, they stop being seen as immigrants. :) For kids it's obvious that they grow up to adults, it's less obvious to people that many immigrants to America 'grow up' to be Americans (by whatever definition makes a person feel good about them being here :) ).

orwin 1y ago

In my country, with a minimum wage, highschool students work seasonal jobs (including McDonalds) at a decent pay. They are hired because it's expected they will only work 2 months, and are needed because we have 5-8 weeks of vacation per year and employers can assign 3 of those (usually in summer, when they hire students).