Hacker News Reader

Comment by zizee | Hacker News Reader

Honest question: why do discussions about minimum wage in the U.S. never propose having teenagers having a different minimum to adults?

In australia we have a $12.50/hr minimum for 15 year olds. It climbs in increments until about $25/hr.

This system allows teenagers to get a foot in the door for low-skilled jobs, and allows adults to get paid a livable wage.

The result is that a lot of fast food jobs are performed by teenagers, and they are considered entry level jobs. Adults are then paid more, and take positions where they can add more value that what a teen can provide.

View on HN

You don't want to create a class of people who get paid badly because their jobs are terrible (and also low-skilled.) The only reason you would want a lower minimum wage for young people is because young people are stupid, and you want to put them into a job where they can learn i.e. low-skilled, but ramping up over time, like an apprenticeship. Paying people almost nothing to work a horrible job because you can get away with it is just creating a slave class, and the primary beneficiaries are the companies that employ them.

The gap between a juvenile minimum wage and an adult minimum wage should equal the value of the on-the-job training that the juvenile is getting. And there's really no reason to tie that to youth, although demographically it will be dominated by young people; adults might accept a lower minimum wage in exchange for education in the trade.

This sounds exactly like what OP indicated.

A fast food job isn't an apprenticeship. It's just a shitty job. Management of a fast food restaurant takes a bit of generalizable, transferable skill, but there are always going to be an order of magnitude more workers than managers. A job where only 10% of the workers can move up is a dead end job for 90% of them. Every apprentice carpenter can become a carpenter.

Agreed, I think that a number of these jobs provide a fantastic introduction to business process but the resume doesn’t necessarily translate into the opportunities that it could or should depending on a persons aptitude. As such, it becomes necessary to reconfigure resumes in a way that avoids jobs that might seem unwanted and highlights skills that appear more sought after regardless of how much they were tied to a job. I like the phrase resume driven development.

A better path would be for employers to have internal training programs for gaining skills that can help one to climb the career ladder either internally or externally knowing that if a good person leaves that the reputation will attract suitable replacements.

Shitty jobs teaches you one thing or two too. Who's to decide there's nothing to learn from a job, for 100% of people?

I worked as a mailman between 11-13 y.o. It was a shitty job carrying ads and local newspapers weighting as much as you on a bike through hills in -10C snowy north. A shitty job, but I learned a thing or to; planning, discipline and value of money.

Problem is when you're stuck at a shitty job with no option to change/improve at all. I don't see how that's the case for teenagers at entry level job.

I disagree. While learning to operate a grill or deep fryer isn't a skill many are likely to need in the future there are dozens of generalist skills learned from your first job. Think teamwork, following managerial directions, following a roster, how to complete timesheets, how to deal with workplace conflict, how to deal with suppliers and customers, how to dress appropriatly, even how to count money/operate a register. Fast food jobs are a great place to make mistakes as a teen as the consequences are minimal and you can get another job easily. If you've never worked in any workplace you'll find it far harder to get hired.

If you have kept a fast food job for six months you have shown that you will actually show up on time regularly, not steal (much) and do an at least adequate job. More generally most jobs don’t lead to a qualification but do teach skills. The more responsible the job you’ve had in the past the more likely you are to do a good job with a new one. McDonald’s does teach skills. If you want to go from a teenage hire to an assistant manager in under six months that’s doable, and managing a McDonald’s really does take skill and pay well. There are very few dead end jobs but there are plenty where most people hired there have no intention of getting promoted.

Not everyone working there can be promoted, because there aren’t enough of the good jobs to go around. Saying it boils down to personal responsibility ignores the fact that in many ways it is a game of musical chairs and there aren’t enough good jobs.

Granted, jobs can be created and the more skilled the labor force the better the jobs, so the number of chairs in the game can be increased, but on the other hand those aren’t the kind of skills you’re going to pick up serving burgers at mcdonalds.

You keep using the word class, but I don't think it's applicable here. If everyone in the country is subjected to a lower minimum wage while a teenager, there is no disadvantaged "class".

Not sure why this getting down-voted. There are issues, like to what extent having teenagers work is useful or harmful to society in the first place, but a universal things everyone enters and leaves isn't a class in the segregated and hereditary sense.

Religion is a legally protected class; everyone is free to change their religion. Pregnancy is also a legally protected class, despite being one that half the population can enter and leave. Also, short term disabilities.

I don't find this argument compelling, unless you're also arguing that employers should be able to pay people less for their religion or because they get pregnant (or choose not to get pregnant) or because they contracted a disease or injury.

That's a different use of class, but an important one too. We want people's choices around families and religion to be free from outside coercion, so we have special protections. Short term disabilities are not a choice but also non-universal, and without the protection they might worsen into long-term ones.

But being a teenager is a not a choice, and not something that happens to some people but not others. Again, there's many reasons we don't want to promote shit jobs for adolescents because of some nonsense about character building, but I think that's a rational distinct from the others.

Seems like you're reaaaally splitting hairs here. Young age is okay to discriminate against, but not old age (because you don't leave old age without dying). Anything people can enter and leave by choice is not okay to discriminate against if it's -important-, like family or religion.

What about menstruation? That's pretty universal to women (not entirely especially with non-cisgendered), not really a choice (at least, not without encroaching on the same protections you'd want with pregnancy), and all those who do menstruate enter and leave it (both monthly, and at menopause)...what's your objection to discriminating against menstruating women?

So it's okay for businesses to discriminate against old people?

The disadvantaged class is poor people. Poor kids will have to work and will make less money while doing it than they should. So not only do these kids have to waste valuable time at low-wage jobs (rather than studying, being kids), but they get even less money while doing it. Wealthy people's kids won't work.

Hang on, hang on.

By definition, age is not a class, because by definition, /everyone moves out of that class/. Your entire proposition is faulty from the foundation!

Not by choice though. If we can get younger or older by choice on a whim, I think your point would stand.

It doesn't matter! You could change class by a windfall inheritance or a sudden bankruptcy. Class does not bear choice as a prerequisite.

> Honest question: why do discussions about minimum wage in the U.S. never propose having teenagers having a different minimum to adults?

Because its effect would be a transfer of jobs from working class adults to middle class kids.

Do you think so? While companies are incentivized to hire kids, the kids don't get any more incentive to do these jobs though (wage stays the same), and neither would the supply of them grow.

There is, hypothetically, a market price for these jobs. It is below the minimum wage (otherwise there isn't much point in the minimum wage). It is set by the pairwise negotiations of companies, customers and employees.

If there is an avenue for the market to reach equilibrium (eg, by hiring children cheaply) then the market is going to try and take it. It will just create a class of jobs that adults can't get employed in because they cost too much to hire.

It isn't a question of what the kids would like, it is a question of what choices consumers and employers will offer them. If wages were set solely by employee's incentives then they'd all be paid much more than current market wages.

Do the kids become more incentivized to work if their parents income decreases?

I would say yes

Result: a class of families consisting of unemployable parents supported by the state and their own working children :(

I would say maybe it’s not a dream society if we’re creating a class of helots to maximize teenage labor force participation.

> Because its effect would be a transfer of jobs from working class adults to middle class kids.

Then corps would have to rewrite the application algorithms that serially discriminate against 1st time job applicants.

> Then corps would have to rewrite the application algorithms that serially discriminate against 1st time job applicants.

Places that hire people at minimum wage mostly wouldn't have that problem for those positions

I know of no major corporations w/ a web application system, that do not discriminate against those w/o a job history. Pay does not seem to be a factor in this equation.

I sincerely doubt that.

1) Kids are unlikely to be as effective. 2) There's not that many kids.

It's all just motivated reasoning to argue against a significant minimum wage.

> 1) Kids are unlikely to be as effective. 2) There's not that many kids.

Neither of those even support the argument that a change from equal minimum wage would have the effect of moving jobs from adults to kids.

The first would be a good argument for a smaller displacement effect from allowing teens to work with equal minimum wage to adults conpared to not allowing them to work at all than would occur at equal effectiveness, the second semana yo be a sortear of an argument about the magnitude of effect but without a definition of what “that many” meand in context is only a sketch.

> It's all just motivated reasoning to argue against a significant minimum wage.

it's not an argument against ‘a significant minimim wage’ at all.

Why don't we ask the guy in Australia instead of declaring the results absque facta.

One concern is that this makes teenage employees relatively more attractive and so increases the adult unemployment rate above what it would be with a uniform minimum wage.

Is this a big issue in Australia?

Sort of, it's well known that you're unlikely to get a job at McDonald's as an adult

It's not. It really only affects those working part time jobs from 15 to the age of 18. Full time work is not allowed in most Australian states until the age of 17.

There's far fewer 15-18 year olds than there are 18-65 year olds. There's also fewer again that can work during school hours.

The idea that teenagers are being paid too much or have an advantage in Australians case and that therefore this should prevent changes to minimum wage laws is just a distraction. It keeps getting brought up by people desperate to push a position but who don't want to argue about the far bigger issue of adults trying to survive on minimum wage. Teenagers are an edge case in this discussion and they really shouldn't be the focus.

I don't know about big, but when I was at school-leaver age I would pretty regularly hear about friends getting way less shifts at their job once they hit 18.

Really? The OP provided an example of country and a policy.

You’ve stated an opinion, as a theory with zero evidence.

Youth unemployment in Australia is ~double the unemployment rate. 11.8% vs 5.6%

https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/youth-unemployment-ra...

Employment is more complex than hourly wage.

Easy on that accusatory tone mate. They didn't claim that as their own opinion, but merely gave an alternative viewpoint: "One concern is that...".

Yea I’m in a bad mood, and that’s not their fault.

Fair enough to call that out.

I had this concern until I realized teenagers have to go to school so there’s a huge chunk of the day that they cannot work. Adults have to take those shifts.

This realization also led me to determine that these jobs aren’t purely for teenagers despite hearing all my life burger-flipping was for teens.

Not all teenagers are required to go to school.

Dropping out is possible, and usually 18/19 y/o don't have high school

Plus, kids from unstable homes where the parents need them to earn money will sometimes drop out of school to help their family. It's best not to incentivize that.

very specific problems have very specific solutions. if this is the main concern, make it illegal to schedule school-aged children for shifts during school hours.

And then that creates other sorts of specific problems. What of mine conventional schools? Seniors who make their own schedule ? Home school kids ? Are now drop-outs dropped from making an income ?

18/19 year olds shouldn't have a lower minimum wage. They're adults. Younger teens, sure.

My issues with this are it's ageist and unequal, teenagers are people too. Many teenagers work harder and are smarter then many adults. It glosses over the fact that some teenagers sadly have to support children and adult parents as well. Symbolically it tells teenagers they aren't worth as much as adults. It could reduce age diversity in some jobs which can be important.

I never understood the argument that middle class teenagers either should be given opportunities, or the opposite that they should leave those opportunities to adults. Society shouldn't be picking and choosing who gets what opportunities based on things as broad as age.

Kids are often not allowed to work full time and ARE required to go to school until 18.

You can consider anti-child-labor laws to be ageist, and maybe you'll be technically correct but that's irrelevant. Age discrimination actually is good in this case. Kids should be in school and shouldn't be forced to have to work.

The average age of a fast food worker is 29.5.

https://www.davemanuel.com/2011/04/21/the-average-age-of-a-f...

Is that the mean age or the median age? The article doesn't really provide a source.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/29/fast-food-restaurants-in-ame... This 2019 source has it at median.

The US has that.[1] $4.25/hr for the first 90 days of employment for people 20 and under. McDonalds lobbied for it. It's not used much.

[1] https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/32-minimum-wage...

That incentivizes companies to hire teenagers instead of adults

Could that possibly be a bad sounding thing that turns out to be a good thing? I am not familiar with Australian labor issues.

For adults who depend on these kind of jobs to pay the bills, I cannot see this as a good thing in anyway.

It also incentivizes teenagers to work instead of hang around parking lots being goofballs.

I liked hanging around parking lots being a goofball. Not that it wasn't a privilege to be in that position and that teenagers shouldn't be able to support themselves through work if they need or want to, but I'm also glad I didn't want or need to trade it in for a few extra dollars.

Is that a bad thing (in the long run)? More people with work experience = more people who are enjoyable at higher rates later on. Maybe a bit of short-term pain, but everyone's better off in the long run?

Only if adults can't compete with teenagers.

At that level, "cheaper" is the killer feature. There's no competing with the cheaper option.

If you can’t do the job you’re not worth hiring whatever the cost.

Doubt it. Australia doesn't have a problem. And there are a finite number of minors, and they're not allowed to work full time any way.

If you create two wages, then adults might not be able to compete for those jobs even though they likely need them more than the teenagers do. So unless you introduce quotas (there's your slippery slope), I don't see this as a good thing. Even with quotas, you run into budget constraints.

There's also the fact that minimum wage cuts jobs. So if the budget allows for X hires at teenage wage and Y<X at adult wage, then it becomes even more difficult for adults to assume those jobs, meaning things like experience will count less in justifying the more expensive hire.

Now without the minimum wage, you could at least give the adult a job at a lower wage than what you pay teenagers. It sucks, but if the choice is between no job and some job that pays below a fair wage, it seems the latter is preferable if you don't want to starve.

In Au, current ceo at my work recently complained how frustrating it is having 16 y.o. s manage stores. Hmm wonder how that problem happened?

In a hot labour market you take much worse employees because you can’t get anybody better at the price you’re willing to pay.

There is a different minimum wage for minors for the first 90 days in the US:

https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/youthlabor/wages

In some states, minimum wage is 1-2 dollars an hour *less* for 16/17 year olds

"Why make things more complicated? We've always had one minimum wage; don't change what ain't broke." Nevermind the numerous fallacies, this is a typical thought pattern for Americans.

Another bad habbit Americans have: they look only to their authority for answers (whomever that may be. e.g. the president, fox news, the church, etc). Go watch some Trump rallies to see this in action.

I'm beginning to believe our education system has left us lacking even basic critical thinking skills and thus we can not have two minimum wages.

Edit typo, and:

Not all Americans are this way, obviously, but enough are and they're in the right areas to cause problems. (wrt areas, see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering )

Then we should also give minors the right to vote, form unions etc.

What you propose is exploitation, since you get to decide their rights and btw you also decided that their labor is worth less, but they have no say in all of these.

Came here to agree with this, there are laws against the federal government setting discriminatory minimums like this. In the eyes of just about any federal judge the original suggestion would get the entire bill shot down. Also people in this thread talking about how they think this is fair based on experience or cause "teens are stupid" thats entirely misguided of you all to think, there are kids who start working in some states LEGALLY at 14.5 years old, example: N.C. so when they are 16 or 17 they can legally be paid the same 'juvenile' minimum wage? No fast food company or grocery store will actively pay them more if they don't have to and that means less raises and how would all these companies even be monitored and audited for the crossover on ones 18th birthday? What about kids who are emancipated for their parents/legal guardians? What about kids who drop out of school and work? Do they all deserve to make less just because of their age? Geez, the actual obliviousness of people on this site is astonishing sometimes.

Paying poverty wages is wrong, and child labour is wrong. They don't cancel each other out.

There's nothing wrong with a teenager mopping some floors. On the contrary, I learned a lot from the experience.

Is a 15-18 year old working fast food child labor?

child

"1. a young person especially between infancy and puberty

2. a person not yet of the age of majority..."

It depends on the definition of child you are using, I always thought the first to be correct.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

Not really. I made the comment overly simplistic, probably 15 or 16 is a fine age to be allowed to start working.

Exploitive child labor is wrong. Allowing teens to willingly enter an employmemt contract is neither exploitive nor child labor.

> Allowing teens to willingly enter an employmemt contract is neither exploitive nor child labor.

Non-adult teens (“Teen” spans the border) are indeed children, and their labor – while in some circumstances, quantities, etc. – permitted, is regulated as part of the broader regulation of child labor (which is not a total ban, even for very young children, and is graduated by age.)

Whether it ought to be within the scope of acceptable child labor or not is a separate discussion, but it is child labor.

People learn skills by performing them. As parents we teach children life skills by having them help do the chore that daily life requires. When I have yard, mechanic, or construction work my children help. They have since they were able. I learned those skills by doing the same when I was young.

By prohibiting capable teens from work, either by pricing them out or law, we are hobbling their ability to learn valuable work skills. As a result we end up with adults that are lacking simple work skills that would make their labor more valuable.

No, a teenager is not a child.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com