The minimum wage should be the same for everyone. There's plenty of 18 year olds out there doing more than their 30 year old counterparts and getting paid less for it.
It's not a cap, it's a minimum.
This is so people can employ kids who have very little economic value and train them to have lots of it.
misphrased, fixed.
>This is so people can employ kids who have very little economic value and train them to have lots of it.
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.
Minimum wage should be the same for all ages. It should be at the discretion of the employers to pay more to experienced employees.
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.
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?
As for age discrimination: is only letting people vote at a certain age, age discrimination?
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
No, we don't. You already understood that my point is it's confusing to use the term in a context where it has another meaning, without disambiguating.
> If yes, what are the fundamental differences between this hypothetical situation and the real world situation of lower minimum wages for younger people?
If there wouldn't be the confusion then I wouldn't bring up the confusion.
> Why would you consider one to be discriminatory and the other to not be?
You're missing the point. There are some things we allow and some things we don't. E.g. 3 year olds can't drive. Would you consider that to be discrimination? The answer is "Who cares - we were just talking about avoiding using terms with multiple meanings in written conversation."
The true sign of a 20-something is thinking they know everything because they have the book learning fresh outta school. But having 20 years on the job experience teaches you so so many more things that is never so much taught as, ahem, experienced.
Young people between the ages of 18 and 23 are not generally doing knowledge work, they're working in cafes and bars where 1 year of experience can be as effective as 20. People between these ages should be entitled to the same minimum wage.
In knowledge work, of course 20 years of experience is much more valuable than none.
Some of that is pleasant as it means people can enjoy child-like comfort for longer, but too much of it seems like it would have adverse effects.
This sincere befuddlement that a 20-something has the same experience is just bizarre to me coming from anyone that's not a 20-something. Sure, there's some talented 20-somethings, but that's true of any generation. I was a 20-something at one point long ago myself, and I too fought these things and constantly had my "experience" and "opinions" qualified with someone that undeniably had experience. It was truly frustrating, but also a bit of "told ya" when they'd come back and say I was correct. It's an age old growing pain. Why is this being questioned I have no idea. Yes, you will meet qualified 20-somethings, but you will inevitably meet many many more of them faking it till they make it but ultimately prove their inexperience.
TBH, this isn't even the most relevant argument here.
We don't have minimum wage laws because we think that every person produces at least (say) $15/hr of economic value.
We have minimum wage laws because we believe that no human being should have to work more than 40 hours a week to earn enough to live.
And there are 16-year-olds who are working to provide for their families (parents are dead, or disabled, etc, etc).
I agree - that's what creates some of the adverse outcomes. Jobs that are worth less than that need to have automation added in to increase the value of those jobs per-person hour.
In the US, for instance, Medicare only serves sufficiently old people.
I think the difference is too big to be honest, but I do understand where it comes from.
Of course this punishes ALL 16 years old when some would perform better than an older employee, but there's no perfect system.
Many adults are living in this situation right now.