Minimum Wage for Youth (1 Viewer)

[neo o]

"Should the minimum wage for youth either be significantly lowered or removed?"

Discuss.

 

[superbird]

"Should the minimum wage for youth either be significantly lowered or removed?"

Discuss.

i think ur asking the wrong crowd....

 

[Generator]

Not really. Most of the regulars know what they are on about... I'm the exception .

I don't know much about the issue beyond the very basic arguments both for (more young people working) and against (less of a chance for older people to work, possibility of a lower wage for the same job between two workmates), so I'm just going to let this one go and read through the responses of those understand the issues involved... But anyway, though I'm not in favour of removing the minimum wage, can't it be bypassed through contract agreements, cash in hand and the like?

Edit: This was posted with respect to the youth minimum wage in general.

 

[Rorix]

I say:

What is the point of the minimum wage?

If you can answer that question, you can see why the minimum wage for <18 isn't necessary

then it's just a question of 'Would removing this wage impact the jobs of adults on minimum wage?'

 

[Generator]

It's necessary in terms of exploitation, not living standards. It's a relatively weak argument, I guess, but it's a point to consider.

 

[Rorix]

You can only be exploited if you agree to work under conditions where you will be exploited.

Who would do this?

People who are dependant on that low wage for basic necessities.

Almost all of said people are over 18.

 

[loquasagacious]

And what about those that arn't?

A minimum wage means a minimum standard of living.

If nobody would be paid less, then why remove them?

 

[neo o]

Of course people would be paid less. Wages would be lowered and people would happily work for less money, if they wouldn't wages would be higher.

Children under the age of 18 receive government support anyway, so regardless they dont need wages to survive. Reducing wages has the obvious bonus of decreasing youth unemployment and it also may result in a reduced cost to the consumer in industries that employ a large number of casual, young workers i.e.: Fast food chains.

Personally, I dont think that youth workers will entirely supplant adult workers for quite a few reasons. Firstly, even in low skilled occupations it does take some time to show someone the ropes and additionally, the majority of kids work part time as opposed to full time. (No stats, sorry ).

Also, there's the ideological argument that since nearly all under 18's aren't supporting themselves or families on their wages, there is no need for a minimum wage, with the removal of government regulations allowing for increased efficiency in some industries and more equity amongst youth, since more can get jobs.

 

[thorrnydevil]

In my LGA we have a 25% youth unemployment rate. People are already paid low enough money, without it going further down. No minimum wage means that teenagers, and children, will be exploited by greedy businesses.

 

[neo o]

In my LGA we have a 25% youth unemployment rate. People are already paid low enough money, without it going further down. No minimum wage means that teenagers, and children, will be exploited by greedy businesses.

1) And the removal of minimum wages would resolve that unemployment problem.

2) Children arent allowed to work legally

3) Its been pointed out that teenagers aren't forced to work, since they dont support themselves. Therefore, they can't be exploited as they choose to work.

 

[malkin86]

More and more people are being made to take casual work, anyway. Getting rid of any form of minimum wage would make it even worse, IMHO.

And as for exploitation... From what I've seen, getting a job is more than just having some money, it's proof, among other teenagers, that the job holder is a mature-type person. Parents tend to push their teenagers towards having jobs of some description, because it's a great learning experience for them. Because teenagers often don't know their rights with regards to jobs, they're often exploited anyway.

If an employer can employ a teenager at any wage you like, why employ adults? The teens can always be fired for being 'unmotivated', probably caused by the disparity between work done and money recieved.

Why the heck is it 14-and-9-months that you have to be before you can get a job? Why not 14? why not 15?

 

[LadyBec]

1) And the removal of minimum wages would resolve that unemployment problem.

How so? Yes, it would result in more money for the employers, IF they chose to lower their wadges due to their not bing a minimum, which is unlikely. But this will not necessarily translate into more employee's.

2) Children arent allowed to work legally

They are in some circumstances, with parental permission

3) Its been pointed out that teenagers aren't forced to work, since they dont support themselves. Therefore, they can't be exploited as they choose to work.

some teenagers DO have to support themselves. Not everyones parents can afford to give them an allowance, and pay for all their stuff. Likewise, not everyone who doesn't get money from their parents recieves benefits from the government.

I for one see no benefit in removing the minimum wage, it's there for a purpose - to ensure that people are paid adequetly for their work.
The argument that because young people don't have family's to support, they don't need the minimum wage is idiotic, and can be likened to the old argument that women got pain less because men had to support familys. The fact that you may have to support someone other then yourself has no relevance to the value of your work.

 

[loquasagacious]

I agree with ThornyDevil!!!!!

neo 0 I am dissapointed.

Minimum wages make sure that people are not exploited end of story.

 

[Generator]

He isn't questioning the idea of minimum wages in general (yet), just those for people under 18.

 

[Rorix]

How so? Yes, it would result in more money for the employers, IF they chose to lower their wadges due to their not bing a minimum, which is unlikely. But this will not necessarily translate into more employee's.

Yes it will. It's the concept of 'demand and supply'.

some teenagers DO have to support themselves. Not everyones parents can afford to give them an allowance, and pay for all their stuff. Likewise, not everyone who doesn't get money from their parents recieves benefits from the government.

Stats, plz.

Anyway, it's a matter of probability. Probability of a worker over 18 being forced to work to live > probability of a worker under 18. Much much greater.

I for one see no benefit in removing the minimum wage, it's there for a purpose - to ensure that people are paid adequetly for their work.

I always thought 'adequetly' meant mutually agreeable, but maybe that was just me.

The argument that because young people don't have family's to support, they don't need the minimum wage is idiotic, and can be likened to the old argument that women got pain less because men had to support familys.
The fact that you may have to support someone other then yourself has no relevance to the value of your work.

You seem to be confusing the issues.

Need to work - For those that need to work to live
Value of work - Value of output

The two concepts aren't related.

Minimum wages make sure that people are not exploited end of story.

You can only be exploited if you agree to work under conditions where you will be exploited.

Who would do this?

People who are dependant on that low wage for basic necessities.

Almost all of said people are over 18.

 

[loquasagacious]

Who would do this?

People who are dependant on that low wage for basic necessities.

How about people with tight parents? Or those on youth allowance, who do not live with a guardian supporter of any kind. The maximum youth allowance of $400 or so (including maximum rent allowance) would be hard stretched to cover basic necessities on itself (especially in Sydney, where cost of living is higher). This means they have to take up piad employment and if minimum wage has been removed then they have to work longer to earn enough which impinges on study and hence long term job prospects.

Just because most people would not necaserily be disadvantaged (which is debatable) that is not a valid reason to disadvantage some.

 

[Rorix]

How about people with tight parents?

Yeah, those poor kids with tight parents will be forced into working for 50c an hour. .

Or those on youth allowance, who do not live with a guardian supporter of any kind. The maximum youth allowance of $400 or so (including maximum rent allowance) would be hard stretched to cover basic necessities on itself (especially in Sydney, where cost of living is higher).

I'll respond to this when someone can provide a statistic on how many people under 18 live alone without financial support, so that we may know the extent of this problem.

 

[thorrnydevil]

1) And the removal of minimum wages would resolve that unemployment problem.

2) Children arent allowed to work legally

3) Its been pointed out that teenagers aren't forced to work, since they dont support themselves. Therefore, they can't be exploited as they choose to work.

So, by your logic, children working in sweatshops in Vietnam, getting paid 20 cents an hour, aren't being exploited because they CHOOSE to work.

 

[loquasagacious]

Wow! I wish I could CHOOSE to work for 20 cents an hour. damn governmnet for oppressing my liberty!!

Oh and also just quickly who does this benefit?

It means business' can more easily turn a profit, UNLESS they make money by selling thnings to teens who will no longer be able to afford anything.

Business' will be able to employ more workers yet pay them less in total, they will also be able to casualise and move to under 18's more positions.

Old ladies will no longer have to worry about 'the youth of today' being out on the street (assuming full employment results).

And finally a little question: Why esactly was a minimum wage campaigned for and child labour practices ended in the first place?

 

[Suvat]

Why should the minimum wage for under 18's be reduced or eliminated? If anything at all, it should be increased. I'm sure most junior employees already get pissed off enough at getting paid $8/hr while some equally qualified 24 year old beside them doing exactly the same work (or was in my case, less work) gets paid $15.5/hr.

Employers already prefer young workers due to junior wage rates, eliminating minimum wages for under 18's is only going to make these workers less motivated.