The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Should young people be paid minimum wage?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by sw651
They often don't pay NI because they don't do enough hours to earn enough to pay NI, they are paid more money because they also have far more outgoings than a 16/17 year old. They have to pay taxes, poll tax, car tax, bills as well as rents and mortgages, the are using it to LIVE not just as disposable income!


Yes lots of young people have jobs for 'disposable income' but also many need to support their own families, their parents, their siblings etc , the bottom line is if you're doing the same work, you should be paid the same per hour.
Original post by sleepysnooze
nobody should be entitled to a "minimum wage"; the only people determining wages should be those involved in a contract - not a state government that has nothing to do with such contracts ecept enforcing agreements - we live in the west in the 21st century. we don't live in the third world. britain before 1997 when it (the minimum wage law) was implemented wasn't a shanty town.


Where do unions come into this bargaining?

it aint no shanty town now either after the implementation of the min wage.
there was a report on the news yesterday from the cbi/chamber of commerce that employers thought that the majority of school leavers ( including uni graduates) were 'unemployable"

so it does make sense to have a lower wage for those who are starting out, and perhaps not up to the same game as those who've been working for a while.
hopefully, most people who are on here will have a career structure that gives pay rises on a regular basis, as they professionally improve.
The minimum wage is unlikely;y to apply to the,. Most MW staff earn a set amount and pretty much earn that every year, possibly adjusted for inflation.

Abandon the MW and you end up with in work benefits subsidising companies who fail to pay a living wage.

why should my taxes subsidise a spud farmer who pays his staff less than they need to live on?
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Where do unions come into this bargaining?

it aint no shanty town now either after the implementation of the min wage.


1) the leader of the union (acting on behalf of the rest) and the boss, perhaps?

2) it depends- it will definitely do economic harm in that sense, although won't cause poverty in the short term. less employment due to barriers to entry (the threshold of skills having to match at least the minimum wage), causing more welfare spending, etc - it's a cycle of burdens upon a lot of people. also, less people working means, generally, less economic activity being allowed to happen. it's not just the consequences that I'm talking about, but the harm to the cause of individual rationality/agency; I have no problem with unions because it is still technically based on the consent of the people involved (the union/boss) but when you have a government saying "okay, little timothy is poor, dumb and unskilled - let's make his life even worse (better, in their minds - by making him less easy to employ, or making his current employer have more reasons to lay him off) - through a minimum wage law! because he obviously an't be trusted to make his life better through his own intelligence" then that's when both the principles and the outcomes are bad. also, think of the fact that corporations are going to be at a massive advantage regarding the payment of these minimum wages compared to the thinner (small) businesses.

I mean, I can't really see how anybody who's actually tried to find a job could possibly support a minimum wage - it basically makes finding work a living hell. you can't find a job where your skills can be matched with a reasonable and proportional price. you are finding work not because you deserve the money, but because an employer, at some stage, is going to have no choice but to hire somebody because they're short on staff and need things being done. if there was no minimum wage, you wouldn't have to suffer and struggle to find these conditions. and, of course, I'm talking about student jobs. I was a straight A A-level student who got a first in their first year at a russell group uni, and even ****ing burger king was a miracle when they hired me for a few months in the summer. the blasted minimum wage obviously meant that my work had to match the price, meaning that, although in theory, that job should have been simple and easy, they were yelling at me constantly because they had to get me to make the minimum wage proportional to my work - I was treated like crap even when I was doing my job.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by RVNmax
What is the basis for your assumption that the MD's earnings will rise proportionally with MW?





Could you not make the same case for over 21s or 25s or whatever though. By having such a rule, the government is bringing age discrimination into it, where there was not any before. It just means a shift towards youth employment leaving elder citizens unemployed. Either way, you will have the same amount of people unemployed, so I would rather the ones being employed getting paid a proper wage. I don't see there being much point of different minimum wage levels.


One of the reasons the minimum wage is lower for youths is to allow them to compete in the job market. Most employers are going to take an experienced 25-year-old over a 17-year-old kid if they will cost them the same. Older citizens, who have a history of employment, experience, and maturity, aren't going to be as affected by a high minimum labour price, however. They're more likely to be worth the money and an employer will be willing to pay a higher price.

All raising the minimum wage for youths is going to do is make it harder for them to find work. Yes, it initially sounds good that they'll be getting a 'fairer wage', but a 'fairer wage', in their situation, is not a competitive wage, and in reality it's going to harm them.

Is it age discrimination? Yes, but it's justified. They don't have the same responsibilities, experience, and most aren't even old enough to vote, for crying out loud.
I think it's reasonable. It encourages minimum wage employers in typical starter jobs to take on younger workers as they cost them less - which gets people experience. You also pay more to people who, in theory, have more experience and will be better workers. Under 21s and certainly under 18s are also much less likely to be relying on the salary to live on like an over 21 will so it is less important for them earn a liveable wage.
Original post by doodle_333
I think it's reasonable. It encourages minimum wage employers in typical starter jobs to take on younger workers as they cost them less - which gets people experience. You also pay more to people who, in theory, have more experience and will be better workers. Under 21s and certainly under 18s are also much less likely to be relying on the salary to live on like an over 21 will so it is less important for them earn a liveable wage.


18-21 year olds may have to live independently. Not everyone is able to stay at home with their parents. Care leavers, for example. it is unfair to assume that all young people can live with their parents.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by RVNmax
Could you not make the same case for over 21s or 25s or whatever though. By having such a rule, the government is bringing age discrimination into it, where there was not any before. It just means a shift towards youth employment leaving elder citizens unemployed. Either way, you will have the same amount of people unemployed, so I would rather the ones being employed getting paid a proper wage. I don't see there being much point of different minimum wage levels.


A few points:

•

I and many others would make exactly that case.

•

The fact is that age discrimination is a fact of life. Old people are in general more experienced than young people and, given no reason not to, employers will tend to hire experience. Of course, this makes it hard to gain experience in the first place. So young people tend to earn less and are far more likely to be in low wage jobs, as they're just starting out, but they mostly won't stay at low wage rates for their whole careers. But the minimum wage can be an impediment to getting that first foot on the ladder, stopping an incipient career at source, which is why the restriction is relaxed.

•

Our economy is not noted for having too little youth unemployment...

•

Employment is not a sum zero game. It is perfectly possible for government minimum wage policies to increase/decrease the number in employment. I'd rather see more people in employment but earning less, than fewer people getting more.

(edited 8 years ago)
I can get married, have sex (and kids), join the army, do the lottery & leave school and yet i'm not due the minimum wage? Piece of ****e
I think young people should be able to work for less than minimum wage because they have less to offer. Most employers want a degree or experience, and if they have to pay at least minimum wage anyway, a younger and unskilled person has no chance.

But if younger workers can work for less money than people who have had an opportunity to earn experience or a degree, then they have a chance of getting a job over an older worker.

The way things are, most younger people have to do volunteer work for a few years in order to get work experience, and there's actually competition for the opportunity.
If I am an employer and I have to pay someone who is 16 the same wage as someone who is over 21 then i simply would not hire someone who is 16.
Original post by TheArtofProtest
That's how people usually measure themselves.

For example, if I'm a cleaner on MW and my mate, who is a Hardware Engineer, he would expect to be on a higher salary than me.

Not because he is deserving of it, not because his effort is twice as less as mine, not because he needs the extra money but because he expects, and there is an perception, that his job is worth more than mine.

Due to the MW, society has been dragged into an illusion that if you follow a set path (i.e: school, university, postgraduate courses), you would increase your chances of earning a higher salary, a salary that is in proportion to the starting figure, which is usually taken to be the MW.


I'm not sure if you understood my question. I was asking for the rationale behind your 'logic' that the MD's wage would also increase to remain at that same 20xMW rate after an increase in MW.

Is it simply because the MD pays himself MW x 20? :indiff:

Original post by Dandaman1
One of the reasons the minimum wage is lower for youths is to allow them to compete in the job market. Most employers are going to take an experienced 25-year-old over a 17-year-old kid if they will cost them the same. Older citizens, who have a history of employment, experience, and maturity, aren't going to be as affected by a high minimum labour price, however. They're more likely to be worth the money and an employer will be willing to pay a higher price.

All raising the minimum wage for youths is going to do is make it harder for them to find work. Yes, it initially sounds good that they'll be getting a 'fairer wage', but a 'fairer wage', in their situation, is not a competitive wage, and in reality it's going to harm them.

Is it age discrimination? Yes, but it's justified. They don't have the same responsibilities, experience, and most aren't even old enough to vote, for crying out loud.


Original post by Rinsed
A few points:

•

I and many others would make exactly that case.

•

The fact is that age discrimination is a fact of life. Old people are in general more experienced than young people and, given no reason not to, employers will tend to hire experience. Of course, this makes it hard to gain experience in the first place. So young people tend to earn less and are far more likely to be in low wage jobs, as they're just starting out, but they mostly won't stay at low wage rates for their whole careers. But the minimum wage can be an impediment to getting that first foot on the ladder, stopping an incipient career at source, which is why the restriction is relaxed.

•

Our economy is not noted for having too little youth unemployment...

•

Employment is not a sum zero game. It is perfectly possible for government minimum wage policies to increase/decrease the number in employment. I'd rather see more people in employment but earning less, than fewer people getting more.



2. Only as much as racial discrimination. It is stupid. People of a certain age are more likely to get sick, are more likely to move on quicker, are more likely to retire, are more likely to go on maternity leave, etc. There might be a peak age of employment that has or will come out of some research, but it is completely misinformation to think that a working 19 year old will have less experience than a 22 year old graduate who's been priced out of the market, and so we shouldn't be encouraging age discrimination. If you really want to make it about experience, then that is something that will be negotiated above the MW level if it actually matters. I would agree for a lower wage during an induction day training or something.

3. Decreasing youth unemployment at the expense of others is not in the interest of the economy.

4. Well the only benefit that you have given, of an employer taking a chance on the younger person over someone older, suggests otherwise for this particular aspect of the minimum wage policy. Yes, and that is achieved with overall movements in MW, this will just shift the employment. I'd rather see people including the few youth employees getting paid without the need of benefits to supplement their income, as opposed to a possibly tiny increase in overall employment with the need to supplement all the youth employees in addition to those who are older.
Probably makes sense to have it lower to make it easier for them to find jobs.

That said, I've never had that much difficulty finding work. My current job is about 7.50 ph give or take some pennies and I'm 19.
Older people are more reliable with more experience, work ethic so yes i believe they should be allowed to earn more
Original post by RVNmax
I'm not sure if you understood my question. I was asking for the rationale behind your 'logic' that the MD's wage would also increase to remain at that same 20xMW rate after an increase in MW.

Is it simply because the MD pays himself MW x 20? :indiff:


Because (and I'm making these % up) there is a 0.00001% chance that the pay gap will decrease, a 10% chance that the gap will stay the same and an 89.99% chance the gap will increase, as illustrated by historical trends.
Reply 115
Avatar for sw651
sw651
3
Original post by morgan8002
You worried me that my research into the tax system had missed out some sort of tax I was supposed to pay.
A quick Google search says poll tax was abolished over 20 years ago.


I still refer to it as poll tax, its council tax nowadays
Original post by RVNmax
2. Only as much as racial discrimination. It is stupid. People of a certain age are more likely to get sick, are more likely to move on quicker, are more likely to retire, are more likely to go on maternity leave, etc. There might be a peak age of employment that has or will come out of some research, but it is completely misinformation to think that a working 19 year old will have less experience than a 22 year old graduate who's been priced out of the market, and so we shouldn't be encouraging age discrimination. If you really want to make it about experience, then that is something that will be negotiated above the MW level if it actually matters. I would agree for a lower wage during an induction day training or something.


Hiring an experienced worker is as bad as racism. Cor, you really are hysterical.

No one is saying that every person is more experienced than every other person who is younger than them. But in general it is almost axiomatically true that the old are more experienced than the young.

But on a certain level this just doesn't matter. The market does pay young people less, for sensible reasons you can't just rationalise away, and consequently a minimum wage does inhibit youth employment more than general employment. A reduction in the minimum wage for young people is a perfectly practical policy

3. Decreasing youth unemployment at the expense of others is not in the interest of the economy.


Maybe not, but hindering youth employment with policies which hit young people disproportionately hard certainly isn't.

4. Well the only benefit that you have given, of an employer taking a chance on the younger person over someone older, suggests otherwise for this particular aspect of the minimum wage policy. Yes, and that is achieved with overall movements in MW, this will just shift the employment. I'd rather see people including the few youth employees getting paid without the need of benefits to supplement their income, as opposed to a possibly tiny increase in overall employment with the need to supplement all the youth employees in addition to those who are older.


You have some strange view of the economy where every action is done at the expense of someone else. This isn't true, economic growth is the art of creating more than went before. Young people very frequently (and which of us hasn't been paid the minimum wage, at some time?) use these lowly paid jobs as a stepping stone to better things. They may go on to do great things, and create wealth and jobs for others, all off the back of these earlier opportunities.

Wages are not unimportant, but the absolutely most important thing is that as many people as possible are doing as much work as possible. That's how we grow the economy and make everyone wealthier in the long run.
Original post by TheArtofProtest
Because (and I'm making these % up) there is a 0.00001% chance that the pay gap will decrease, a 10% chance that the gap will stay the same and an 89.99% chance the gap will increase, as illustrated by historical trends.


How do you know that this is caused by a rise in minimum wage? The way I see it, the gap would be larger without the minimum wage.

Do you suggest people should be left without enough money to live on or do you propose something else?

Original post by Rinsed
Hiring an experienced worker is as bad as racism. Cor, you really are hysterical.

No one is saying that every person is more experienced than every other person who is younger than them. But in general it is almost axiomatically true that the old are more experienced than the young.


Nope, I didn't say that. You said age discrimination is a fact of life. I explained how it doesn't make sense to discriminate by age and compared it to racism since that is a type of discrimination that doesn't make sense either so it unjust.
A 19 year old and a 30 year old apply for a MW job. Your logic seems to be that just because generally older people are more experienced, the 30 year old will be more suited to the job without question. The reality is that is not true, you would at the very least make base your decision on something else, whether that be an interview, CV or reference.


But on a certain level this just doesn't matter. The market does pay young people less, for sensible reasons you can't just rationalise away, and consequently a minimum wage does inhibit youth employment more than general employment. A reduction in the minimum wage for young people is a perfectly practical policy


Maybe not, but hindering youth employment with policies which hit young people disproportionately hard certainly isn't.



It is not going to hinder job prospects any more than how it has been in the last few years and the people who are employed and will gain employment will earn a proper wage.
It is not a practical policy as I believe there will not be a much of an increase in overall employment and it's just going to lead to less overall wages being paid.



You have some strange view of the economy where every action is done at the expense of someone else. This isn't true, economic growth is the art of creating more than went before. Young people very frequently (and which of us hasn't been paid the minimum wage, at some time?) use these lowly paid jobs as a stepping stone to better things. They may go on to do great things, and create wealth and jobs for others, all off the back of these earlier opportunities.

Wages are not unimportant, but the absolutely most important thing is that as many people as possible are doing as much work as possible. That's how we grow the economy and make everyone wealthier in the long run.


You won't achieve that with a MW discrepancy, because businesses will just employ the inexperienced 19 year old over the inexperienced 22 year old. If you wan't everyone to be employed then you will need to lose out on the minimum wage altogether. Then you can grow the economy etc. However, it's a minimal impact, since if they are not worth minimum wage then they are not doing a very valuable job. Not that they are actually worth so little; everyone is entitled to a basic wage, which helps them to live and do the things you state of creating wealth and jobs.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by RVNmax
Nope, I didn't say that. You said age discrimination is a fact of life. I explained how it doesn't make sense to discriminate by age and compared it to racism since that is a type of discrimination that doesn't make sense either so it unjust.
A 19 year old and a 30 year old apply for a MW job. Your logic seems to be that just because generally older people are more experienced, the 30 year old will be more suited to the job without question. The reality is that is not true, you would at the very least make base your decision on something else, whether that be an interview, CV or reference.


This is irrelevant. No one is saying that all young people are less qualified than all old people. What is being said is that in general they are, and that being so there are practical reasons for a lower minimum wage.

It is not going to hinder job prospects any more than how it has been in the last few years and the people who are employed and will gain employment will earn a proper wage.
It is not a practical policy as I believe there will not be a much of an increase in overall employment and it's just going to lead to less overall wages being paid.


So you think enforcing that paper boys must be paid the minimum wage will not lead to any noticeable decrease in the number of paper boys, say? It's pretty obvious that it would, and the same logic at a less extreme level is extensible to the rest of the employment market, whether you believe it or not.

One of the more accepted explanations for the rise in youth unemployment over the past decade or so has precisely been the introduction of the minimum wage.

You won't achieve that with a MW discrepancy, because businesses will just employ the inexperienced 19 year old over the inexperienced 22 year old. If you wan't everyone to be employed then you will need to lose out on the minimum wage altogether. Then you can grow the economy etc. However, it's a minimal impact, since if they are not worth minimum wage then they are not doing a very valuable job. Not that they are actually worth so little; everyone is entitled to a basic wage, which helps them to live and do the things you state of creating wealth and jobs.


Well maybe not, but that job may be personally extremely valuable to the employee. I worked as a barman when I was 18, I suspect my contribution to humankind was negligible, but it was a nice little CV booster when I came to apply for graduate jobs. If the minimum wage were higher maybe they would never have hired an extra hand and I wouldn't have that.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you