Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Should young people be paid minimum wage? watch

  • View Poll Results: Should young people be paid minimum wage?
    No - only 21 year olds + should be entitled to full minimum wage.
    17
    9.88%
    Yes - People age 18+ should be entitled to full minimum wage.
    60
    34.88%
    Yes - People age 16+ should be entitled to full minimum wage.
    63
    36.63%
    Yes - Everyone including children should be entitled to full minimum wage.
    32
    18.60%

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The present system is good enough, excepting Osborne's introduction of a new step up at 25.

    Minimum wage is a blunt instrument as it is, so stepping it according to age is the least we can do.

    I increasingly support tax credits over too rigid a minimum wage.

    About the stepping up to 25 as well as various other entitlements being stepped up and mandatory schooling to 18, I worry increasingly about age inflation for young people. Really we are supposed to be out hunting at 13.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Younger people have less financial responsibilities, so I do not agree in having an equal minimum wage.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Put yourselves in the shoes of an employer.

    You have two possible candidates for a position on a counter in a clothing store (just as a random example). Candidate A is 18 years old, and fresh out of school; he has maybe worked for a while at weekends, but nothing more. Nor has he ever worked in this particular role before. Candidate B is 24 years old and has been in this type of work before. He doesn't need to be trained from scratch, and he has references and a history of full time employment that show he is reliable.

    If and B are the same price, do you take the risk and go for A? Of course you don't. Even leaving aside the point about experience in that particular role, why would you? It's just more hassle and risk.
    Apples and oranges.

    One of them has "worked a bit at weekends" and the other has "history of full time employment". This has zilch to do with their age, you just made these different to try and prove your dumb point.

    Experience is valuable, yes. But age =/= experience. Employers are able to distinguish the two, btw, they're not as stupid as you think they are.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Treeroy)
    Except that we DON'T have a welfare system available to young people because you are not entitled to 90% of benefits until you are 21 or older. The people who earn the least are the ones not entitled to benefits! It's nuts.


    And yes as I said I know plenty of adults who have jobs for disposable income. Mostly Wives who have high-earning husbands who get a job as something to have some more money. Like I know a middle age couple, one of them earns well over £150K and the other one stays at home. Recently she decided to get a job to give her something to do and have some extra money. She doesn't need the money, the job is PURELY to get disposable income. Should she only get paid £5 an hour cause she doesn't really need it?! What a stupid argument.
    That about the wife is an argument for tax credits. Such families are whom Osborne's current changes will benefit at the expense of low-earning couples requiring TC's. Guess which family votes Tory.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Treeroy)
    Apples and oranges.

    One of them has "worked a bit at weekends" and the other has "history of full time employment". This has zilch to do with their age, you just made these different to try and prove your dumb point.

    Experience is valuable, yes. But age =/= experience. Employers are able to distinguish the two, btw, they're not as stupid as you think they are.
    It has everything to do with age. You can't build up experience by the time you're 18. Younger people, if they are in competition with older people on an equal footing, will always end up competing with some people who have more experience.

    If you think experience has 'zilch to do with' how long people have been alive and able to gain experience I think you need to sit down and think this through a little.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Put yourselves in the shoes of an employer.

    You have two possible candidates for a position on a counter in a clothing store (just as a random example). Candidate A is 18 years old, and fresh out of school; he has maybe worked for a while at weekends, but nothing more. Nor has he ever worked in this particular role before. Candidate B is 24 years old and has been in this type of work before. He doesn't need to be trained from scratch, and he has references and a history of full time employment that show he is reliable.

    If and B are the same price, do you take the risk and go for A? Of course you don't. Even leaving aside the point about experience in that particular role, why would you? It's just more hassle and risk.
    It's a raced to the bottom. These employers should be made to pay a living wage. They don;t like that, well tough.

    They are exploitative. It takes no more than two days to train someone up to a standard where they can be productive in these types of jobs. There is no excuse and if they don't like it they can go to jail. They just want wage slaves and they are scum. What is worse is that they expect em and you to top up their employers wages who they are not paying enough.

    The only exceptions I would make to the above is small business that really are struggle to stay afloat in which case I would support benefit top up of poor wages in those cases, or some kind of set up like that. But the large chains and corporations are taking the piss.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    It's a raced to the bottom. These employers should be made to pay a living wage. They don;t like that, well tough.

    They are exploitative. It takes no more than two days to train someone up to a standard where they can be productive in these types of jobs. There is no excuse and if they don't like it they can go to jail. They just want wage slaves.
    Right, so this argument has proceeded like this:

    Me: Here's why the minimum wage being lower for younger people advantages them in seeking employment.
    You: It doesn't advantage them, because manual jobs are easy.
    Me: Here's why it actually does advantage them.
    You: Yeah, well, employers are evil and they should pay a wage above that legally required of them or go to jail!

    You'll forgive me if I don't think this is worth continuing with.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Right, so this argument has proceeded like this:

    Me: Here's why the minimum wage being lower for younger people advantages them in seeking employment.
    You: It doesn't advantage them, because manual jobs are easy.
    Me: Here's why it actually does advantage them.
    You: Yeah, well, employers are evil and they should pay a wage above that legally required of them or go to jail!

    You'll forgive me if I don't think this is worth continuing with.
    Are you seriously suggesting that I am better off earning lower than minimum wage, than above it? Lmao. You think it's hard to get a job or something.?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    They just want wage slaves and they are scum.
    I can almost see the froth in your mouth.

    I would suggest to you that the fact that you're struggling to get jobs is no reason to launch into visceral, incoherent hate rants against everyone who hasn't offered you employment. Particularly not if you're going to represent it as a response to a totally different point.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Treeroy)
    Are you seriously suggesting that I am better off earning lower than minimum wage, than above it? Lmao. You think it's hard to get a job or something.?
    I am suggesting, as would be quite evident to anyone who paid attention in their primary school reading comprehension classes, that you are better off earning a minimum wage set at a lower rate than no wage at all.

    Price is a useful bargaining chip in seeking employment. This is not a difficult concept.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    I can almost see the froth in your mouth.
    Well it's what I think of them. They are immoral. The people who work on the shop floor generate their wealth and they can't even pay them a living wage. If I ever owned a business or was in a position where I was in charge of pay scales etc I would do my best to pay everyone at least the living wage, even if I could get away with paying less. That would be the bare minimum. Ideally I would rather run it some kind of cooperative style set up.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    I am suggesting, as would be quite evident to anyone who paid attention in their primary school reading comprehension classes, that you are better off earning a minimum wage set at a lower rate than no wage at all.

    Price is a useful bargaining chip in seeking employment. This is not a difficult concept.
    But I wouldn't be earning no wage at all. My work has hired plenty of over 21 year olds with no work experience. Why are you assuming you know every employer inside and out?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Treeroy)
    Are you seriously suggesting that I am better off earning lower than minimum wage, than above it? Lmao. You think it's hard to get a job or something.?
    Assume you don't get full time hours if struggling so much for money. Lower minimum wage means more hours and less incentive for employers to automate or run skeleton staff. Simply use tax credits to ensure everyone has a liveable household income. Then if they live with parents/spouse they get nothing, if they manage alone like you they get what they need.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Young people required to be paid the same as older people would be at a severe disadvantage to those older people when competing against them for jobs. It has nothing whatever to do with how easy the job is to do or to learn.

    They don't , in general, have the same level of reliability - only yesterday there was a TV report on an experimental late starting of school for older pupils, as research shows they cannot cope with being at school at 9am. Employers like people to start on time and be effective from the off.

    They aren't generally used to the disciplines of the workplace. Getting rid of an unproductive employee is costly, so advocating the firing of those that don't work out does not address the problem; employers don't want the costs of constant or repeated recruitment.

    In order to incentivise employers to take them on, the cost to the employer has to be lower. If it weren't youth unemployment would be twice as bad as it is already.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Well it's what I think of them. They are immoral. If I ever owned a business or was in a position where I was in charge of pay scales etc I would do my best to pay everyone at least the living wage. That would be the bare minimum. Ideally I would rather run it some kind of cooperative style set up.
    Perhaps you would. Still, if you only needed one worker, and there were two candidates with a substantial age gap between them, if you were a prudent business owner you'd hire the older one most of the time, because, absent any price advantage for the younger one, they'd usually be the better candidate.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Another argument against exploitative pay is that it gets in the way of automation. It's a form of inverted Luddite-ism.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    I can almost see the froth in your mouth.

    I would suggest to you that the fact that you're struggling to get jobs is no reason to launch into visceral, incoherent hate rants against everyone who hasn't offered you employment. Particularly not if you're going to represent it as a response to a totally different point.
    I think he is sensible enough to crawl up the arses of employers when necessary. We do not, however, yet need to fear committing thought crime against them, this not being North Korea
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Assume you don't get full time hours if struggling so much for money.
    But I do work full time. I'm struggling so much for money because I live in an expensive city and I do not earn minimum wage because the law is unjust and allows my employer to discriminate against me.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Minimum wage should be the same regardless of age imo.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Another argument against exploitative pay is that it gets in the way of automation. It's a form of inverted Luddite-ism.
    So slave societies like the Romans and the Confederacy found. It can be argued both ways but it requires people who understand about universal basic income etc. We are still too thick for that
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.