Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Yes its better than no minimum wage, it still doesnt make sense though. Theres no justification for paying different wages within the same company for the same work carried out by someone of the same station simply because of their date of birth, i cant stress enough how ridiculous i find this.
    I think you’re wrong in this, one of my former tutors at the LSE worked in the Low Pay Commission, and he was constantly asked the same question. There is a very persuasive justification, and having a lower national minimum wage for under 18’s is highly beneficial for them. I’ll explain the economic rationale behind it: people of a higher age groups possess higher levels of human capital. Broadly speaking, human capital refers to marketability, and those of a higher age group, on average tend to have higher levels of prior experience, for obvious reasons. So, if a firm is recruiting people for task X it has a choice between various groups of people, it will in such circumstances, all else being equal, opt for those with higher levels of experience, i.e. the older cohort. What will happen, therefore, is that the younger cohort will find access into the labour market far more difficult due to this competition. Also, there are studies in labour economics which suggest that those unemployed over even a fairly short space of time during their youth are disproportionally likely to be either unemployed, or on relatively low pay in their middle ages. So it is of the utmost importance to ensure this is not the case, it’s very important to ensure initial labour market accessibility for people in their youth. This is precisely what having a lower national minimum wage does, it enables youth workers to financially undercut those with greater market experience, and thus increases their level of access onto the labour market, albeit on lower pay.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    Personally I think it's disgusting that employers can pay under 18's whatever they like.

    Chip shops charging 16 year olds £2.50 an hour. Or a cafe charging a 14 year old £2.30 an hour. Slave labour.

    Why are those under 18 not entitled to have a minimum pay? Do they not do as good as a job as their elders?

    I'll put that one to Mr. Blair. :mad:
    I think 16-18 yr olds should forget about working in chip shops and enjoy not having to go to work for as long as humanly possible! Why slave in Maccy Ds for spots and barely enough money/hour to buy a happy meal?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mutsuhito)
    I think you’re wrong in this, one of my former tutors at the LSE worked in the Low Pay Commission, and he was constantly asked the same question. There is a very persuasive justification, and having a lower national minimum wage for under 18’s is highly beneficial for them. I’ll explain the economic rationale behind it: people of a higher age groups possess higher levels of human capital. Broadly speaking, human capital refers to marketability, and those of a higher age group, on average tend to have higher levels of prior experience, for obvious reasons. So, if a firm is recruiting people for task X it has a choice between various groups of people, it will in such circumstances, all else being equal, opt for those with higher levels of experience, i.e. the older cohort. What will happen, therefore, is that the younger cohort will find access into the labour market far more difficult due to this competition. Also, there are studies in labour economics which suggest that those unemployed over even a fairly short space of time during their youth are disproportionally likely to be either unemployed, or on relatively low pay in their middle ages. So it is of the utmost importance to ensure this is not the case, it’s very important to ensure initial labour market accessibility for people in their youth. This is precisely what having a lower national minimum wage does, it enables youth workers to financially undercut those with greater market experience, and thus increases their level of access onto the labour market, albeit on lower pay.
    So why have just 16 and 18 and not other ages too? What effects would this have? What population of this country are 16-18?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    So why have just 16 and 18 and not other ages too? What effects would this have? What population of this country are 16-18?
    The 16-18 age group of labour market entrants are the most disadvantaged cohort, they’re people who have not gone into higher education, that is unless they’re part time students of course, furthermore they've had no great opportunity to gain labour market experience either. They are seeking access into the job market, people looking to work at that age have no serious vocational training, in contrast with say for instance- Japan where they have technical schools specialising in vocational skills prior to the school leaving age. Therefore, in the UK they are going into the market with hardly any notable experience, or relevant qualifications. It’s important for the government to ensure easier access for this immensely disadvantaged group. Of course you could argue that this principle be carried through for other age groups, but that’s far too great an intervention. Once you exceed these ages, you’ve had your opportunity to undercut and ensure yourself labour market access. So, if you hit 20 without either qualifications or experience, you’ve missed out on the opportunity and therefore the system offers less sympathy to your plight. Perhaps there could be a voluntary scheme available to such people, allowing them to accept lower than the minimum wage to undercut those who are with greater experience, in the more difficult times for their local economy. Although there are difficulties in implementing and enfourcing such a scheme which 'allows' employees to ‘voluntarily’ accept something lower than the minimum wage. It may sound harsh that a 20 year old should need to accept lower than the minimum wage, but that's the hard reality for people with no experience or qualifications at such an age, during large scale local unemployment. Naturally, if they're able to find work above the minimum wage, then that's the ideal, one must remember it's a specified minimum wage, rather than a maximum!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Kiddies get paid less at work, because they are KIDDIES! Over 18s get paid more because we are adults and desrve proper money, in any case what do under 18s spend their wedge on? Sweets? magazines?
    Furthermore, a minimum wage is a bad thing in my opinion, as too much government intervention is bad for the country as a whole. I'd have the hump if i owned a business and was constantly being told, how much i could pay MY workers, and on what grounds i could hire and fire people, we can already seee that many jobs are leaving Britain now because of this over-regulation. Workers and employers should be able to work out their own contracts.
    Finally, KIDS! you'll probably have your first job at this age, so don't be getting above your station whining about pay, just be grateful to have a job and for every penny someone is willing to pay your sorry arse for stacking the shelves or whatever
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joseph_SOUTH)
    Kiddies get paid less at work, because they are KIDDIES! Over 18s get paid more because we are adults and desrve proper money, in any case what do under 18s spend their wedge on? Sweets? magazines?
    Furthermore, a minimum wage is a bad thing in my opinion, as too much government intervention is bad for the country as a whole. I'd have the hump if i owned a business and was constantly being told, how much i could pay MY workers, and on what grounds i could hire and fire people, we can already seee that many jobs are leaving Britain now because of this over-regulation. Workers and employers should be able to work out their own contracts.
    Finally, KIDS! you'll probably have your first job at this age, so don't be getting above your station whining about pay, just be grateful to have a job and for every penny someone is willing to pay your sorry arse for stacking the shelves or whatever
    Yeah all that nasty health and safety stuff, paying women the same as men and having to give people lunch breaks and keep the place heated.

    yeah far better to get the work done in a chinese prison or a third world sweatshop. Or even better lets chain children to looms in mills and make them work 12 hour days - ahh the good old days.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mutsuhito)
    The 16-18 age group of labour market entrants are the most disadvantaged cohort, they’re people who have not gone into higher education, that is unless they’re part time students of course, furthermore they've had no great opportunity to gain labour market experience either. They are seeking access into the job market, people looking to work at that age have no serious vocational training, in contrast with say for instance- Japan where they have technical schools specialising in vocational skills prior to the school leaving age. Therefore, in the UK they are going into the market with hardly any notable experience, or relevant qualifications. It’s important for the government to ensure easier access for this immensely disadvantaged group. Of course you could argue that this principle be carried through for other age groups, but that’s far too great an intervention. Once you exceed these ages, you’ve had your opportunity to undercut and ensure yourself labour market access. So, if you hit 20 without either qualifications or experience, you’ve missed out on the opportunity and therefore the system offers less sympathy to your plight. Perhaps there could be a voluntary scheme available to such people, allowing them to accept lower than the minimum wage to undercut those who are with greater experience, in the more difficult times for their local economy. Although there are difficulties in implementing and enfourcing such a scheme which 'allows' employees to ‘voluntarily’ accept something lower than the minimum wage. It may sound harsh that a 20 year old should need to accept lower than the minimum wage, but that's the hard reality for people with no experience or qualifications at such an age, during large scale local unemployment. Naturally, if they're able to find work above the minimum wage, then that's the ideal, one must remember it's a specified minimum wage, rather than a maximum!
    Who thought of 16 and 18? Surely there must be arguments against it or haven't they provided one? With these arguments you put forward, would this not give a reason why we should not have work experience in year 11? j/w
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Joseph_SOUTH)
    Kiddies get paid less at work, because they are KIDDIES! Over 18s get paid more because we are adults and desrve proper money, in any case what do under 18s spend their wedge on? Sweets? magazines?
    Furthermore, a minimum wage is a bad thing in my opinion, as too much government intervention is bad for the country as a whole. I'd have the hump if i owned a business and was constantly being told, how much i could pay MY workers, and on what grounds i could hire and fire people, we can already seee that many jobs are leaving Britain now because of this over-regulation. Workers and employers should be able to work out their own contracts.
    Finally, KIDS! you'll probably have your first job at this age, so don't be getting above your station whining about pay, just be grateful to have a job and for every penny someone is willing to pay your sorry arse for stacking the shelves or whatever
    What a wonderfully mature example you're setting for the "kiddies" to aspire to.... :rolleyes:
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    What population of this country are 16-18?
    15-19 makes up about 6.2% of the population so 16-18 would prbably make up about 3.1%

    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2...s/pages/UK.asp
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joseph_SOUTH)
    Kiddies get paid less at work, because they are KIDDIES! Over 18s get paid more because we are adults and desrve proper money, in any case what do under 18s spend their wedge on? Sweets? magazines?
    Furthermore, a minimum wage is a bad thing in my opinion, as too much government intervention is bad for the country as a whole. I'd have the hump if i owned a business and was constantly being told, how much i could pay MY workers, and on what grounds i could hire and fire people, we can already seee that many jobs are leaving Britain now because of this over-regulation. Workers and employers should be able to work out their own contracts.
    Finally, KIDS! you'll probably have your first job at this age, so don't be getting above your station whining about pay, just be grateful to have a job and for every penny someone is willing to pay your sorry arse for stacking the shelves or whatever
    I think some 1 doesnt get paid much
    The wage should fit the job. There are many many of adults who get paid way too much for doing jack ****, where as kids do in some jobs work quite hard.
    Who cares any road, i get paid a healthy pay packet 4 just talking on the phone
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mutsuhito)
    I think you’re wrong in this, one of my former tutors at the LSE worked in the Low Pay Commission, and he was constantly asked the same question. There is a very persuasive justification, and having a lower national minimum wage for under 18’s is highly beneficial for them. I’ll explain the economic rationale behind it: people of a higher age groups possess higher levels of human capital. Broadly speaking, human capital refers to marketability, and those of a higher age group, on average tend to have higher levels of prior experience, for obvious reasons. So, if a firm is recruiting people for task X it has a choice between various groups of people, it will in such circumstances, all else being equal, opt for those with higher levels of experience, i.e. the older cohort. What will happen, therefore, is that the younger cohort will find access into the labour market far more difficult due to this competition. Also, there are studies in labour economics which suggest that those unemployed over even a fairly short space of time during their youth are disproportionally likely to be either unemployed, or on relatively low pay in their middle ages. So it is of the utmost importance to ensure this is not the case, it’s very important to ensure initial labour market accessibility for people in their youth. This is precisely what having a lower national minimum wage does, it enables youth workers to financially undercut those with greater market experience, and thus increases their level of access onto the labour market, albeit on lower pay.
    Makes sense. Makes me imagine what it would be like if we had an entirely free labour market, where people bid or negotiate for every single contract, even if it's only going to pay them £3 an hour. "I'll do it for £3.40, I have 14 months experience" "I'll do it for £2.90, but I only have 2 months experience."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    It's to discourage people from leaving school at 16.

    Oh: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3512362.stm

    From october minimum wage for 16/17 year olds will be £3.00.

    Not great, but it's a start.
    I support minimum wage laws only in combination with some type of policy that will prevent "social parasites" from becoming an economic burden.

    Regards.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Isaac Newton)
    I support minimum wage laws only in combination with some type of policy that will prevent "social parasites" from becoming an economic burden.

    Regards.
    I'd appreciate it if you elaborate on this. What do you mean by social parasites and what does it have to do with minimum wage laws?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    15-19 makes up about 6.2% of the population so 16-18 would prbably make up about 3.1%

    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2...s/pages/UK.asp
    Thank you for that. Noticed it was ignored by Mutsuhito lol. Was hoping that the amount of people we're talking about to be considered, then consider education whether it be A levels or vocational. Also I wonder what fellow Europeans have and if they have the distinction between 16 and 18 year olds too and why.
 
 
 
Poll
Who do you think it's more helpful to talk about mental health with?
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.