A Minimum Wage Based on Age?
Since the Bush administration took power, there are a multitude of things that have gone backwards in this country ranging from healthcare, education and the foreign policy of trying not to kill people. Subsequently, we’re hearing many ideas from the presidential candidates on a number of issues. But asides from John Edwards and his $400 haircut, no other candidate is addressing the issue of poverty.
Now, when you bring up poverty, many people say hey, why should we be giving out handouts? Well, addressing the issue of poverty and subsequently crime, since poverty often breeds crime, is much more than just talking about giving away money.
We have state and federal minimum wages that make it very difficult for people to live off. And a big problem with the minimum wage is the tunnel vision our government has of it-that it is set regardless of age.
Sirened has yet to officially endorse a political candidate (partly because I don’t believe in candidates running so early and wasting millions) but I am leaning towards Barack Obama based on the fact that I believe he represents the most honest and best intentions of the major candidates in a cycle where the nation must shift from right to left. He also opposed the Iraq war before it started, granted he was only in the Illinois state senate at the time. But I am not happy that he is ignoring the issue of poverty and subsequently crime, so I posed this idea to him on his website: A minimum wage based on age.
Since most 16 and 17 year olds live at home and thus have fewer bills to pay than unskilled 19, 21 and 25 year old workers, why should the minimum wage be set the same for all age groups? Why not have separate minimum wages for 16, 18, 19, 21 and 25 year olds for example? That way, unskilled and minimally skilled workers can have the opportunity to earn a livable wage as they get older and have more bills to pay.
Now, there is the issue with the handicap it can place on businesses and that businesses could avoid hiring older employees whom they would have to pay more. Therefore, there would need to be laws in place requiring that businesses hire a percentage of workers in the older age groups so that they can better avoid unemployment.
This system is currently in place in Australia and yet I have heard nobody mention this as a potential idea here in the US. I truly believe it is the most economically sound plan that can help combat poverty and reduce crime in this country.
Hopefully the next president will do something to address poverty since most politicians have stopped discussing it. It is completely irresponsible to do so when there are viable options aside from giving money away. If you agree with me on this, pass the idea around and maybe we can get this into the political discussion.
9 Comments
That’s a horrible idea. You want to address poverty, but you want to make it harder for inner-city kids who often help support their families to make a decent wage?
There are 16 year olds who are the primary breadwinners of their families, and their are 25 year olds with less education than 18 year olds.
Your justification for this idea is that “unskilled and minimally skilled workers can have the opportunity to earn a livable wage as they get older and have more bills to pay.” But it’s not like every birthday someone starts handing you new bills. You cause your own expenses. Nothing *makes* a 25 year old live on his own rather than staying at home or with roommates.
The realities of poverty in the U.S. and whatever economic situations may occur in Australia are extremely different. While I agree that poverty needs more attention and more solutions, ageism is not a solution.
As with any economic idea there are those who gain and those who lose. I am not saying that we need to immediately reduce the wages of 16 year olds but we do need to increase the minimum wage of older citizens.
I mentioned reducing crime in my idea so if a 16 year old inner city kid is the primary bread winner than they should receive federal assistance to supplement their wage.
This is not only silly, it is probably illegal. You can’t pay some people less just because of their age. What about a 16 year old who is a much better worker than a 25 year old? How about encouraging 25 year old people to get better jobs instead of just raising the pay for bacis, unskilled jobs that should be done by people in high school? Don’t lower the bar so that people can get over it more easily, encourage people to work harder to get over the bar themselves.
Jim-Yes it would be nice if simple encouragement to unskilled 25 year olds could fix all the problems. For some it can, but for many who are not educated the reality is that they will stay in a low paying job that cannot sustain adequate living.
And the reality is that for MOST older people they do have more bills-not everyone can just move back in with their parents. There are a lot of young people that have a great deal of expendible income because their parents pay for everything and they can party with almost everything they make. I’ve worked in a restaraunt-trust me I’ve seen it plenty!
And a big cost of life today is healthcare and generally as people get older they have more health problems and this makes life more expensive.
There are always pros and cons to ideas and this isn’t a fix all, but I believe it would help. You can never please everyone, but we need to do what is best for the majority of people who need it most.
Alex this is a stupid idea and is unconstititional
Josh-Yeah I guess the fact that it works well in other countries makes it a “stupid idea” point black.
Being a 16 year old australian working at a supermarket on minimum wage, i have to say that that idea, though seemingly sensible in theory, doesn’t work as well in real life. Pretty much all my peers who work have a pay rate based on their age, receiving a pay rise on our birthday. This is all very well, but any business owner with a brain will want to get more value for money, and in a workplace of casual workers will roster the younger, cheaper workers on for as many shifts as possible. This leaves the older workers with less shifts, defeating the purpose of them having a higher payrate in the first place. There is also the phenomenon of managers being rewarded for putting more younger people on the roster than older people. The managers sometimes then threaten and bully younger workers into taking the shifts because it is in the manager’s best interest – they want those rewards. Young people in australia are made vulnerable to exploitation through the age determining wage system. I would advise the u.s to stick to what theyve got, this system is flawed.
Lily-Thanks for your opinion. It’s an interesting issue to debate.
Unfortunately in any “system” there is abuse and there are winners and losers. I’m glad I’m not involved in creating laws and have no desire to do so.
im sorry alex but your idea is flawed for many reasons. if being 25 makes them a much better worker, then they should get payed more. 16 year olds however provide the best labor for the cheapest amount and deserve the rights of a normal human being even though they may have been born more recently. we shouldnt give these lazy 25 year old workers the oprotunity to get more just because they made some bad decisions or weren’t encouraged enough to make the right ones
we should reward the hardworking people…generally teens in my opinion.
Then you hear a truthfully disgusting story from a girl suffering from your plan and all you have to say is that its her opinion…you sure are sincere aren’t you?
a bit of ignorance and neglegance on the side too?