Could you support a 2-tiered minimum wage?

[MaggieD]

Could you support a 2-tiered minimum wage?

1. Under age 21 -- $8.00 an hour.
2. Over age 21 -- $15.00 an hour.

 

[cpwill]

Could you support a 2-tiered minimum wage?

1. Under age 21 -- $8.00 an hour.
2. Over age 21 -- $15.00 an hour.

why would we want to discourage the hiring of adults who are attempting to live independent lives and possibly help support families in favor of (largely middle class) kids?

 

[KevinKohler]

Could you support a 2-tiered minimum wage?

1. Under age 21 -- $8.00 an hour.
2. Over age 21 -- $15.00 an hour.

Raise the age to 25, or even 30.

 

[MaggieD]

why would we want to discourage the hiring of adults who are attempting to live independent lives and possibly help support families in favor of (largely middle class) kids?

Do you have any evidence it would do that? I don't.

 

[cpwill]

Do you have any evidence it would do that? I don't.

Well, let's say that you have before you, two roughly equal cars. One of them has a price tag of $10,000. The other one has a price tag of $20,000. There is no actual difference between the cars, mind, you, except that the first owner cares less whether or not you buy, whereas the second owner really wants you to buy, but still demands that you pay him $20K.

Which one are you (as an employer) more likely to buy? Given that you will get roughly the same performance out of either vehicle?

 

[ChrisL]

Could you support a 2-tiered minimum wage?

1. Under age 21 -- $8.00 an hour.
2. Over age 21 -- $15.00 an hour.

Jeez, minimum wage in MA is already $8.00 an hour and also "The Massachusetts minimum wage rate automatically increases to 10 cents above the rate set in the Fair Labor Standards Act if the Federal minimum wage equals or becomes higher than the State minimum."

I am all for a slight increase in minimum wage because of inflation, which is probably going to get worse. I would like to see minimum wage set at $10.00 an hour across the board. Though I wouldn't have a problem if those under 18 made a bit less, since older people usually have more bills and perhaps kids to support. IMO, this would help people get off supplemental public assistance. A lot of people make enough where they don't actually have to collect welfare, but still have to collect food stamps and/or medical assistance.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The primary problem of a "living wage" concept is explained perfectly by your proposed system and would, no doubt, be made worse by adding the number of dependents into the mix.

Wages are (or should be) based on the ability to attract and retain qualified workers. Once you place bizarre, and purely political, factors into the wage setting mix, you create severe problems that then must be addressed. If citizen A must be paid (at least) $8/hour, citizen B $15/hour and citizen C $22/hour then who will be hired (or retained) by the sane employer to do the required low skilled work?

 

[cpwill]

Jeez, minimum wage in MA is already $8.00 an hour and also "The Massachusetts minimum wage rate automatically increases to 10 cents above the rate set in the Fair Labor Standards Act if the Federal minimum wage equals or becomes higher than the State minimum."

I am all for a slight increase in minimum wage because of inflation, which is probably going to get worse. I would like to see minimum wage set at $10.00 an hour across the board. Though I wouldn't have a problem if those under 18 made a bit less, since older people usually have more bills and perhaps kids to support. IMO, this would help people get off supplemental public assistance. A lot of people make enough where they don't actually have to collect welfare, but still have to collect food stamps and/or medical assistance.

Why do you think it wouldn't simply make younger people more competitive than older people?

 

[joG]

Could you support a 2-tiered minimum wage?

1. Under age 21 -- $8.00 an hour.
2. Over age 21 -- $15.00 an hour.

Before I made a final decision, I would want to check the research again. I did read a little on the topic some time ago and did develop a hesitant opinion.
I would prefer a negative income tax of some sort, if we want to subsidize low incomes.
If it it the electorate that wants it, it should be the taxpayer that underwrites the bill. More importantly putting a floor under wages will mean a few jobs less and a negative impact on allocation.

 

[ChrisL]

Why do you think it wouldn't simply make younger people more competitive than older people?

I don't think that has anything to do with competitiveness. Why would you think that?

 

[KevinKohler]

Well, let's say that you have before you, two roughly equal cars. One of them has a price tag of $10,000. The other one has a price tag of $20,000. There is no actual difference between the cars, mind, you, except that the first owner cares less whether or not you buy, whereas the second owner really wants you to buy, but still demands that you pay him $20K.

Which one are you (as an employer) more likely to buy? Given that you will get roughly the same performance out of either vehicle?

False analogy, the 10k is not the same as the 20k car, unless you can prove so. I would wager that a 25-30 year old demanding 15 an hour is going to be a LOT more reliable than either a high school kid working because their parents are making them, or college kid who needs extra scratch, or a high school drop out with no better options. That's why I say the age should be around 30...a 30 year old is looking at entry level stuff for one of two reasons...they lost their old job for a multitude of possible reasons, or they never worked to advance their career. Determining which is which is simply a matter of glancing at the resume.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Raise the age to 25, or even 30.

It matters not what the age of a worker is - you pay them based on skills required to do the job. If two workers apply, one young and one old, yet both are qualified, then why hire the older worker? If a worker is "almost" old then you would prefer one that is far younger, since they can be paid less for a longer time. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[ttwtt78640]

I don't think that has anything to do with competitiveness. Why would you think that?

If I need a cashier, why would I prefer to hire one at $15/hour over one at $8/hour?

 

[lizzie]

Could you support a 2-tiered minimum wage?

1. Under age 21 -- $8.00 an hour.
2. Over age 21 -- $15.00 an hour.

I personally suspect that this would result in underemployment of older folks, and teenagers would get the jobs.

 

[WCH]

Could you support a 2-tiered minimum wage?

1. Under age 21 -- $8.00 an hour.
2. Over age 21 -- $15.00 an hour.

Given the high teenage unemployment rate is likely caused by older people being hired instead, no.

And no one wants to pay $10 for a Big Mac.

 

[MaggieD]

Well, let's say that you have before you, two roughly equal cars. One of them has a price tag of $10,000. The other one has a price tag of $20,000. There is no actual difference between the cars, mind, you, except that the first owner cares less whether or not you buy, whereas the second owner really wants you to buy, but still demands that you pay him $20K.

Which one are you (as an employer) more likely to buy? Given that you will get roughly the same performance out of either vehicle?

That's a clear analogy.

Let me ask you, though, do you think you get the same performance out of a 17-year-old that you do out of a 30-year-old? Across the board, in general? I don't think you do. I think you, as the employer, are investing time (which is money) into teaching that 17-year-old about responsibility, work ethic, respect for authority, time management, importance of attendance, etc., etc.

Me? I'd hate to see fast-food workers unionized . . . which is what this fast-food bruhaha is about . . . but I'd sure have no problem raising the minimum wage for adults to $15 an hour.

 

[ChrisL]

If I need a cashier, why would I prefer to hire one at $15/hour over one at $8/hour?

Because of the quality. Kids tend to not show up and be more unreliable. Older workers do have something to offer in terms of reliability.

 

[ChrisL]

That's a clear analogy.

Let me ask you, though, do you think you get the same performance out of a 17-year-old that you do out of a 30-year-old? Across the board, in general? I don't think you do. I think you, as the employer, are investing time (which is money) into teaching that 17-year-old about responsibility, work ethic, respect for authority, time management, importance of attendance, etc., etc.

Me? I'd hate to see fast-food workers unionized . . . which is what this fast-food bruhaha is about . . . but I'd sure have no problem raising the minimum wage for adults to $15 an hour.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Everything isn't always about money.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Before I made a final decision, I would want to check the research again. I did read a little on the topic some time ago and did develop a hesitant opinion.
I would prefer a negative income tax of some sort, if we want to subsidize low incomes.
If it it the electorate that wants it, it should be the taxpayer that underwrites the bill. More importantly putting a floor under wages will mean a few jobs less and a negative impact on allocation.

That idea is simply doing the same thing but transfering the costs from the employer to all workers. That is what allows Walmart (and others) to pay lower wages now. If you need X/month to live on then do you really care if 2/3 of it is from your "earnings" and the other 1/3 is from General Welfare? How about taking an even easier job that pays 1/3 of X and then getting 2/3 of X from General Welfare?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Because of the quality. Kids tend to not show up and be more unreliable. Older workers do have something to offer in terms of reliability.

That is why the boss tends to like to have control over turnover. If it takes $2/hour more to keep "known to be reliable" younger workers that is still better than to hire "hope to be reliable" older workers at $7/hour more.

 

[KevinKohler]

The concervative issue with the concept of increasing minimum wages centers around value, as determined by supply and demand. And they are correct. Most (all?) entry level "McJobs" aren't worth 10, or even 6 bucks an hour. They are too numerous, and require too few qualifications to fill, to retain any real value, beyond the fact that those positions MUST be filled in order for those companies offering them to function.

But this isn't about determining value, it's about what's best for society writ large. These jobs are becoming the new primary employers in this country. We are a service sector economy. And becoming more so every year. Either these jobs (which are becoming the largest employers in the US) start paying enough to support independent life, or we get a lot more dependents. To put it bluntly, we either choose to let our poor (who are going to grow in size as these McJobs employers increase) die, or we choose to support them, at least as far as basic life sustainability goes. So choose. Let our poor die, or support them. If you choose the former, then fine, end of discussion. If you choose the later, then you to accept that if these jobs don't pay enough to live on, a prospective employee has the option of NOT working, and still being able to live.

So, choose. Let our poor live on the tax payers dime, or let them die? Either we get rid of welfare, or we increase the pay of these jobs.

 

[KevinKohler]

It matters not what the age of a worker is - you pay them based on skills required to do the job. If two workers apply, one young and one old, yet both are qualified, then why hire the older worker? If a worker is "almost" old then you would prefer one that is far younger, since they can be paid less for a longer time. Why is this so hard to understand?

And as long as we have welfare available, entry level jobs need to have pay scales that exceed what a person can "earn" via welfare.

Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[ChrisL]

That is why the boss tends to like to have control over turnover. If it takes $2/hour more to keep "known to be reliable" younger workers that is still better than to hire "hope to be reliable" older workers at $7/hour more.

There are a lot of companies that prefer to hire older people. That's why the teen unemployment rate is as high as it is.

 

[ChrisL]

And as long as we have welfare available, entry level jobs need to have pay scales that exceed what a person can "earn" via welfare.

Why is this so hard to understand?

I heard that people in Hawaii who are collecting public assistance benefits are bringing in about $60,000 a year. That, of course, includes medical, housing and food stamps on top of the cash. :shock:

 

[GottaGo]

By two tiering minimum wage based on a arbitrary age, provides no incentive for the worker to do anything to actually earn that increase.

Flipping a burger at 20 years and 364 days isn't going to suddenly change at 21 and 1 day. Still going to be performing the same duties.

Any employer who wishes to stay in business will then find reason to release the employee who crosses that arbitrary age line, for one who doesn't increase his labor costs.

IMO, you start making 'raises' mandated, and you've just handed the government the entire free market to play with.