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?
Raise the age to 25, or even 30.
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.
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."
Why do you think it wouldn't simply make younger people more competitive than older people?
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 don't think that has anything to do with competitiveness. Why would you think that?
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.
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?
If I need a cashier, why would I prefer to hire one at $15/hour over one at $8/hour?
I personally suspect that this would result in underemployment of older folks, and teenagers would get the jobs.
Given the high teenage unemployment rate is likely caused by older people being hired instead, no.
That's a clear analogy.
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's exactly what I was thinking.
Everything isn't always about money.
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?
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.
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.
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.That is why the boss tends to like to have control over turnover.
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:
