An idea I've been kicking around a little bit is a dual tiered minimum wage. First and foremost, it's just a personal belief of mine that someone, regardless of their job, should be able to support themselves. If you're working 40+ hours a week at McDonald's (yea, I know, good luck getting more than 20, but for the sake of the discussion...) you should be able to support yourself. Not live a life of luxury, but be able to do something other than run in a wheel. Now, I'm sure we all know that there is a good mix of teenagers and adults working these minimum wage type jobs. As an example, we'll use $15/hour as a "living wage" where anyone would be able to support themselves. Teenagers, people in high school, would get a minimum wage that is less than "living wage" simply because they still live at home and don't really need it. Maybe... $9.25? A nice little boost to help them save up money as they prepare to continue their education. After graduation/18th birthday, they would then be boosted to our "living wage." Like I said, just an idea I've been kicking around, wanted to hear other opinions. Have at it.
The UK minimum wage is tiered by age already. To be honest I don’t have much awareness of it these days but it’s been like that for some time and I’m not aware of any significant objections to that element.
Separate is not equal! Seriously you screw "tipped" workers over now and disabled workers get into "separate shops" for slave wages now so make it the same wage for all.
I had the idea of creating a separate minimum wage for the young and elderly. This would give employers an extra incentive to hire people in these age groups, because normally the young (under 21) and elderly tend to be less desirable to employers. Elderly people tend to be slower (and have more health problems) so employers are often reluctant to hire them.
We do something like this already for people who are mentally and physically disabled. If a company hires someone with a disability they can pay less then minimum. It helps, but it also ties the people to the job they're working. They can't afford to leave. I like the idea, but there needs to be other things that go along with it to make it work.
people should go into professions because they are passionate about their work, not for the money. secondly, why does the OP treat teens as people who don't deserve living wages just because they live at home? maybe their parents are tyrannical and they want a living wage to move out soon? maybe teenagers need to save up for hundreds of thousands in future student loan debt for college that 9 dollars an hour part time after school, or full time in the summer, couldn't possibly mathematically meet for their future expenses? maybe teenagers don't want to join the military when they turn 18 so they can afford to pay for college or attend debt free? lastly the rich make i fones and i pads really expensive, and teens can't afford a 700 dollar smart fone, uber rides, and other fun things that make their lives happy on minimum wage.
the elderly are barely hanging on to life with so many chronic diseases and ailments, their social security payments have been raided and cut because the rich don't want to pay into the trust fund of the laborers they used and abused for their entire lives to get rich from.. if anyone deserves a living wage, it is the elderly.
that is like prison labor, where they pay prisoners a dollar a day to pick up trash on the side of the road. it makes the mental and physical disabled people appear inferior to society, because the rich have said they are unworthy of a living wage like everyone else.
A handout doesn't bind people to that charity. Their lack of options existed before you gave them anything. The charity just creates one option they didn't otherwise have. It increased their options. Not sure why giving someone one handout means you become responsible for their finding the next.
It's not the handout that binds people, it's how much that handout is. Give enough to live each day but no more then people need that handout to survive because there is no other option. - - - Updated - - - Pretty much yeah and it's completely constitutional too.
Not sure why giving someone anything makes you responsible for their subsequent decisions. If that person feels bound by taking too large a gift, he can choose to take less.
Only if another option exists. If you take less it's because you don't need more. But if the handout given isn't enough to secure all needs, then the handout is something a person needs to depend on. They need that handout to function.
It's an option. One he didn't have before. The effect of his need (and also his lack of producing other options) is that he may choose the option you provided. Seems ungrateful to describe that gift as limiting him in some way.
Yes, if there was another option there wouldn't be a problem. But so long as the handout doesn't provide enough and there is no other option, then the handout will keep a person from advancing. Think of it like this, would you want to destroy your house and upgrade it to a castle if you didn't know where you were going to sleep tonight?
People should consider both. You may bring more commitment and effort to tasks you're passionate about, that's good. But if what you are passionate about produces no value, that task is just you entertaining yourself. Value is putting a number to something. The way you know how what you do is valued by the economy, is to look at how it's measured relative to other possible contributions. It's measured in dollars.
That I do not prefer an option is not proof the option does not exist. The opposite is true. That I may consider an unpleasant path demonstrates it's existence. There are options.
Sure, unless it infringes upon your dignity as a person. You can't lose certain rights without losing yourself as well. Those are no longer unpleasant but instead something that you can not accept.
People act undignified all the time. A right is only something you are due. You are more than the sum of what you are entitled to receive.