I dont hire alot of kids for one very simple reason. For every 10 I hire 7 or 8 of them are utterly useless and require WAY more time to train than an adult.
If they were paid the same as the adults I'd just delete every kids resume
that being said I often bump the kids pay rates after 3 to 6 months if they are working at a similar rate to my adult staff but thats on a case by case basis
>that being said I often bump the kids pay rates after 3 to 6 months if they are working at a similar rate to my adult staff but thats on a case by case basis
Good on you few employers do this
Mc Donalds and other companies that hire juniors basically idiot proof the proccess.
No Adult will stick around for fast food wages and at the same time this incentivises companies to invest in their workers rather than churn through them.
We simply wouldn't continue hiring junior retail staff if there wasn't a cost advantage. The difference in maturity, experience and work ethic is just too large.
Youth unemployment is measured from 18-25. Junior wages stop at 21. I’d assure you the large amount of poverty and unemployment comes from those above 21 who retail and other employers refuse to hire or provide hours, preferring those who they can hire for less.
>I dont hire alot of boomers for one very simple reason. For every 10 I hire 7 or 8 of them are utterly useless and require WAY more time to train than a 30 year old.
>
>I just delete every resume that has a work history over 20 years.
>
>that being said I often bump the boomers pay rates after 3 to 6 months if they are working at a similar rate to my better staff but thats on a case by case basis
herp derp I made a boomer joke how original for this sub. My industry dosnt attract many boomers but the few that I have hired over the years have all been explceptional staff members
Not a joke. Just pointing out that, somehow, making generalisations about young people is OK but if you do it with an older generation it's ageism.
Personally, I've hired young people and trained them up. I've also hired people much older and retrained them. Either way it usually worked out great. Everyone in that entry level role got the same wage regardless of age and it wasn't an issue
I wasn't making a generalisation. I was commenting on my experience in my industry with 2 decades under my belt
like I said I find some good ones but it's alot of wasted effort finding the 2 or 3 out of 10 which is why I just don't hire many
Firstly, not a boomer
Secondly why dont you read what I actually said. I did not say most. I said if I hire 10, 7 to 8 of them won't work out. This isn't me making up some weird generalisation about kids this is what actually happens in my business and has happened for a long time
In NZ they pay teens the same as adults and the shocking result is it's near impossible for teenagers to get their first job because hiring a 14-17yo takes a lot more patience and tolerance.
Getting rid of junior wages would be a bad move. As one wise maccas manager said to me "I can put on two 14yo's who make the equivalent of putting on one 19yo" when justifying to area management why they roster on less but older staff.
The main point of the article was that the current junior wage policy is based on anecdotal evidence rather than data. If junior wages disappeared overnight and it turns out employers prefer to hire older workers, competition for older workers would increase and they would become more scarce. Everyone would still get their first job eventually, and minors who can't find jobs might pursue education, training, hobbies or, based on late night shifts I worked as a teenager that impacted my schooling, sleep using the time that is freed up.
Higher wages paid to adults who replace minors may also increase economic activity, which might mean more jobs overall, some of which could flow through to younger applicants.
I think the author makes a great point - the onus to justify the junior wage policy should be on its proponents, and if an adequate case can't be made for it it ought to be repealed. That said, it would likely be inflationary and should be done in tandem with fiscal policies to depress price rises throughout the economy.
I echo the sentiment here that 14-17 year olds should be paid junior rates — it only makes sense given the business takes a risk on inexperienced workers that are generally less productive and generally require more supervision and training. However, I strongly disagree that 18-19 year olds should be paid less than their peers. Young adults are still expected to be supported by their parents but in reality often are not and are punished by these rules
You're making the same mistake that proponents for every increase to the minimum wage make: just because you increase it doesn't mean it'll be paid. People will be laid off instead.
At least across-the-board minimum wage increases don't allow the option of replacing workers (other than outsourcing and automation); in your case, if there is no cost benefit to hiring that 18-19 year old, more times than not they just won't get hired. Youth unemployment is already at ~15%; this will just make that worse.
>You're making the same mistake that proponents for every increase to the minimum wage make: just because you increase it doesn't mean it'll be paid. People will be laid off instead.
Source? btw did you read the article?
Yes, skimmed most of it but the parts which I thought were bunk turned out to be... well, bunk. For example, under the heading of:
>A number of countries have removed, or restricted in scope, provisions setting sub-minimum wages for young workers
All the examples are of countries which still have lower rates of pay for younger workers (or less experienced workers), eg:
>For example, Belgium had sub-minimum wages for 18- to 20-year-old employees... However, the sub-minimum wages for young people aged 16 and 17 are still in place
And
>Similarly, South Korea abolished its sub-minimum wages for workers 18 years and under in 2005... Today, all workers in South Korea... with less than three months work experience, are paid 90 per cent of the national minimum wage.
They're not great examples, and these would be the *best* examples the think-tank could find.
The article cites an ILO meta-analysis that it would have a small or not statistically significant impact on youth employment.
Cost benefit isn't the only factor. There is availability of employees, whether employees want to work minimum wage after having experience etc, whether the business is able to automate or outsource anything etc.
I’ve worked in a min wage job as an adult. The juniors rarely had the maturity or judgement adult workers did.
If you were paying full wages you’d then look to hire an adult.
I worked in a store when I was 15-17, got paid <$10 am hour for most of it. Worked often with 21+ yr olds who were lazy AF and I outworked them every day.
The system allows for good performers to be paid more. There’s no cap on junior wages.
As a junior I was paid above adult minimum wage.
The junior wage exists to help the many struggling kids get a start in work.
Sure, and my job allows me to be paid $1M/year. In reality though, it doesn't. Companies don't want to pay more than the absolute minimum they can get away with.
>the absolute minimum they can get away with.
This is still determined by the market as much as it is by the law.
The fact that youth unemployment is at about 15% is just as much reason why pay for them is so low as their lower minimum wage.
Nope, not so much. Poor maturity and judgement can be an issue in any age group. However if you take a cross section of 17 year olds and a similar cross section of 22 year olds **on average** you’d probably find a higher proportion of maturity in the older subgroup.
If you look at the job market, you'll find that average pay probably has a 1:1 correlation with age. Because age also correlates with experience, qualifications, and seniority.
I don't block people (if I did I wouldn't be able to see this comment to reply to it) but also no to engaging in this discussion further - doing so would defeat the purpose that your comments exemplify precisely the kind of immaturity the warrants lower rates of *minimum* pay for very young workers.
When you have an angry 65 year old customer they respond better to an adult.
Hostile customers happens so often you have to have adults on staff. They should be paid more for this labour.
There’s no law that juniors can’t get a pay rise. I’ve worked in lots of venues that they do. I was overpaid as a junior.
You would not start a 15 year old off at adults rates because as someone else said most of them are not ready.
In this economy in hospitality juniors who are ready for it are getting pay rises.
Juniors shouldn’t waste their time with multinationals who pay everyone the same
Independent business will pay good juniors more. There needs to be the facility to pay strugglers less so they get the opportunity to work and learn
I think everyone is too caught up in what coles woolies and McDonald’s are doing. They use their power to crush wages. Wages are good for juniors in the free market independent sector
I think you are underestimating the maturity value of a 50 year old versus a 15 year old. Odd you think it had no value. The older I get the more I realise about work and everything.
But yes, strugglers. I’ve worked with kids who struggle so much in the workplace I think they are undiagnosed or undisclosed special needs. They wouldn’t have a job if they were not cheap.
I haven’t shifted, I just added. There are many reasons to pay a 15 year old less. I’ve given you 2
On average kids make poorer employees so in order to get them hired the wage is lower. Business can always raise it.
We do things on averages in law and society. If you don’t know our society is based on utilitarianism I suggest reading the Wikipedia page on it.
The fact that 20 year old adults are paid less than 20+ year old adults is absolutely absurd. Once you turn 18 you should be paid as an adult because…..you are one.
Exactly. 18 is just a number that we've decided for other things, doesn't mean it fits with this.
Pay is related to experience, and the fact is that some kids are not allowed to work by their parents, so at 18 they have no experience. With no experience and the same pay, what incentive does a business have to hire them? The kids then struggle to find their first job for a long time.
Seems like a very specific set of circumstances that you are aiming a law at. 18 is just a number but it happens to be the number we as a society have decided to call people adults, let’s not create second class citizens of our youth. Should we pay older people less because they aren’t as fast as young people? No, we shouldn’t.
This is silly.
An average 18 year old is significantly less valuable as an employee than a 21 year old.
Many 18 year olds have no employment experience at all, and those that do are often still meaningfully less mature than those a few years older.
Moreover most kids this age do not have the expenses of an older worker, so their disposable income is still comparable. Many still living at home, receiving youth assistance, living in student accommodation etc...
>Moreover most kids this age do not have the expenses of an older worker, so their disposable income is still comparable. Many still living at home, receiving youth assistance, living in student accommodation etc...
this must never, ever be a reason or justification to pay less.
>Seems like a very specific set of circumstances that you are aiming a law at.
Youth unemployment is 15% compared to the national average of 3.5%. Not sure it's so specific that younger people don't get jobs. In the US that 15% is closer to 65% where they don't have age based minimum wage.
Haha yeah actually I’m with you let abolish minimum wage and all requirements for businesses to pay people what they’re worth. Better yet let’s remove the laws that prevent people from owning slaves. Just because you can be paid nothing and be able to be bought and sold into a life of servitude doesn’t mean that you will be…..
No one is forcing anyone to work for these rates of pay. And the fact that it's voluntary means your attempt at drawing a comparison to slavery is misconceived (on top of just being whack). You can't have voluntary slaves.
Ahh yeah nah I’m saying just because people can have slaves doesn’t mean people will….get it. We already went through all that and found out that people will have slaves-remember. Which is why we have laws which stop people from engaging in that kind of behaviour. Same principle, just because people can be paid less doesn’t mean that they are- but they most likely are. I’d hazard a guess that overwhelmingly people who can be paid a junior rate are paid a junior rate.
It used to be fine but then it got f'd up by a lot of things. latest f'up is disallowing fruit picking at lower than hourly award rate. lots of olds relied on that.
but yeh media would drum up outrage if it got fixed.
I'm watching my 18 year old work their ass off in their first fast food job and be denied weekend and longer shifts for younger workers. Glad they're not working this hard for $8 an hour though.
Not sure what this is all about, but on the maturity point, there is massive difference in maturity by age.
If there weren't a cost advantage to hiring juniors, very few employers would do so, and as much as you would like to believe otherwise, it's a rational decision they are making.
Hey mate, you’re going to need to stuff your strawman a bit more before it’s really worth arguing against. If this is the kind of discussion you want to have, maybe just jump on ChatGPT and argue with an AI instead.
No, you’re just making up some bullshit and pretending I said it.
Meanwhile you *literally said* “age is not an indicator for maturity”. You ran away from that position the second you were pressed on it, and I let you because it’s kind to allow someone to qualify their statements.
But what’s the point in having a discussion with you if you’re going to run away from the things you’ve said, and then make up the things I’m saying?
I can see why you keep getting blocked.
You just ran from your statement in the exact same breath as you claimed to defend it. Do you not realise that?
You changed it from “age is not an indicator” to “age is not a sole indicator”. I don’t blame you for changing your earlier position, as the latter is a true statement, while the former is false. If you had just been upfront about it, “oh yeah, I probably misspoke” we could all have moved on quickly. Quit the attempted gaslighting already.
*Of course* a 19 year old male can be more mature than a 19 year old female. There are multiple factors that drive maturity - and more importantly, work performance. The sky is also blue most of the time, and grass green.
But this isn’t the big gotcha you seem to think it is. It doesn’t matter at all. Every time I read a CV, offer an interview or hire a person I’m making a bet. Younger and less experienced people are less likely to pay off on that bet, all other factors being equal. If they cost the same as older people I’d only be able to justify hiring them if they were really impressive in other respects. But why should I invest any time ascertaining if they’re impressive in other respects? I have 100 CVs on my desk for one role, 5 of them are 5 star veterans, and it’s a waste of everyone’s time to interview more than 5 people for a single role.
Here’s another real world example. I was talking with a couple of legal mates over the weekend how ChatGPT is outperforming their grads, and how it’s creating an ethical challenge where they want to involve and coach the grads for the sake of their development - but that’s leading to higher fees and lower quality work for their clients. One of them was giving the grads jobs, then using ChatGPT to redo the grad work and not billing the grads to the client, essentially donating their own money to employ the grads for a negative return. Good on them for being altruistic, but it’s not a great way to design a system.
“The one time I missed a qualifier”.
There you go. I’ll take that as you ungraciously confirming you misspoke. Kinda weird of you to then imply that I trawled your comments looking for an opportunity to find where you did so - for the avoidance of doubt, you just don’t matter that much to me. I can only respond to what I read.
So far as the rest of your piecemeal argumentation goes, I don’t think there’s much point engaging further. If we’re agreed that multiple factors predict performance, that age/immaturity is one of them, and that hirers will often use that specific factor as a heuristic to exclude younger people unless given a counterbalancing incentive - well, there’s not much else to discuss, is there?
I worked for IGA and then Woolworths from the age of 14 for 7 years. At 15/16 I was often doing open/closes and helping my boss with the timetabling (I enjoyed the optimisation process and enjoyed maths in school).
It was annoying as a 17 year to work 60 hours over the new year period because half of our staff were off to the falls festival and I was only getting paid $12 an hour with no over time. A colleague who was also my age worked 72 hours that week.
I understand why there is junior wages for brand new employees. It pissed me off when I was doing the same amount of work and getting paid half the price. I think after 6 months of training/working/able to demonstrate work ability the junior wages should disappear.
I did my back out working at Woolworths as a 22 year old. 3 Physio sessions was all I got. I was already transitioning to my tech career and just left that job.
I miss the customer interaction from the job. I don’t miss the not being able to say no to work because someone else had called in sick. I worked myself to chronic depression as a 22 year old. Basically had my own version of a nervous breakdown.
>I don’t miss the not being able to say no to work because someone else had called in sick.
Just so no one else is misled, as a casual of course you're allowed to say no. They're also allowed to not roster you. Goes both ways.
In my teenage mind no was never an option unless I had something else on like band practice. Even to my own detriment.
If I worked more than 15 hours a week, I’d get less Centrelink. I averaged 20 to 30 hours a week on top of school. I was always the first person they called when someone called in sick because if I was free what else would I be doing? I’d go to work if they needed me. At one stage I was doing shifts across 3 different Woolworths deli’s because other stores would get desperate.
I burned myself out. I still have a tendency to this day to over load my plate until I hit burn out. I’m better at recognising the signs earlier though.
Good to have had that sense of responsibility, obviously not so great to have had it abused by your employers at the time. Have to say, having supervised a lot of junior and not-so-junior employees, it's much easier to start with that attitude and moderate it back to a more sane balance with your own needs, than to start from the other end and try to develop any sense of responsibility (I don't think I've ever seen that happen).
I’ve seen the reverse happen in my family twice. My sister started work at maccas at 18. She’s 30 this year and now a store manager there. It took years for maccas to convince her to do the leadership training. She never really thought of it as a long term gig.
My brother worked in the same IGA I use to work in. Started off doing fruit and veg. Got to department manager over a few years with some nice pay bumps over a job that he started so he could have a bit of fun money to go get pissed with mates.
I dont hire alot of kids for one very simple reason. For every 10 I hire 7 or 8 of them are utterly useless and require WAY more time to train than an adult. If they were paid the same as the adults I'd just delete every kids resume that being said I often bump the kids pay rates after 3 to 6 months if they are working at a similar rate to my adult staff but thats on a case by case basis
>that being said I often bump the kids pay rates after 3 to 6 months if they are working at a similar rate to my adult staff but thats on a case by case basis Good on you few employers do this
Mc Donalds and other companies that hire juniors basically idiot proof the proccess. No Adult will stick around for fast food wages and at the same time this incentivises companies to invest in their workers rather than churn through them.
We simply wouldn't continue hiring junior retail staff if there wasn't a cost advantage. The difference in maturity, experience and work ethic is just too large.
I shudder to think of all the dumb shit I did when I was working my first retail job at 15.
Youth unemployment is already 15%, even with junior rates available. Without it youth unemployment would be a lot higher.
Youth unemployment is measured from 18-25. Junior wages stop at 21. I’d assure you the large amount of poverty and unemployment comes from those above 21 who retail and other employers refuse to hire or provide hours, preferring those who they can hire for less.
I've had a few. They are definitely not worth as much as an adult. One of them just wasted $1000 of materials because they weren't concentrating.
>I dont hire alot of boomers for one very simple reason. For every 10 I hire 7 or 8 of them are utterly useless and require WAY more time to train than a 30 year old. > >I just delete every resume that has a work history over 20 years. > >that being said I often bump the boomers pay rates after 3 to 6 months if they are working at a similar rate to my better staff but thats on a case by case basis
herp derp I made a boomer joke how original for this sub. My industry dosnt attract many boomers but the few that I have hired over the years have all been explceptional staff members
Not a joke. Just pointing out that, somehow, making generalisations about young people is OK but if you do it with an older generation it's ageism. Personally, I've hired young people and trained them up. I've also hired people much older and retrained them. Either way it usually worked out great. Everyone in that entry level role got the same wage regardless of age and it wasn't an issue
I wasn't making a generalisation. I was commenting on my experience in my industry with 2 decades under my belt like I said I find some good ones but it's alot of wasted effort finding the 2 or 3 out of 10 which is why I just don't hire many
"Most are useless" "I'm not making generalisations" OK Boomer.
Firstly, not a boomer Secondly why dont you read what I actually said. I did not say most. I said if I hire 10, 7 to 8 of them won't work out. This isn't me making up some weird generalisation about kids this is what actually happens in my business and has happened for a long time
Maybe your business is the issue and not the young peoples' age.
In NZ they pay teens the same as adults and the shocking result is it's near impossible for teenagers to get their first job because hiring a 14-17yo takes a lot more patience and tolerance. Getting rid of junior wages would be a bad move. As one wise maccas manager said to me "I can put on two 14yo's who make the equivalent of putting on one 19yo" when justifying to area management why they roster on less but older staff.
The main point of the article was that the current junior wage policy is based on anecdotal evidence rather than data. If junior wages disappeared overnight and it turns out employers prefer to hire older workers, competition for older workers would increase and they would become more scarce. Everyone would still get their first job eventually, and minors who can't find jobs might pursue education, training, hobbies or, based on late night shifts I worked as a teenager that impacted my schooling, sleep using the time that is freed up. Higher wages paid to adults who replace minors may also increase economic activity, which might mean more jobs overall, some of which could flow through to younger applicants. I think the author makes a great point - the onus to justify the junior wage policy should be on its proponents, and if an adequate case can't be made for it it ought to be repealed. That said, it would likely be inflationary and should be done in tandem with fiscal policies to depress price rises throughout the economy.
I echo the sentiment here that 14-17 year olds should be paid junior rates — it only makes sense given the business takes a risk on inexperienced workers that are generally less productive and generally require more supervision and training. However, I strongly disagree that 18-19 year olds should be paid less than their peers. Young adults are still expected to be supported by their parents but in reality often are not and are punished by these rules
You're making the same mistake that proponents for every increase to the minimum wage make: just because you increase it doesn't mean it'll be paid. People will be laid off instead. At least across-the-board minimum wage increases don't allow the option of replacing workers (other than outsourcing and automation); in your case, if there is no cost benefit to hiring that 18-19 year old, more times than not they just won't get hired. Youth unemployment is already at ~15%; this will just make that worse.
>You're making the same mistake that proponents for every increase to the minimum wage make: just because you increase it doesn't mean it'll be paid. People will be laid off instead. Source? btw did you read the article?
Yes, skimmed most of it but the parts which I thought were bunk turned out to be... well, bunk. For example, under the heading of: >A number of countries have removed, or restricted in scope, provisions setting sub-minimum wages for young workers All the examples are of countries which still have lower rates of pay for younger workers (or less experienced workers), eg: >For example, Belgium had sub-minimum wages for 18- to 20-year-old employees... However, the sub-minimum wages for young people aged 16 and 17 are still in place And >Similarly, South Korea abolished its sub-minimum wages for workers 18 years and under in 2005... Today, all workers in South Korea... with less than three months work experience, are paid 90 per cent of the national minimum wage. They're not great examples, and these would be the *best* examples the think-tank could find.
There aren't many other examples because there are few countries more economically developed then us
That would be a reason to refrain from drawing wide-ranging conclusions.
The article cites an ILO meta-analysis that it would have a small or not statistically significant impact on youth employment. Cost benefit isn't the only factor. There is availability of employees, whether employees want to work minimum wage after having experience etc, whether the business is able to automate or outsource anything etc.
I’ve worked in a min wage job as an adult. The juniors rarely had the maturity or judgement adult workers did. If you were paying full wages you’d then look to hire an adult.
I worked in a store when I was 15-17, got paid <$10 am hour for most of it. Worked often with 21+ yr olds who were lazy AF and I outworked them every day.
not an uncommon situation but the opposite is even more common.
The system allows for good performers to be paid more. There’s no cap on junior wages. As a junior I was paid above adult minimum wage. The junior wage exists to help the many struggling kids get a start in work.
Sure, and my job allows me to be paid $1M/year. In reality though, it doesn't. Companies don't want to pay more than the absolute minimum they can get away with.
>the absolute minimum they can get away with. This is still determined by the market as much as it is by the law. The fact that youth unemployment is at about 15% is just as much reason why pay for them is so low as their lower minimum wage.
[удалено]
Not necessarily no, but it does often enough that I can understand the generalisation.
[удалено]
Nope, not so much. Poor maturity and judgement can be an issue in any age group. However if you take a cross section of 17 year olds and a similar cross section of 22 year olds **on average** you’d probably find a higher proportion of maturity in the older subgroup.
[удалено]
If you look at the job market, you'll find that average pay probably has a 1:1 correlation with age. Because age also correlates with experience, qualifications, and seniority.
[удалено]
I don't block people (if I did I wouldn't be able to see this comment to reply to it) but also no to engaging in this discussion further - doing so would defeat the purpose that your comments exemplify precisely the kind of immaturity the warrants lower rates of *minimum* pay for very young workers.
When you have an angry 65 year old customer they respond better to an adult. Hostile customers happens so often you have to have adults on staff. They should be paid more for this labour.
[удалено]
There’s no law that juniors can’t get a pay rise. I’ve worked in lots of venues that they do. I was overpaid as a junior. You would not start a 15 year old off at adults rates because as someone else said most of them are not ready. In this economy in hospitality juniors who are ready for it are getting pay rises.
[удалено]
What do you do with the kids who are strugglers? My last job we employed strugglers. They made up the numbers. They counted for half a real employee
Juniors shouldn’t waste their time with multinationals who pay everyone the same Independent business will pay good juniors more. There needs to be the facility to pay strugglers less so they get the opportunity to work and learn I think everyone is too caught up in what coles woolies and McDonald’s are doing. They use their power to crush wages. Wages are good for juniors in the free market independent sector
[удалено]
I think you are underestimating the maturity value of a 50 year old versus a 15 year old. Odd you think it had no value. The older I get the more I realise about work and everything. But yes, strugglers. I’ve worked with kids who struggle so much in the workplace I think they are undiagnosed or undisclosed special needs. They wouldn’t have a job if they were not cheap.
[удалено]
I haven’t shifted, I just added. There are many reasons to pay a 15 year old less. I’ve given you 2 On average kids make poorer employees so in order to get them hired the wage is lower. Business can always raise it. We do things on averages in law and society. If you don’t know our society is based on utilitarianism I suggest reading the Wikipedia page on it.
[удалено]
“I’m arguing age isn’t an indicator for maturity”. Come on now. It’s not determinative but it absolutely has predictive power.
>Yours is very weak Somewhat ironically, your comments on this thread are serving as a much better argument for the practice.
Yeah hospitals are staffed with children who always cop abuse and thus inefficient which understandably reflects their pay.
I was 17 years of age and got retail job due to my age. It paid twice as much as I got on the de.
The fact that 20 year old adults are paid less than 20+ year old adults is absolutely absurd. Once you turn 18 you should be paid as an adult because…..you are one.
Yeah it's weird that it only kicks in at 22 I think.
I dunno I was pretty dumb at 18, I wouldn’t hire me. I think 18 is as arbitrary a definition as any other age.
Exactly. 18 is just a number that we've decided for other things, doesn't mean it fits with this. Pay is related to experience, and the fact is that some kids are not allowed to work by their parents, so at 18 they have no experience. With no experience and the same pay, what incentive does a business have to hire them? The kids then struggle to find their first job for a long time.
Seems like a very specific set of circumstances that you are aiming a law at. 18 is just a number but it happens to be the number we as a society have decided to call people adults, let’s not create second class citizens of our youth. Should we pay older people less because they aren’t as fast as young people? No, we shouldn’t.
This is silly. An average 18 year old is significantly less valuable as an employee than a 21 year old. Many 18 year olds have no employment experience at all, and those that do are often still meaningfully less mature than those a few years older. Moreover most kids this age do not have the expenses of an older worker, so their disposable income is still comparable. Many still living at home, receiving youth assistance, living in student accommodation etc...
>Moreover most kids this age do not have the expenses of an older worker, so their disposable income is still comparable. Many still living at home, receiving youth assistance, living in student accommodation etc... this must never, ever be a reason or justification to pay less.
>Seems like a very specific set of circumstances that you are aiming a law at. Youth unemployment is 15% compared to the national average of 3.5%. Not sure it's so specific that younger people don't get jobs. In the US that 15% is closer to 65% where they don't have age based minimum wage.
Just because you *can* be paid less doesn't necessarily mean that you are. If that logic actually applied, everyone would be on minimum wage only.
Haha yeah actually I’m with you let abolish minimum wage and all requirements for businesses to pay people what they’re worth. Better yet let’s remove the laws that prevent people from owning slaves. Just because you can be paid nothing and be able to be bought and sold into a life of servitude doesn’t mean that you will be…..
No one is forcing anyone to work for these rates of pay. And the fact that it's voluntary means your attempt at drawing a comparison to slavery is misconceived (on top of just being whack). You can't have voluntary slaves.
Ahh yeah nah I’m saying just because people can have slaves doesn’t mean people will….get it. We already went through all that and found out that people will have slaves-remember. Which is why we have laws which stop people from engaging in that kind of behaviour. Same principle, just because people can be paid less doesn’t mean that they are- but they most likely are. I’d hazard a guess that overwhelmingly people who can be paid a junior rate are paid a junior rate.
Imagine the outrage if we could pay old people less because they work slower
They just don't get hired in the first place.
It used to be fine but then it got f'd up by a lot of things. latest f'up is disallowing fruit picking at lower than hourly award rate. lots of olds relied on that. but yeh media would drum up outrage if it got fixed.
The main issue is probably not what kids are paid, more what the cost of living is. It is outrageous even as an adult
I'm watching my 18 year old work their ass off in their first fast food job and be denied weekend and longer shifts for younger workers. Glad they're not working this hard for $8 an hour though.
Funny how they're paid like juniors but taxed like adults.
They're probably not taxed at all since they're more than likely earning below 18k a year.
Same as an adult. And if they earn over $18k annually? Same as an adult.
Well they're probably using roads, fuel and social services like adults too then.
But paying them like adults? Nahhhhh!
What's the point of hiring them at all then? What advantage do they bring over an adult?
It's all explained in the article. How many adults do you think would tolerate they work they do?
Pretty much this.
That assumes they have good parents that they can live with
Do you mean to say people on lower incomes pay less tax
Taxes are literally a (progressively increasing) percentage - if they're paid less, they get taxed less.
[удалено]
Not sure what this is all about, but on the maturity point, there is massive difference in maturity by age. If there weren't a cost advantage to hiring juniors, very few employers would do so, and as much as you would like to believe otherwise, it's a rational decision they are making.
Discussing maturity while chasing people across anonymous forum boards to continue arguing…
[удалено]
[удалено]
Honestly, I wouldn’t object to that if it meant those immature young men were employed and mentored.
[удалено]
Hey mate, you’re going to need to stuff your strawman a bit more before it’s really worth arguing against. If this is the kind of discussion you want to have, maybe just jump on ChatGPT and argue with an AI instead.
[удалено]
No, you’re just making up some bullshit and pretending I said it. Meanwhile you *literally said* “age is not an indicator for maturity”. You ran away from that position the second you were pressed on it, and I let you because it’s kind to allow someone to qualify their statements. But what’s the point in having a discussion with you if you’re going to run away from the things you’ve said, and then make up the things I’m saying? I can see why you keep getting blocked.
[удалено]
You just ran from your statement in the exact same breath as you claimed to defend it. Do you not realise that? You changed it from “age is not an indicator” to “age is not a sole indicator”. I don’t blame you for changing your earlier position, as the latter is a true statement, while the former is false. If you had just been upfront about it, “oh yeah, I probably misspoke” we could all have moved on quickly. Quit the attempted gaslighting already. *Of course* a 19 year old male can be more mature than a 19 year old female. There are multiple factors that drive maturity - and more importantly, work performance. The sky is also blue most of the time, and grass green. But this isn’t the big gotcha you seem to think it is. It doesn’t matter at all. Every time I read a CV, offer an interview or hire a person I’m making a bet. Younger and less experienced people are less likely to pay off on that bet, all other factors being equal. If they cost the same as older people I’d only be able to justify hiring them if they were really impressive in other respects. But why should I invest any time ascertaining if they’re impressive in other respects? I have 100 CVs on my desk for one role, 5 of them are 5 star veterans, and it’s a waste of everyone’s time to interview more than 5 people for a single role. Here’s another real world example. I was talking with a couple of legal mates over the weekend how ChatGPT is outperforming their grads, and how it’s creating an ethical challenge where they want to involve and coach the grads for the sake of their development - but that’s leading to higher fees and lower quality work for their clients. One of them was giving the grads jobs, then using ChatGPT to redo the grad work and not billing the grads to the client, essentially donating their own money to employ the grads for a negative return. Good on them for being altruistic, but it’s not a great way to design a system.
[удалено]
“The one time I missed a qualifier”. There you go. I’ll take that as you ungraciously confirming you misspoke. Kinda weird of you to then imply that I trawled your comments looking for an opportunity to find where you did so - for the avoidance of doubt, you just don’t matter that much to me. I can only respond to what I read. So far as the rest of your piecemeal argumentation goes, I don’t think there’s much point engaging further. If we’re agreed that multiple factors predict performance, that age/immaturity is one of them, and that hirers will often use that specific factor as a heuristic to exclude younger people unless given a counterbalancing incentive - well, there’s not much else to discuss, is there?
I worked for IGA and then Woolworths from the age of 14 for 7 years. At 15/16 I was often doing open/closes and helping my boss with the timetabling (I enjoyed the optimisation process and enjoyed maths in school). It was annoying as a 17 year to work 60 hours over the new year period because half of our staff were off to the falls festival and I was only getting paid $12 an hour with no over time. A colleague who was also my age worked 72 hours that week. I understand why there is junior wages for brand new employees. It pissed me off when I was doing the same amount of work and getting paid half the price. I think after 6 months of training/working/able to demonstrate work ability the junior wages should disappear. I did my back out working at Woolworths as a 22 year old. 3 Physio sessions was all I got. I was already transitioning to my tech career and just left that job. I miss the customer interaction from the job. I don’t miss the not being able to say no to work because someone else had called in sick. I worked myself to chronic depression as a 22 year old. Basically had my own version of a nervous breakdown.
>I don’t miss the not being able to say no to work because someone else had called in sick. Just so no one else is misled, as a casual of course you're allowed to say no. They're also allowed to not roster you. Goes both ways.
In my teenage mind no was never an option unless I had something else on like band practice. Even to my own detriment. If I worked more than 15 hours a week, I’d get less Centrelink. I averaged 20 to 30 hours a week on top of school. I was always the first person they called when someone called in sick because if I was free what else would I be doing? I’d go to work if they needed me. At one stage I was doing shifts across 3 different Woolworths deli’s because other stores would get desperate. I burned myself out. I still have a tendency to this day to over load my plate until I hit burn out. I’m better at recognising the signs earlier though.
Good to have had that sense of responsibility, obviously not so great to have had it abused by your employers at the time. Have to say, having supervised a lot of junior and not-so-junior employees, it's much easier to start with that attitude and moderate it back to a more sane balance with your own needs, than to start from the other end and try to develop any sense of responsibility (I don't think I've ever seen that happen).
I’ve seen the reverse happen in my family twice. My sister started work at maccas at 18. She’s 30 this year and now a store manager there. It took years for maccas to convince her to do the leadership training. She never really thought of it as a long term gig. My brother worked in the same IGA I use to work in. Started off doing fruit and veg. Got to department manager over a few years with some nice pay bumps over a job that he started so he could have a bit of fun money to go get pissed with mates.