• 100% pay from 18, or a sliding minimum wage?
    14 replies, posted
Australia does not have a single minimum wage. Under 16s have a minimum wage of $6.03 an hour, and for every succeeding year their minimum wage increases to $7.74 (at 16), $9.46 (at 17), $11.18 (at 18), $13.51 (at 19) and finally $16 for everyone 20 and over (with exception given to apprentices, trainees and those with a disability). I'm 18 and I only get paid a base rate of $13.51 (so above my minimum wage by around $2.33) to work in grocery, packing shelves. In the men's locker room someone has hanged up a poster campaigning for 'full pay from 18', so therefore having the $16 an hour minimum wage start from 18. But as an 18 year I can't support that campaign. Most teenagers finish school at 18, and many may only take their first steps into paid employment after they get the troubles of their final senior school exams our of the way, as is the way I did it. Going into the workplace without experience puts those teenagers at a disadvantage against older, higher-experienced candidates. Yet everyone must eventually make a first step into employment. Having a sliding minimum wage gives those teenagers an advantage, allowing them to step into the workplace easier to gain necessary experience. A job of customer service in a supermarket can lead to a job as a receptionist with another firm, which could lead to a promotion to an administration job. It's best that we give teenagers the most opportunities that we can give them. There's also the point that most teenagers still live with their parents or guardians, and so a living wage isn't really necessary for them. There are exceptions - and indeed I am one as I rent a unit by myself. But the lower pay can be augmented through means-tested rent assistance by the government, and penalty rates (I get paid 1.2x if I'm called in to work, and 2.2x on Sundays). What do you think? Should there be a single minimum wage for all adults, or is a sliding minimum wage better?
I'm going to take a probably different approach to most, and argue for a single minimum wage for all adults. (Please keep in mind, I come from a business owning background from a family business in business since 1959 in America, and own my own part-time one as well.) It's a business' responsibility to maintain a proper and sufficient wage for their employees to keep the experienced workers at their position and provide adequate opportunities for advancement, as well as their right to pay their employees what they feel are properly worth to start with (for entry-level/non-marketable skill positions; experienced workers and tenure are a different matter). But, being as I'm a few hundred miles away, that's really all I have to add to the topic.
It seems to me that a sliding minimum wage puts older workers at a disadvantage, as businesses could hire young workers for their lowest paying jobs, and then fire them when they get more expensive. At least, that could happen here, I don't know what unemployment laws are like in Australia.
If you're considered an adult, you should have all the privileges every adult gets at 18. This sounds as dumb as limiting the age of drinking to 21 here in America. I can understand the sliding raise from 16 and 17, but if you're an adult, it doesn't matter if you're 18 or 81.
Atleast where i live the wage goes with the experience. More years of experience = good pay. When i have job i get paid from the lowest level, because lack of experience.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;43090798]If you're considered an adult, you should have all the privileges every adult gets at 18. This sounds as dumb as limiting the age of drinking to 21 here in America. I can understand the sliding raise from 16 and 17, but if you're an adult, it doesn't matter if you're 18 or 81.[/QUOTE] most people who are 18 still live with their parents or guardians, which makes a living wage unnecessary. As firms do not have a requirement to pay such employees a higher wage, the firm reduces its costs while simultaneously giving skills and work experience to the guy who's new to the workforce. As that guy gets older his pay increases, so that by the time he's ready to move out he will be on a living wage. But even better, by then he will have acquired enough skills and experience that he would be worth the higher wage that he's paid. Of course this is not always the case, and I am one of those who does not fit into the paragraph above as I'm 18 and live by myself. But my lower wage is complemented with my government-provided rent assistance, providing a living income often with a decent amount of savings at the end of every week. Yes, not everyone starts work before they are 21 but honestly if you haven't done so by then you better be studying for a degree than lands you a high skill, high pay job. If you weren't, then I wouldn't know what to say.
At 18 society considers you an adult, so at 18 you should be able to earn a living wage wherever you happen to be working. It's pretty silly to say "Well, you're an adult, but let's pay you a child's wage anyway because you haven't made the required and entirely arbitrary amount of orbits around Sol yet."
[QUOTE=TestECull;43152649]At 18 society considers you an adult, so at 18 you should be able to earn a living wage wherever you happen to be working. It's pretty silly to say "Well, you're an adult, but let's pay you a child's wage anyway because you haven't made the required and entirely arbitrary amount of orbits around Sol yet."[/QUOTE] You're ignoring the whole 'sliding' point of the sliding minimum wage (the way you word your post seems to imply that you believe there are only two minimum wages - a child's one and an adult one). My minimum wage isn't a child's wage, as I'm 18 it's at $11.18 per hour rather than $7.74 if I was only 16. For all purposes I am receiving an adult wage, as my minimum wage is the minimum wage for anyone that is 18, which society considers an adult.
100% pay from 16. People don't all magically start working at age 18.
[QUOTE=Explosions;43152860]100% pay from 16. People don't all magically start working at age 18.[/QUOTE] Great. Two people apply for the same retail job, where the employers intend to only pay slightly above minimum wage (and this is mentioned in the job advertisement). One is 16 and has never worked before, but is eager for the job to get necessary experience to help later down the path. The other applicant is 22 and has worked non-stop in retail for the past five years, and already has the appropriate skill set for the job. If both applicants are subject to the same $16 an hour minimum wage, who do you think the employer going to hire? Having the sliding minimum wage gives the employers a choice. Reduce their costs by hiring cheaper, potentially less effective labour but achieve a social outcome by giving work experience to the younger members of society that may lack it, or pay more for more experienced, more effective employees. Each option is well balanced against each other, but if there was the single minimum wage then employees would have less of an incentive to provide that social outcome to younger applicants with less experience.
Sliding minimum wage exists in Australia, and it sucks. People get fired when they hit full wage so the boss can get cheap labour.
[QUOTE=mokkan;43153695]Sliding minimum wage exists in Australia, and it sucks. People get fired when they hit full wage so the boss can get cheap labour.[/QUOTE] I know it exists in Australia, I live here. And people getting fired for hitting full wage is simply not true. Although anecdotal, my own workplace is full of employees into their 30s as those employees are worth the wages they are paid in terms of skills and experience. I also refer you to Australia's decent figure of 5.8% for unemployment, despite the relatively low youth unemployment rate of 12.7% [url]http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/unemployment-rate[/url]
[QUOTE=Antdawg;43152758]You're ignoring the whole 'sliding' point of the sliding minimum wage (the way you word your post seems to imply that you believe there are only two minimum wages - a child's one and an adult one). My minimum wage isn't a child's wage, as I'm 18 it's at $11.18 per hour rather than $7.74 if I was only 16. For all purposes I am receiving an adult wage, as my minimum wage is the minimum wage for anyone that is 18, which society considers an adult.[/QUOTE] In my eyes, that's like saying the person who works that's under 18's work is worth less than someone just two years older, which makes no sense.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;43154278]I know it exists in Australia, I live here. And people getting fired for hitting full wage is simply not true. Although anecdotal, my own workplace is full of employees into their 30s as those employees are worth the wages they are paid in terms of skills and experience. I also refer you to Australia's decent figure of 5.8% for unemployment, despite the relatively low youth unemployment rate of 12.7% [url]http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/unemployment-rate[/url][/QUOTE] it happens all the time in small businesses and non centrally owned franchises, just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen
[QUOTE=Antdawg;43152758]You're ignoring the whole 'sliding' point of the sliding minimum wage (the way you word your post seems to imply that you believe there are only two minimum wages - a child's one and an adult one). My minimum wage isn't a child's wage, as I'm 18 it's at $11.18 per hour rather than $7.74 if I was only 16. For all purposes I am receiving an adult wage, as my minimum wage is the minimum wage for anyone that is 18, which society considers an adult.[/QUOTE] And yet you're being done a disservice. The government is basically saying "Right, you're an adult now, but you're still not worth a fair wage because you have not yet orbited the Sun the prerequisit and entirely arbitrary number of times we specified. No we don't care if it's not enough to cover living expenses." Sure, [i]you[/i] may not be adversely affected by it. But think of the people who don't have a choice. Think of the people who are forced into working to support themselves at 18 due to reasons beyond their control, people who for some reason aren't eligible for the same governmental safety nets you rely on, or perhaps inherited crushing debt from their parents that exceeds the sum of their shitty 'scaled' wage + government assistance. They're forced to deal with the same bullshit, but it's meaning they can't afford to pay the bills. The minimum wage should be static. It's unfair to the people who get the shit end of the stick through no fault of their own. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Antdawg;43153094] Having the sliding minimum wage gives the employers a choice. Reduce their costs by hiring cheaper, potentially less effective labour but achieve a social outcome by giving work experience to the younger members of society that may lack it, or pay more for more experienced, more effective employees. Each option is well balanced against each other, but if there was the single minimum wage then employees would have less of an incentive to provide that social outcome to younger applicants with less experience.[/QUOTE] And what they'll do is hire the kid for six months, then shitcan his ass and hire another 16 year old when the time comes to bump the first hire's wage. It's no more fair than the other option, perhaps even less so.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.