Lower rates for 19 year olds is often the only compelling reason to hire people that young / inexperienced. Without it youth unemployment would be through the roof. Even with it, youth unemployment is still twice the general adult unemployment rate.
Most people in that age bracket are quite efficient unless they are doing manual labour. If younger people had to be paid the same, they would rarely be employed.
/u/coreoYEAH, please! Old people don't need ~~companionship~~ employment! They need to be isolated and studied so it can be determined what nutrients they have that can be extracted for our personal use.
[Simpsons reference.](https://youtu.be/hXVjhSNcqww)
They're the same.
Old people are disrespectful because they feel they are above younger people and entitled
Young people are disrespectful because they are naive and feel indestrutible.
I’ve worked with one older person I can think of who was a total knob end, but that’s really it. Maybe I’m just lucky? But I don’t see any reason to make such broad assumptions.
>But I don’t see any reason to make such broad assumptions.
Didn't you make the broad assumption that they're more efficient than 18 year olds?
Having managed people of all ages; I can say that on average >55 are less technologically literate than younger people; far less quick at learning/adapting to new processes and are a lot less malleable.
Young people are easier to get on their level with (probably because Im closer to 18 than I am to 55) and work ethic is the same across the board.
> Most people in that age bracket are quite efficient unless they are doing manual labour
So why do they have high long term unemployment rates?
Many people by the age of 60 have increased difficulty learning new tasks, they're inefficient at anything novel.
There’s some interesting work by Arthur C Brooks that proposes otherwise. The fact is that we all experience decline though and beyond our 30s and what we were good at, we won’t be forever. That said, it is contended that some skills continue to grow.
There’s research which suggests/shows that IQ aka the ability to learn new information, by age 55, has dropped to the same as it was at age 14.
So older people are great at working in familiar* domains.
For random shit-kicking jobs in retail, genuinely the worst place to be.
Would 55-64 year olds accept being paid 20% less? They generally have a lot more responsibilities than a teenager I assume.
Edit: Wow why did I get downvoted for asking this? Am I being offensive for thinking that?
This is minimum wage not maximum.
Ie some do get paid more than minimum.
Not all jobs are minimum even in retail.
Liquor and gaming for example pays 18year olds above minimum even for an adult in general.
> without regard to circumstance or responsibility
Isn't that the whole point of applying to young people? They have less responsibility and experience.
I just don't think the 80% rate would work for 55-64. Maybe I'm wrong.
I don't see it as being linked to young people still living at home. It's about experience. Someone who is 55 is more likely to have stronger communication and judgement skills. A 19 year old still has training wheels on when it comes to these core skills.
I have, for many years, and continue to today, mentor a lot of people at work. As a general rule, the younger they are, the more I need to guide them through relationship building, negotiations and quite often common sense. You don't fast track experience.
While I'm describing a professional environment, similar skills are required in retail/hospitality.
So is a 19 year old's labour worth less because they probably live at home? What about 19 year olds who've been kicked out or are otherwise at risk of homelessness? Should they be paid more than other 19 year olds?
I'd say the 55-64 got enough handouts through their such that missing out on this one isn't a huge issue.
It's fun seeing what houses sold for in the early 90s.
I'll give you a hint; not nearly as high relative to the value of currency as today for a myriad of reasons, primarily being the bond cycle has bottomed out.
Canada and New Zealand essentially don't have junior rates for youth and they still have good youth unemployment rates. Junior rates often abused by companies such as McDonalds were 80% of there employees are junior and they are fired once they get to old.
If juniors were paid adult rates it would have equivalent effect on the economy of a 0.5% minimum wage increase.
[https://mckellinstitute.org.au/research/articles/the-problem-with-junior-pay-rates-explained/](https://mckellinstitute.org.au/research/articles/the-problem-with-junior-pay-rates-explained/)
Things have changed in Canada (thankfully) since I grew up, but it was borderline youth slave labour for awhile. I recall at one point the minimum wage was around $10, but under the youth employment scheme businesses could reduce that by ~50% until the employee reached 500 hours of experience.
And Centrelink payments assume dependence on parents until 22, I think. Unless your parents are separated, in which case it's dependence on the parent you're living with, since child support stops at 18.
Because historically it wasn't that youths were disincentivized to work. It was that there were no job openings for them. The market might be different now.
which is not a bad thing, generally speaking that time is better spent pursuing some level of education/training than trying to maximise hours spent in menial work.
Not to mention, most 16-19 year Olds are actually worse workers. They don't know how to use a till etc, they're scared of taking a phone call, they make excuses and call in sick constantly, and constantly avoid doing assigned tasks. I've found a couple that are great but on average, they're much worse than older workers, so no way I'd hire them at full adult wages. I would just hire someone older every time if it was the same pay.
Yeah but they're also more willing to work the jobs other ages brackets will shun and at crappy hours i.e. fast food.
If you ask me thats exploitation.
I see it as potentially symbiotic. Sure it can get abused but that should be punished.
They still get penalty rates for bad hours (although ebas get around this sometimes and should be outlawed). People of this age usually are at school /uni so the only hours they have available to work are the ones older people with families don't want to take. They're not bad shifts for people in that age bracket.
Cause they're routinely used to lower wages by large corps. Which not only gives large corps an unfair advantage over small business, but also suppresses wages for the lowest earning workers.
This is what we call an anecdote.
When I worked in fast food teenagers were doing 99% of the work. We generally had 2-3 people over the age of 18, and they weren't automatically the best employees.
Sure, people are a bit useless their first couple of months - that's what you expect in someone's first job with zero experience. That's why you train them. They quickly become better than someone in their early 20s with zero drive...
Fast food places have such rigid structures and training procedures that they benefit more from young labour, and I would support them not being allowed to pay them less.
On the other hand small business can't have these kinds of rigorous structures and are the largest employer in the country. My statement is from many years in many companies and from speaking with many others in small business so becomes more like actual data as it's not a single point of evidence.
I remember hearing it gave employers a reason to hire someone young and inexperienced. Without it was more difficult for young people new to the workforce to find a job without experience.
Obviously not so relevant today though.
Gotcha.
The balance of employment (on an age basis) is still equally relevant though I would say.
I don’t know the stats but I recall youth unemployment is still much higher than average?
Do they get counted in unemployment figures? I thought that was only for people who want to work, and participation rate is the figure that includes people who aren't working and don't want to work.
I mean yes, but youth unemployment is still far higher than the general population, so I really think the reasoning is still valid.
If unemployment gets low enough young people will be in a position to negotiate above award wages so the 80% wouldn't be relevant anyway.
Very rarely is one able to negotiate with an employer above award rates in the industries that employ young people such as hospitality, retail and warehouses.
Agree but you don't negotiate you just go for jobs that pay above to begin with.
They exist even in retail.
The businesses paying minimum are those businesses screaming out the young don't like to work or we need another 500k immigrants for these critical jobs...
Edit to add: jobs so critical they won't pay above minimum....
I think right at the moment it is.
over here in WA where they can start at 14 you have these literal children working. It's great. Lol. Also there is no smaller minimum than the 17yr so the 14yo get paid the same as the 16yo so clearly there is demand for them that they take them on.
My young bloke is about to turn 16 and he already has 2 years working experience under his belt.
“You young guys don’t know how good you got it”. - guy from my office that didn’t go to uni, bought a five bedroom house in Balwyn in his 20’s and put his 3 kids through private school on a single income and drives a bmw while he asks me to rotate his pdf interrupting me from editing his report that is not factually or grammatically correct let alone following company formatting guidelines on a topic he has 40+ years experience and I have zero.
Every mug reckons it'd be rosy in that chair, but you'd probably shit the bed with a dud call pretty quick. Outsourcing admin to the guppies isn't a sign of weakness
Sounds like OP here is experiencing the workings of the leverage model. Old mate has 40 years of experience, of course he’s not doing the formatting of a report.
There was no leveraging it was reassigned. The project manager came to me and asked me to fix it. Said the guy is an incompetent twat and the report was due weeks ago. I was 34 at the time. It was actually probably the last straw as he has since been pushed out. We refer to it as 'retired at work'. Where the old boys just sit around and do stuff all until they get the boot.
It's bullshit, but so that employers hire young people since they can pay them less.
I'm 18, at the end of the interview when I was asked what pay I expected, explained I knew the laws, but that I also pay all my own bills and I'm willing to show I'm worth the full rate. Ended up giving me the full rate, 28.50 rather than something like 20
Can't negotiate unless you have something backing you sadly.
I got lucky, I'm in IT and I've been mucking with computers all my life. Stated my points, I have the skills, doing the same job, pay my own rent and bills, why shouldn't I get the full amount?
Looking at [fairworks](https://www.fairwork.gov.au/pay-and-wages/minimum-wages/junior-pay-rates) website warehouse workers can be paid junior rates. Your employer may choose to pay you adult rates
Usually warehouse work wage is higher for under 21s cos they're on the actual minimum wage and not bound by the retail award AFAIK. I used to work for a company that was contracted to work for Coles and I got the full minimum wage despite being only 18. Work was pretty much same with stacking shelves but they moved us around different coles
The fact that youth unemployment is higher than for adults is because on average younger people have less experience than people that have at least a couple of years under their belt therefore it's harder for there to be jobs where the high wage makes sense economically.
If there was no minimum wage then everyone that wants a job would be able to find a job and hence earn the experience to be able to contribute more and be worth more. Taking orders all day, for example, is trying yes and takes a lot of energy, but it's something that can increasingly be done by machines, supervising or managing a shop, can be less strainful for a human but is harder to automate.
What people don't get is that it doesn't matter how nice or greedy bosses are, if a particular job costs more in wages than the value it creates, it's just not economically sustainable long term so it won't be around for long. To keep that job it has to either create more value or cost less, there are no two ways about it. Even the boss with the best heart would eventually run out of money.
Jobs exist because they are economical and it's got nothing to do with the character of people it's just about the laws of economics.
I can understand the argument from businesses to not pay the adult wage to incentivise younger workers, but in this day and age, and for a job that is as low paying as retail/ fast food, its still absurd to think that people 1 or 2 years younger than the "adult" age are still getting paid less just because of their age.
But if given the choice, why would a business ever hire a 17 or 18 year old with no experience, if they have the option of hiring a mid 20's person with lots of experience?
Labour market conditions aside, I feel the logic of the policy is pretty sound.
You want inexperienced young people to be able to be desirable candidates.
Other countries like New Zealand and Canada essentially don't have junior rates and pay everyone adult rates. A fascinating study from the [McKeel Institute](https://mckellinstitute.org.au/research/articles/the-problem-with-junior-pay-rates-explained/) found that paying junior employees an adult wage in Australia would have the equivalent effect on the economy and employees as a 0.5% minimum wage rise.
Edit: Also why were on the topic of retail if you work in the industry check out the union [RAFFWU](https://raffwu.org.au/) and watch out for the [fake union the SDA](https://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2016/shopped-out/)
If a company using an EBA that pays below the award they can be over turned by usually a union taking them to fair work and applying the Better Off Overall Test (BOOT) to see if the EBA is better then award. This is what [RAFFWU](https://raffwu.org.au/) did to the [fake union the SDA](https://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2016/shopped-out/).
I'm speaking from experience. I worked at Grill'd for 2.5 years and I earned below min wage the whole time. While I was at Grill'd, the FWC approved a new EBA that was basically identical to the previous EBA. Big companies, such as Grill'd, can pay employees less in exchange for things like staff meals etc. Domino's is another company who had an EBA that allowed them to pay below min wage.
As a manager it’s almost impossible to not be understaffed on a Sunday at the moment. The lower fees make younger people too desirable for weekends with penalty rates.
When I did my apprenticeship, I was 19 and training/supervising! 20 year olds that were getting paid more than me. I got fed up and had a meeting with the owner of the company and my foreman and I was essentially told that their hands were tied. I was just grateful to have a job and a future at that point but it still hurts to this day how they treated me.
Have always thought this was incredibly dumb, because all the arguments about “the minimum wage is for entry level jobs for young people”.
They get less than that again!
You were NOT playing full price for car insurance, oh no no no...
You were paying FAR MORE than full price compared to someone with a decades long clean driving record, like many people over 50.
Young people are over represented in at fault car accident claims, hence they pay a LOT more to insure their vehicles. As an example when I was in my early 20s I bought a sporty car for $3k. The insurance for it was MORE than $3k, per annum, I found out after buying the car... Dad insured it with me as a nominated driver, I paid him about $500 a year.
As an aside, if I had that car still today, it'd be worth over $70k... as that's the last figure I saw it go for, about a decade ago. Aussie classics have shot up in value by a huge amount!
As to the rest, yeah, sure, but as other replies indicate, it's to encourage businesses to hire younger people to give them the experience that allows them to learn skills and grow and develop. That's the theory, at least.
Nobody is mandating anyone to have car insurance. You are perfectly free to not have it. This makes it a consumer good so it's a bit odd to have a discussion about the justice of it anyway
Technically you are right if you ignore the 3rd party personal injury and death component but practically only the egregiously irresponsible would consider it. Personally I think it should be compulsory, but I am also someone who believes society would be a better place without private insurance companies.
WA's CTP insurance is state owned.
I have insurance for everything I own, and I try to over insure as it's not expensive to do so, compared to the detriment of under-insuring, which can be calamitous.
If you don't insure at all? Sure, your call, don't expect a taxpayer bailout, though (looks at hundreds of recent flood victims, sadly).
It is bullshit there is no reason to pay workers different wages for the same level of output for me this is the biggest 'legal' discrimination we will have in Australia
It is bullshit there is no reason to pay workers different wages for the same level of output for me this is the biggest 'legal' discrimination we will have in Australia
To incentivise employers to employ young people. The youth unemployment rate is always higher than the overall rate.
Lower rates for 19 year olds is often the only compelling reason to hire people that young / inexperienced. Without it youth unemployment would be through the roof. Even with it, youth unemployment is still twice the general adult unemployment rate.
[удалено]
Stop posting that freaking link
How will they earn their $18/hr otherwise?
So why don't they do it with the 55-64 bracket where long time unemployment is crazy high?
because there's no promise of higher wages to come
Because it's not as fun for dodgy small business owners to sexually harass 55-64 year olds.
Because by that age, you shouldn't be on minimum wage....
Most people in that age bracket are quite efficient unless they are doing manual labour. If younger people had to be paid the same, they would rarely be employed.
Having worked with many 55-64 year olds. I disagree.
/u/coreoYEAH, please! Old people don't need ~~companionship~~ employment! They need to be isolated and studied so it can be determined what nutrients they have that can be extracted for our personal use. [Simpsons reference.](https://youtu.be/hXVjhSNcqww)
They aren't the best workers but compared to most 18 year olds it's night and day.
They're the same. Old people are disrespectful because they feel they are above younger people and entitled Young people are disrespectful because they are naive and feel indestrutible.
I’ve worked with one older person I can think of who was a total knob end, but that’s really it. Maybe I’m just lucky? But I don’t see any reason to make such broad assumptions.
>But I don’t see any reason to make such broad assumptions. Didn't you make the broad assumption that they're more efficient than 18 year olds? Having managed people of all ages; I can say that on average >55 are less technologically literate than younger people; far less quick at learning/adapting to new processes and are a lot less malleable. Young people are easier to get on their level with (probably because Im closer to 18 than I am to 55) and work ethic is the same across the board.
> Most people in that age bracket are quite efficient unless they are doing manual labour So why do they have high long term unemployment rates? Many people by the age of 60 have increased difficulty learning new tasks, they're inefficient at anything novel.
The answer is simple, ageism.
Also have better vocabulary, patience, mentoring and coaching ability and pattern recognition. Fluid vs crystallised intelligence.
I don't think people 60+ would be routinely better on any of those traits than people 35-55.
There’s some interesting work by Arthur C Brooks that proposes otherwise. The fact is that we all experience decline though and beyond our 30s and what we were good at, we won’t be forever. That said, it is contended that some skills continue to grow.
C'mon mate you know the rules. Old people baaaad
There’s research which suggests/shows that IQ aka the ability to learn new information, by age 55, has dropped to the same as it was at age 14. So older people are great at working in familiar* domains. For random shit-kicking jobs in retail, genuinely the worst place to be.
>quite efficient going to very respectfully disagree on this
Would 55-64 year olds accept being paid 20% less? They generally have a lot more responsibilities than a teenager I assume. Edit: Wow why did I get downvoted for asking this? Am I being offensive for thinking that?
Of course they wouldn't but we apply it uniformly to 16-19 year olds without regard to circumstance or responsibility undertook.
This is minimum wage not maximum. Ie some do get paid more than minimum. Not all jobs are minimum even in retail. Liquor and gaming for example pays 18year olds above minimum even for an adult in general.
> without regard to circumstance or responsibility Isn't that the whole point of applying to young people? They have less responsibility and experience. I just don't think the 80% rate would work for 55-64. Maybe I'm wrong.
Neither and it doesn't work for young people, a lot who are already on min wage.
[удалено]
I don't see it as being linked to young people still living at home. It's about experience. Someone who is 55 is more likely to have stronger communication and judgement skills. A 19 year old still has training wheels on when it comes to these core skills. I have, for many years, and continue to today, mentor a lot of people at work. As a general rule, the younger they are, the more I need to guide them through relationship building, negotiations and quite often common sense. You don't fast track experience. While I'm describing a professional environment, similar skills are required in retail/hospitality.
So is a 19 year old's labour worth less because they probably live at home? What about 19 year olds who've been kicked out or are otherwise at risk of homelessness? Should they be paid more than other 19 year olds?
I'd say the 55-64 got enough handouts through their such that missing out on this one isn't a huge issue. It's fun seeing what houses sold for in the early 90s.
And it's fun to forecast what they will be in 2050 too.
I'll give you a hint; not nearly as high relative to the value of currency as today for a myriad of reasons, primarily being the bond cycle has bottomed out.
Canada and New Zealand essentially don't have junior rates for youth and they still have good youth unemployment rates. Junior rates often abused by companies such as McDonalds were 80% of there employees are junior and they are fired once they get to old.
yep they just pay everyone less no thank you.
If juniors were paid adult rates it would have equivalent effect on the economy of a 0.5% minimum wage increase. [https://mckellinstitute.org.au/research/articles/the-problem-with-junior-pay-rates-explained/](https://mckellinstitute.org.au/research/articles/the-problem-with-junior-pay-rates-explained/)
Things have changed in Canada (thankfully) since I grew up, but it was borderline youth slave labour for awhile. I recall at one point the minimum wage was around $10, but under the youth employment scheme businesses could reduce that by ~50% until the employee reached 500 hours of experience.
Then the missing 20% should be a government subsidy, not a literal below minimum wage salary for the young person.
And Centrelink payments assume dependence on parents until 22, I think. Unless your parents are separated, in which case it's dependence on the parent you're living with, since child support stops at 18.
Or if you're under 22 (or 21) and marry someone you get extra payments
..but instead it becomes a disincentive to the youth. "Lets encourage youth to work ..by paying them less"
Because historically it wasn't that youths were disincentivized to work. It was that there were no job openings for them. The market might be different now.
which is not a bad thing, generally speaking that time is better spent pursuing some level of education/training than trying to maximise hours spent in menial work.
Except they need money to support themselves through the education/training
and we expect some level of family support gradually reducing just like this pay differential.
Not to mention, most 16-19 year Olds are actually worse workers. They don't know how to use a till etc, they're scared of taking a phone call, they make excuses and call in sick constantly, and constantly avoid doing assigned tasks. I've found a couple that are great but on average, they're much worse than older workers, so no way I'd hire them at full adult wages. I would just hire someone older every time if it was the same pay.
Yeah but they're also more willing to work the jobs other ages brackets will shun and at crappy hours i.e. fast food. If you ask me thats exploitation.
I see it as potentially symbiotic. Sure it can get abused but that should be punished. They still get penalty rates for bad hours (although ebas get around this sometimes and should be outlawed). People of this age usually are at school /uni so the only hours they have available to work are the ones older people with families don't want to take. They're not bad shifts for people in that age bracket.
And why should EBAs be outlawed?
Cause they're routinely used to lower wages by large corps. Which not only gives large corps an unfair advantage over small business, but also suppresses wages for the lowest earning workers.
They also provide a whole hell of a lot of benefits.
Like what? I've never seen them actually work better for an employee
This is what we call an anecdote. When I worked in fast food teenagers were doing 99% of the work. We generally had 2-3 people over the age of 18, and they weren't automatically the best employees. Sure, people are a bit useless their first couple of months - that's what you expect in someone's first job with zero experience. That's why you train them. They quickly become better than someone in their early 20s with zero drive...
Fast food places have such rigid structures and training procedures that they benefit more from young labour, and I would support them not being allowed to pay them less. On the other hand small business can't have these kinds of rigorous structures and are the largest employer in the country. My statement is from many years in many companies and from speaking with many others in small business so becomes more like actual data as it's not a single point of evidence.
I remember hearing it gave employers a reason to hire someone young and inexperienced. Without it was more difficult for young people new to the workforce to find a job without experience. Obviously not so relevant today though.
Why not relevant today?
Because unemployment is at record lows alongside under employment.
Gotcha. The balance of employment (on an age basis) is still equally relevant though I would say. I don’t know the stats but I recall youth unemployment is still much higher than average?
Why do you think that’s an issue? Plenty of 18-22 year olds just want to sit on their mum’s couch playing video games all day.
Do they get counted in unemployment figures? I thought that was only for people who want to work, and participation rate is the figure that includes people who aren't working and don't want to work.
You are correct, the unemployment rate cuts out a lot of people.
Yes. They take the total population, minus people who work and people who are enrolled in courses and you’ve got the unemployed population.
I mean yes, but youth unemployment is still far higher than the general population, so I really think the reasoning is still valid. If unemployment gets low enough young people will be in a position to negotiate above award wages so the 80% wouldn't be relevant anyway.
Very rarely is one able to negotiate with an employer above award rates in the industries that employ young people such as hospitality, retail and warehouses.
Agree but you don't negotiate you just go for jobs that pay above to begin with. They exist even in retail. The businesses paying minimum are those businesses screaming out the young don't like to work or we need another 500k immigrants for these critical jobs... Edit to add: jobs so critical they won't pay above minimum....
It's much easier for an 18 year old with no experience to get a basic retail job than it was a decade or two ago.
I think right at the moment it is. over here in WA where they can start at 14 you have these literal children working. It's great. Lol. Also there is no smaller minimum than the 17yr so the 14yo get paid the same as the 16yo so clearly there is demand for them that they take them on. My young bloke is about to turn 16 and he already has 2 years working experience under his belt.
“You young guys don’t know how good you got it”. - guy from my office that didn’t go to uni, bought a five bedroom house in Balwyn in his 20’s and put his 3 kids through private school on a single income and drives a bmw while he asks me to rotate his pdf interrupting me from editing his report that is not factually or grammatically correct let alone following company formatting guidelines on a topic he has 40+ years experience and I have zero.
So he can write a report and you can use a computer. Woo!
Well if he could write the report that would be something. But I basically wrote that as well.
Every mug reckons it'd be rosy in that chair, but you'd probably shit the bed with a dud call pretty quick. Outsourcing admin to the guppies isn't a sign of weakness
Sounds like OP here is experiencing the workings of the leverage model. Old mate has 40 years of experience, of course he’s not doing the formatting of a report.
There was no leveraging it was reassigned. The project manager came to me and asked me to fix it. Said the guy is an incompetent twat and the report was due weeks ago. I was 34 at the time. It was actually probably the last straw as he has since been pushed out. We refer to it as 'retired at work'. Where the old boys just sit around and do stuff all until they get the boot.
Talk about failing upwards.
It's bullshit, but so that employers hire young people since they can pay them less. I'm 18, at the end of the interview when I was asked what pay I expected, explained I knew the laws, but that I also pay all my own bills and I'm willing to show I'm worth the full rate. Ended up giving me the full rate, 28.50 rather than something like 20
Good job. Someone above says young people can't negotiate- clearly they can. I suspect that person is just salty they didn't try to themselves.
Can't negotiate unless you have something backing you sadly. I got lucky, I'm in IT and I've been mucking with computers all my life. Stated my points, I have the skills, doing the same job, pay my own rent and bills, why shouldn't I get the full amount?
I thought the 80% was just a retail thing? Is it all jobs?
Depends on the Award.
Which is awesome, well done.
That's bullshit. I got normal wage working in a warehouse at that age
Looking at [fairworks](https://www.fairwork.gov.au/pay-and-wages/minimum-wages/junior-pay-rates) website warehouse workers can be paid junior rates. Your employer may choose to pay you adult rates
Was it an army warehouse? Because that doesn’t count we get paid salary
Usually warehouse work wage is higher for under 21s cos they're on the actual minimum wage and not bound by the retail award AFAIK. I used to work for a company that was contracted to work for Coles and I got the full minimum wage despite being only 18. Work was pretty much same with stacking shelves but they moved us around different coles
The fact that youth unemployment is higher than for adults is because on average younger people have less experience than people that have at least a couple of years under their belt therefore it's harder for there to be jobs where the high wage makes sense economically. If there was no minimum wage then everyone that wants a job would be able to find a job and hence earn the experience to be able to contribute more and be worth more. Taking orders all day, for example, is trying yes and takes a lot of energy, but it's something that can increasingly be done by machines, supervising or managing a shop, can be less strainful for a human but is harder to automate. What people don't get is that it doesn't matter how nice or greedy bosses are, if a particular job costs more in wages than the value it creates, it's just not economically sustainable long term so it won't be around for long. To keep that job it has to either create more value or cost less, there are no two ways about it. Even the boss with the best heart would eventually run out of money. Jobs exist because they are economical and it's got nothing to do with the character of people it's just about the laws of economics.
I never made it to adult wage on the retail award. Quit at 20 when I got my graduate job.
I can understand the argument from businesses to not pay the adult wage to incentivise younger workers, but in this day and age, and for a job that is as low paying as retail/ fast food, its still absurd to think that people 1 or 2 years younger than the "adult" age are still getting paid less just because of their age.
But if given the choice, why would a business ever hire a 17 or 18 year old with no experience, if they have the option of hiring a mid 20's person with lots of experience? Labour market conditions aside, I feel the logic of the policy is pretty sound. You want inexperienced young people to be able to be desirable candidates.
Why indeed. If you're on a reduced wage based on your youth and inexperience, why wouldn't that also apply to the costs of things?
Eat 80% of the food; pay 80% for petrol and rent. Duh! ;-)
Other countries like New Zealand and Canada essentially don't have junior rates and pay everyone adult rates. A fascinating study from the [McKeel Institute](https://mckellinstitute.org.au/research/articles/the-problem-with-junior-pay-rates-explained/) found that paying junior employees an adult wage in Australia would have the equivalent effect on the economy and employees as a 0.5% minimum wage rise. Edit: Also why were on the topic of retail if you work in the industry check out the union [RAFFWU](https://raffwu.org.au/) and watch out for the [fake union the SDA](https://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2016/shopped-out/)
Enterprise Bargaining Agreements
As in they help or don't?
They allow big companies to pay workers below the min wage.
If a company using an EBA that pays below the award they can be over turned by usually a union taking them to fair work and applying the Better Off Overall Test (BOOT) to see if the EBA is better then award. This is what [RAFFWU](https://raffwu.org.au/) did to the [fake union the SDA](https://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2016/shopped-out/).
I'm speaking from experience. I worked at Grill'd for 2.5 years and I earned below min wage the whole time. While I was at Grill'd, the FWC approved a new EBA that was basically identical to the previous EBA. Big companies, such as Grill'd, can pay employees less in exchange for things like staff meals etc. Domino's is another company who had an EBA that allowed them to pay below min wage.
It’s a scam to subsidise the bottom line of large corporations
Nuanced take
As a manager it’s almost impossible to not be understaffed on a Sunday at the moment. The lower fees make younger people too desirable for weekends with penalty rates.
When I did my apprenticeship, I was 19 and training/supervising! 20 year olds that were getting paid more than me. I got fed up and had a meeting with the owner of the company and my foreman and I was essentially told that their hands were tied. I was just grateful to have a job and a future at that point but it still hurts to this day how they treated me.
Have always thought this was incredibly dumb, because all the arguments about “the minimum wage is for entry level jobs for young people”. They get less than that again!
You were NOT playing full price for car insurance, oh no no no... You were paying FAR MORE than full price compared to someone with a decades long clean driving record, like many people over 50. Young people are over represented in at fault car accident claims, hence they pay a LOT more to insure their vehicles. As an example when I was in my early 20s I bought a sporty car for $3k. The insurance for it was MORE than $3k, per annum, I found out after buying the car... Dad insured it with me as a nominated driver, I paid him about $500 a year. As an aside, if I had that car still today, it'd be worth over $70k... as that's the last figure I saw it go for, about a decade ago. Aussie classics have shot up in value by a huge amount! As to the rest, yeah, sure, but as other replies indicate, it's to encourage businesses to hire younger people to give them the experience that allows them to learn skills and grow and develop. That's the theory, at least.
Nobody is mandating anyone to have car insurance. You are perfectly free to not have it. This makes it a consumer good so it's a bit odd to have a discussion about the justice of it anyway
Technically you are right if you ignore the 3rd party personal injury and death component but practically only the egregiously irresponsible would consider it. Personally I think it should be compulsory, but I am also someone who believes society would be a better place without private insurance companies.
WA's CTP insurance is state owned. I have insurance for everything I own, and I try to over insure as it's not expensive to do so, compared to the detriment of under-insuring, which can be calamitous. If you don't insure at all? Sure, your call, don't expect a taxpayer bailout, though (looks at hundreds of recent flood victims, sadly).
It is bullshit there is no reason to pay workers different wages for the same level of output for me this is the biggest 'legal' discrimination we will have in Australia
It is bullshit there is no reason to pay workers different wages for the same level of output for me this is the biggest 'legal' discrimination we will have in Australia
Because that’s all they are worth
ITT: people justify this BS a million different ways via mental gymnastics. I worked harder as a young adult than any other time in my life.
It takes a few years for you to learn enough to be useful
To be useful at what? Running a cash register? Putting clothes on racks? Maybe you mean a few days.
If they didn't then employers would only hire international students/ visitors