Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Minimum Wage Clock

moonbase.lgbt

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–278 of 278 posts

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#271

Post by matrss »

robertlagrant wrote: post #270
matrss wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Kids are a massive expense That's why someone's financial situation should be considered before deciding to have kids. It is a conscious decision that is actively taken and therefore no reason to put younger people at a disadvantage. > As for age discrimination: is only letting people vote at a certain age, age discrimination? Yes, that is age discrimination. It is usually accepted, because there is an argument for…

> That's why someone's financial situation should be considered before deciding to have kids. It is a conscious decision that is actively taken and therefore no reason to put younger people at a disadvantage. That is a good ideal world principle, but given minimum wage itself is a non-idealised concept, instead designed to ameliorate real life, I don't know how much it apples. > Yes, that is age discrimination If you…

> That is a good ideal world principle, but given minimum wage itself is a non-idealised concept, instead designed to ameliorate real life, I don't know how much it apples.

I'd say minimum wage should at least ensure that everyone with a job can live a life without poverty and in dignity. That does not sound like a non-idealised concept. If the real-world minimum wages satisfy this ideal is a different matter.

> If you're just defining age discrimination as "a legal differentiation based on age" then I agree with you.

Is there another good definition? You have to recognise that some rules are disadvantageous to some groups of people (in this case grouped by age) to properly weigh their disadvantage against the advantage the given rule is meant to create (e.g. to not have toddlers recklessly drive around in cars) and then decide if the given rule is reasonable and fair. I guess you could argue that a law is not really that discriminatory if its positives outweigh the disadvantages it puts some people at, but it would still put some people at said disadvantage and in the case of different minimum wages by age I simply see no such reasoning for its positives (i.e. none) to outweigh the negatives, and therefore it is discriminatory.

> A bit like not letting 7-year-olds drive on public roads.

While not exactly with 7, where I live 8-year-olds can drive on public roads and from age 10 onwards they are even required to do so. Of course I am talking about bicycles and only if there is no (usable) bike lane. Not having 7-year-olds drive cars is just another case of "it is in the publics best interest, and it also does not hurt them much".

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#272

Post by robertlagrant »

matrss wrote: post #271
robertlagrant wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's why someone's financial situation should be considered before deciding to have kids. It is a conscious decision that is actively taken and therefore no reason to put younger people at a disadvantage. That is a good ideal world principle, but given minimum wage itself is a non-idealised concept, instead designed to ameliorate real life, I don't know how much it apples. > Yes, that is age discrimination If you…

> That is a good ideal world principle, but given minimum wage itself is a non-idealised concept, instead designed to ameliorate real life, I don't know how much it apples. I'd say minimum wage should at least ensure that everyone with a job can live a life without poverty and in dignity. That does not sound like a non-idealised concept. If the real-world minimum wages satisfy this ideal is a different matter. > If y…

> That does not sound like a non-idealised concept.

No, I mean in an ideal world everyone has a job that pays, and progresses towards better jobs. Minimum wage is to cope with this not being the case.

> Is there another good definition?

Yes - age discrimination as defined in law: some things are illegal to discriminate on. Using the same phrase as the legal one is confusing, which is why I was trying to clarify.

> Not having 7-year-olds drive cars is just another case of "it is in the publics best interest, and it also does not hurt them much".

This is what a lawmaker judged the minimum wage age-based cases to be as well.

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#273

Post by matrss »

robertlagrant wrote: post #272
matrss wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is a good ideal world principle, but given minimum wage itself is a non-idealised concept, instead designed to ameliorate real life, I don't know how much it apples. I'd say minimum wage should at least ensure that everyone with a job can live a life without poverty and in dignity. That does not sound like a non-idealised concept. If the real-world minimum wages satisfy this ideal is a different matter. > If y…

> That does not sound like a non-idealised concept. No, I mean in an ideal world everyone has a job that pays, and progresses towards better jobs. Minimum wage is to cope with this not being the case. > Is there another good definition? Yes - age discrimination as defined in law: some things are illegal to discriminate on. Using the same phrase as the legal one is confusing, which is why I was trying to clarify. > No…

> Yes - age discrimination as defined in law: some things are illegal to discriminate on.

So it must be defined as illegal in the law to be considered discrimination? If we remove e.g. race or gender from that law, then those types of discrimination are suddenly OK? That seems like a bad argument.

But yes, those laws should explicitly mention age. Unfortunately, here in Germany, that is not the case.

> This is what a lawmaker judged the minimum wage age-based cases to be as well.

If a lawmaker judged that the positive "none" outweighs the negative of "lower minimum wage for younger people" then that lawmaker simply made a bad decision. Just because they are a lawmaker does not mean they can't be criticised.

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#274

Post by robertlagrant »

danaris wrote: post #173
cedws wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's not a cap, it's a minimum. misphrased, fixed. >This is so people can employ kids who have very little economic value and train them to have lots of it. But 18 year olds are not kids anymore and are capable of providing just as much economic value as a 25 year old. Especially if the employer is a coffee shop or restaurant. Minimum wage should be the same for all ages. It should be at the discretion of the employ…

> But 18 year olds are not kids anymore and are capable of providing just as much economic value as a 25 year old. TBH, this isn't even the most relevant argument here. We don't have minimum wage laws because we think that every person produces at least (say) $15/hr of economic value. We have minimum wage laws because we believe that no human being should have to work more than 40 hours a week to earn enough to live…

> WWe don't have minimum wage laws because we think that every person produces at least (say) $15/hr of economic value.

I agree - that's what creates some of the adverse outcomes. Jobs that are worth less than that need to have automation added in to increase the value of those jobs per-person hour.

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#275

Post by robertlagrant »

matrss wrote: post #273
robertlagrant wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That does not sound like a non-idealised concept. No, I mean in an ideal world everyone has a job that pays, and progresses towards better jobs. Minimum wage is to cope with this not being the case. > Is there another good definition? Yes - age discrimination as defined in law: some things are illegal to discriminate on. Using the same phrase as the legal one is confusing, which is why I was trying to clarify. > No…

> Yes - age discrimination as defined in law: some things are illegal to discriminate on. So it must be defined as illegal in the law to be considered discrimination? If we remove e.g. race or gender from that law, then those types of discrimination are suddenly OK? That seems like a bad argument. But yes, those laws should explicitly mention age. Unfortunately, here in Germany, that is not the case. > This is what a…

> So it must be defined as illegal in the law to be considered discrimination?

No, I'm saying it's confusing to use terminology that's also separately legal teminology to describe something.

> Just because they are a lawmaker does not mean they can't be criticised.

True but I don't see the relevance.

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#276

Post by matrss »

robertlagrant wrote: post #275
matrss wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes - age discrimination as defined in law: some things are illegal to discriminate on. So it must be defined as illegal in the law to be considered discrimination? If we remove e.g. race or gender from that law, then those types of discrimination are suddenly OK? That seems like a bad argument. But yes, those laws should explicitly mention age. Unfortunately, here in Germany, that is not the case. > This is what a…

> So it must be defined as illegal in the law to be considered discrimination? No, I'm saying it's confusing to use terminology that's also separately legal teminology to describe something. > Just because they are a lawmaker does not mean they can't be criticised. True but I don't see the relevance.

> > So it must be defined as illegal in the law to be considered discrimination?

> No, I'm saying it's confusing to use terminology that's also separately legal teminology to describe something.

Well, you seem to argue that one should not use the term "discrimination" if it is not legally defined to be such, because that would be confusing.

Let's assume a hypothetical situation in which the law did not state that you cannot discriminate based on sex/gender and the minimum wage law stated that woman have a lower minimum wage than men. Would you consider this to be gender discrimination?

If yes, what are the fundamental differences between this hypothetical situation and the real world situation of lower minimum wages for younger people? Why would you consider one to be discriminatory and the other to not be?

If no, then I have no further questions. We seem to have a very different understanding of what discrimination is.

I for one would definitely consider this hypothetical example to be discrimination and obviously apply the same logic to the actual situation as well.

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#277

Post by robertlagrant »

matrss wrote: post #276
robertlagrant wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So it must be defined as illegal in the law to be considered discrimination? No, I'm saying it's confusing to use terminology that's also separately legal teminology to describe something. > Just because they are a lawmaker does not mean they can't be criticised. True but I don't see the relevance.

> > So it must be defined as illegal in the law to be considered discrimination? > No, I'm saying it's confusing to use terminology that's also separately legal teminology to describe something. Well, you seem to argue that one should not use the term "discrimination" if it is not legally defined to be such, because that would be confusing. Let's assume a hypothetical situation in which the law did not state that you…

> If no, then I have no further questions. We seem to have a very different understanding of what discrimination is.

No, we don't. You already understood that my point is it's confusing to use the term in a context where it has another meaning, without disambiguating.

> If yes, what are the fundamental differences between this hypothetical situation and the real world situation of lower minimum wages for younger people?

If there wouldn't be the confusion then I wouldn't bring up the confusion.

> Why would you consider one to be discriminatory and the other to not be?

You're missing the point. There are some things we allow and some things we don't. E.g. 3 year olds can't drive. Would you consider that to be discrimination? The answer is "Who cares - we were just talking about avoiding using terms with multiple meanings in written conversation."

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#278

Post by Pyrobyte »

Snow_Falls wrote: post #164
digging wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm ok with people working hard and getting paid for it Is that an accurate description of CEOs worth billions of dollars though? How hard are they supposedly working? I'm probably lazier than most of them as an IC with disabilities and non-work interests... but it's not humanly possible that they get ~40,000 times as much done in a day as I do.

If hard work were accurately linked to monetary benefit, poor African substinamce farmers would be some of the richest people on earth. Clearly that isn't the case, money come from more thanjust hard work. Luck has a lot to do with it, such as not being born an African substinamce farmer.

But isn't there a great deal of skill involved, depending on the skill level and how rare a certain skills is. People will be payed a lot more. It must take a great deal of stress and difficulty to get a business to a scale where their CEO is making billions.
Post reply on HN