TED Conversations

Eric Hazelle

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

A stepped minimum wage

In the U.S., minimum wage has come up again. If it is raised, employers say they'll have to lay off minimum wage workers to cover the extra expenses. Proponents say it will give minimum wage workers a "living wage".

How about this? Have a stepped minimum wage. (The following numbers are just for discussion sake, not proposals for definitive compensation.) Let's permit kids age 14-15 to get work permits, for something like Macdonald's, or Walmart. They'd be allowed to work, say, 15 hours a week flipping burgers or stocking shelves and getting, say, $6 an hour. It would give them an income, teach them to handle money, contribute to their family, and they'd be able to work as long as their school work didn't suffer.

When they turn 16, increase their hours and pay to 20 and $7 an hour. Again, subject to school performance. At age 18 permit full-time employment as long as they've graduated from high school at $8.50 an hour, unless they're married and have a family, then give them the proposed new minimum wage. (What is it? $10.50 an hour? Anyway.)

From there, put percentages on the number of employees in each category an employer could have. Say a MacDonalds could have 20% 15 year olds, 20% 16, 20% 18 and so on. Tweak the numbers so they'd be paying no more than what they're currently paying.

Benefits; kids off the streets and productively employed, contributing to the family's income and learning working skills. A system that employers of minimum wage workers could support, and not be out extra money.

As I say, this is just for discussion; tweak the numbers, percentages and ages to get a workable plan, then see if congress could go for it.

+5
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Apr 2 2013: You cannot pay some one less money for the same work, regardless of age.This is what is called prejudice towards age .
    • Apr 9 2013: I don't remember that in the Bill of Rights. The stickiness in your statement comes from your use of the term "same work". As an employer, should I be allowed to pay someone more who is a more helpful, kind, supportive team mate than another? Pay should be based on a worker's performance, not just in actual output, but in their overall attitude and support of the company. Of course, most people with cheerful dispositions would never complain they aren't getting paid enough because they probably are. If not, they get another job. That is how a "free market" works.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.