$15/hour and paid internships...

[Jetfire]

The key word is "Dependent". If someone is still dependent on someone else for the majority of their living expenses, then there isn't really a need to have a "Liveable wage". Now if they can negotiate a livable wage with their employer, than all the better for them. But at least in North American society in general, a teenager/someone still in school is usually considered a dependent of their parents/caretakers. Those people will be handling the bulk of that person's expenses.

College/post-high school is the culturally (and in many cases legally) defined "Independence" stage. Even though the parents/caretakers are often still handling a significant amount of a person's expenses at that age, it's the point when people are expected to set off on their own, under their own resources.

And yes, there are exceptions to every situation. There are School-aged Teenagers who are a significant breadwinner for a family, and there are College types who are still fully dependent on mom and dad all the way to their Docterate levels. But for the vast majority, School-teens are dependants, and School graduates are independent folk.

[mjr]

except with college students, it is the choice of the parents. with high school kids, the parents have to support them.

or, to put it bluntly: most high school kids have most of their expenses covered by their parents. Most college school kids have to cover most of their expenses themselves.

If a minor is emancipated, and therefore legally responsible for paying their own bills, then I have no problem considering them an adult for the purposes of the minimum wage. But for someone who legally has to be supported by their parents? they don't need $15 per hour.

A 19 year old is still a teenager. They may be legally considered an adult, but they're still a teenager.

So what's the line there? Let's say they're not going to college.

But remember they're both an adult AND a teenager. So would they get the $15/hr or not?

[mjr]

Right. Because a car payment is the same as paying rent, in addition to a car payment and buying every meal.

That's beside the point.

That you might have had some expenses is a backwards way of proving the other side's argument; compared to having to support yourself, your expenses were downright trivial.

This isn't about an argument one way or another. This is about whether or not a newspaper is "putting it's money where it's mouth is".

Minors already have reduced or restricted rights. Why should this particular frontier not be similar?

As I've stated earlier, nineteen year olds are adults, AND teenagers. How would this apply to them?

[Kheldarson]

A 19 year old is still a teenager. They may be legally considered an adult, but they're still a teenager.

So what's the line there? Let's say they're not going to college.

But remember they're both an adult AND a teenager. So would they get the $15/hr or not?

They're legally an adult. They get $15/hr because they're ostensibly independent and on their own in some capacity or another. Like any other adult.

[Andara Bledin]

That's beside the point.

Actually, that's exactly the point.

The $15/hour mininmum is a "livable" wage. If one is a minor, then they're being supported by other people, and not themselves. They don't need a full wage to live on.

This isn't about an argument one way or another. This is about whether or not a newspaper is "putting it's money where it's mouth is".

Are they paying people who have to support themselves enough to do so?

Then, yes, they are putting their money where their mouth is.

As I've stated earlier, nineteen year olds are adults, AND teenagers. How would this apply to them?

Are you arguing a point, or just trying to refute it through pointless pedantry.

Whether a person is still a teen or not is irrelevant. It's a red herring that serves no purpose other than distraction.

The relevant point is whether a person is a dependent. The law is pretty clear on where the divide between minor (who is a dependent and must be supported by their legal guardian) and adult (not a dependent and must arrange for their own support) is and I should hope that every adult is aware of when that happened to them.

[mjr]

They're legally an adult. They get $15/hr because they're ostensibly independent and on their own in some capacity or another. Like any other adult.

Not necessarily. There are people who still live at home into their early 20's. And their parents still pay for stuff for them (like a roof over their head).

Which, based upon YOUR previous definition, precludes them from $15/hr.

[NecCat]

A 19 year old is still a teenager. They may be legally considered an adult, but they're still a teenager.

So what's the line there? Let's say they're not going to college.

But remember they're both an adult AND a teenager. So would they get the $15/hr or not?

In Canada the pay difference in minimum wage is decided for a minor (someone 17 years old or younger) and an adult (someone eighteen years old or older). That's also the line for when you are responsible for your own debt (like a car loan), when you can sign to enter an agreement (like a lease, or to get internet in your name). Before you turn eighteen you need your parents to agree to anything that you don't have the cash in hand to pay for. Your parents are also legally responsible to provide for you, food, shelter, clothing. If they are not meeting those obligations there are ways for you to have that addressed.

As others have said the living wage would only need apply to those obligated to make a living - ie. support themselves and/or others. Since others are legally obligated to support someone before they turn eighteen it doesn't make sense to have a required living wage for them.

[mjr]

Actually, that's exactly the point.

The $15/hour mininmum is a "livable" wage. If one is a minor, then they're being supported by other people, and not themselves. They don't need a full wage to live on.

Disagree. As I said before, the argument isn't "$15/hr for us, but not for those damn kids!"

I've yet to see ANYONE protesting FOR the $15/hour say "We want it, but they can't have it."

Are they paying people who have to support themselves enough to do so?

Then, yes, they are putting their money where their mouth is.

Irrelevant. Because you and I don't know if these college kids are supporting themselves or not.

Are you arguing a point, or just trying to refute it through pointless pedantry.

The pedantry here is the old saw: "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander."

The fact that you want to create a "dividing line" between those YOU believe deserve the $15/hr and those you believe don't, isn't really the argument here.

Whether a person is still a teen or not is irrelevant. It's a red herring that serves no purpose other than distraction.

I think it's absolutely relevant to the discussion, since it involves teenagers.

The relevant point is whether a person is a dependent. The law is pretty clear on where the divide between minor (who is a dependent and must be supported by their legal guardian) and adult (not a dependent and must arrange for their own support) is and I should hope that every adult is aware of when that happened to them.

Legally, in MOST cases, it happens at 18.

But try buying alcohol at 18. Insurance plans (thanks to the ACA) are now set up where a parent can carry an ADULT up to 26 years of age (gee, sounds an awful lot like a dependent to me) on their insurance.

So if a 17 year old has a kid, do they then get the $15/hr? I mean, they gotta support the kid, right?

[Kheldarson]

Not necessarily. There are people who still live at home into their early 20's. And their parents still pay for stuff for them (like a roof over their head).

Which, based upon YOUR previous definition, precludes them from $15/hr.

I said dependent for a reason. That's a tax and legal definition. At age 19, if you're not going to college, and are making above $4k a year (easy to do if you're working, even at current wages), you can't be listed as a dependent. Ergo, any further financial agreements are between you and your parents or spouse, but as an adult, you should be able to go out and pick up a job that's going to at least allow you to live without all the extra support.

[mjr]

I said dependent for a reason. That's a tax and legal definition. At age 19, if you're not going to college, and are making above $4k a year (easy to do if you're working, even at current wages), you can't be listed as a dependent. Ergo, any further financial agreements are between you and your parents or spouse, but as an adult, you should be able to go out and pick up a job that's going to at least allow you to live without all the extra support.

Nothing wrong with that argument.

But the issue here is that the $15/hr "movement" (and it's supporters) has never been about "$15/hr for us, but not for teenagers who still live at home".

I wonder why that is...

But I mean, hey, people justify thoughts and actions all the time. And if "they're just teenagers" is your justification, then so be it. You do realize, however that the "they don't deserve it" argument (even if they are "just teenagers") is the SAME argument that opponents of the $15/hour make, correct?

My justification is that the newspaper in question is exhibiting a bit of hypocrisy by advocating $15/hr, while at the same time saying "some of these people are only 'worth' minimum wage".

[Aragarthiel]

It doesn't matter much if college students are actually supporting themselves, because in a world where they get paid $15/hour, you can believe that they'd be expected to take care of themselves after they turn 18.

I do see a good reason, however, for teens to be paid the same as adults. Parents are no longer setting up college funds for their kids, or if they are, they usually don't go as far as they used to. If the teen was paid $15/hour it could go into a college savings fund, perhaps even one set up by the employer who automatically deducts a certain amount from each paycheck to go into the account.

However, unless you can prove that you are supporting yourself before the age of 18, having a car, phone, or just having spending money is optional. You don't need a car to get to school, take the bus like I did. Teens don't really need phones, and if your parents think you do just for emergencies, well then they can buy you one. Spending money is a luxury for anyone these days.

Where the line gets blurry is for minors who are in college classes. The high school I went to offered a dual-enrollment program so juniors and seniors could take classes at the local college, but would that automatically qualify them for $15 an hour at any job they have? Or would they make the same amount as other minors?

[Kheldarson]

Where the line gets blurry is for minors who are in college classes. The high school I went to offered a dual-enrollment program so juniors and seniors could take classes at the local college, but would that automatically qualify them for $15 an hour at any job they have? Or would they make the same amount as other minors?

Might depend on how the pay for that is structured. My dual-enrollment classes were offered at my high school at a much reduced rate ($75 upfront). The teachers all had Master's, so qualified as adjuncts. I wouldn't expect students in that sort of situation to be treated as college students.

[Hyena Dandy]

I'm sure that if the minimum wage were changed, they would start paying $15 an hour. To have a newspaper, any newspaper, take on more employees than it has to is quite a surprise these days.

I don't see hypocrisy, because I'm aware that they are trying to work within the limitations they have. They're paying lower for people who are legally required to have someone else take care of them. While my parents are still paying for many of my expenses, they're doing so while attempting to find a way to not have to do that - that is, have me pay for those. Were I still 17, SOMEONE has to pay for me. No-one HAS to pay for me, now, and ma ny others in my position are in a similar place, that their parents are paying for them until the situation can be made better.

I would think it is fair, in this case. If they were advocating for changing the minimum wage for adults but not minors, then I may well think something different. I'm not sure, I'd need to consider. Honestly, though, the accusations of hypocrisy in situations where someone wants to change the rules, and is playing by the current rules until then, seem petty and ridiculous. They're saying the rules need to change.

[NorthernZel]

At 16 (about 13 years ago), I played sports, went to school, and worked summer jobs. I wasn't going to get a license until 18. My job money got saved up for trips and games and college.

Point still is that your average teen does not need to make a "living" wage.

Same goes over here, in one of the countries in the world where unions have a form of power and are VERY gung-ho if they feel someone's underpaid. A lower wage for minors is also accepted here, though the unions are very, VERY consistent in checking that other issues (overtime, OHSA, PTO etc.) are within the law when it comes to minors in a work place.

[HYHYBT]

The trouble with a lower minimum for minors isn't that they have the same expenses adults have. The trouble is that it encourages hiring them every chance you get in place of adults.