But it does turn the “equal pay for equal work” mantra on its head. And it might also be applied using the same reasoning to a woman employee whose husband has a well paying job, but she is working because she wants to. Should she be paid less because she has less need?
In practice, however, the teen worker and the older worker are likely in very different situations. For the teen worker, it may be an entry job, from which he expects to graduate to better paying jobs. For the older worker, it might simply be a temporary job until work picks up in his own industry.
If employers are to pay workers on the basis of need, they will be balancing a host of different factors to make pay decisions. No doubt, somebody, i.e. the government, would like to have some regulatory input into how those decisions are made.
The problem I see with this is that burger flipping is a low-responsibility, low obligation job that is appropriate for a teen who is trying to earn extra money, possibly for educational purposes, and gain life and work skills. It’s unreasonable for a healthy, intellectually intact grown man, to expect to get away with minimal work and obligation and be paid the same amount as someone who is working much harder, longer hours, has alot of responsibility, and has to adjust his family and personal life in order to get the job done. Where then is the expectation for the teen to go to school, better himself in some way, or work extra hard to become management or perhaps even a franchise owner? He might as well just keep on coming in on weekends and Wednesday night to flip burgers for the rest of his natural life. He has no motivation or obligation to do anything other than start reproducing in order to make as much money as the 35-year-old doing a job that’s appropriate for a child. Who’s going to be managing all of these burger joints? Also, if this theory became obligatory for employers, what’s to stop employers refusing to hire any adult with a family because they can get away with paying the single employees less? What’s to stop our already strongly anti-family society from refraining from starting families further, because they know that the simple act of getting married or producing a child with make them unemployable?
well, my theory was only hypothetical I know anything like this will never happen, and more than likely we will just continue on with minimum wage paid to everyone at these types of jobs, however for some adults, this is all the employment they can get, lets say someone was arrested for selling or using drugs 15 years ago, they did their time, and paid their debt to society, BUT it doesnt stop there anymore (like it used to) nowadays, the employer knows the person is an ex-con, and probably knows why someone so old is seeking a job like that, The system itself has made it hard on anyone ever convicted of anything, after they do their time, they are supposed to start over with a clean slate and start a new life, but thanks to all the new laws, they cannot and have to rely on taking any job they can get, just to have some income. Also ( and I did not know this until yesterday) ANYONE ever convicted of a drug offense, CAN NEVER apply to attend a college or trade school, nor can they EVER receive ANY type of Govt assistance in returning to school to better their skills for the job market, but commit any other type of crime, and all this is still available to you, even child molestation!!! This is absurd in my opinion, and should not be legal, What are these people supposed to do? Once their debt is paid to society, it is OVER, and they should not be continually held back because of it.
In these cases, background checks are the problem, Im not convinced all jobs should even have background checks on people applying, this practice only started in the late 90s, and if you look at violent incidents or criminal acts done at work, it has actually gone up since background checks have become the norm, so BG checks do not seem to be effective, plus they only show when someone has been convicted of something! I would not hold much stock in something like that when hiring someone. What if someone has never been arrested or caught, yet steals money and product from every job they have ever had? I think BG checks should be done away with. There has to be something better, maybe some kind of personality test/interview with a trained psychologist? This would give the employer much more info about the potential employee than a BG check ever could.
This is the only reason I can see for an older adult to be working a low level job like burger flipping, but lots of older people do work at these places, so Im sure not all of these are ex-cons, but who are we to judge anyone that strives to earn an honest living?
I still say it is truly sad and pathetic that the only way people in these types of jobs are getting any type of meaningful wage increase, is if the Govt steps in and FORCES the minimum wage higher, thus, they get a raise, so these employers will only give their employees raises when literally forced by the govt to do so!!! this is amazing to me and shows how little these companies think of their employees. My opinions of people who own and operate these kinds of companies have sure changed!!
Not lower. Eliminate. The state is never in a better position to judge what is a just wage between an employer and an employee (as long as wages are set by voluntary agreement).
When employees are being paid substantially less than they produce, it will not take long for competitors to lure them away with higher wages.
Most of us take the best deal we can get, which makes it seem ironic when we bash “sweatshops” or Walmart. In reality, we are bashing what we consider the best option. It stands to reason that all the other options were inferior to the opportunity we accepted.
I disagree with your doom and gloom asessment of the ability for a former criminal to get a job. Will he be hired as a principal of a school? Probably not. That doesn’t mean his only option is burger flipping. My brother just got out of court 15 DAYS ago for drug charges, (of which he was rightfully convicted.) He has had two jobs offered him this week that pay much higher than burger team wages, although they are in the food service industry. I also know a man in my parish who served over a decade in prison for murder. He now owns his own successful coffee shop.
People with drug charges will not be approved for federal student loans. That does not mean that they can’t go to college. They can still apply for private loans or they can pay their own way. There are consequences for our actions. Bad choices make life harder. If you are suggesting that we should make burger flipping more lucrative so that people don’t have to suffer the consequences for their antisocial actions, I don’t think you will get much support for that theory.
I also knew a guy who worked for the county whose job was specifically to find work for those leaving prison. He was a one man employment agency for ex-con’s and took great pride in the fact that he found jobs for nearly all of them, and that they were retained on the job at the same rate as the general population. After working in this job for awhile, he once told me, “believe me, anybody can get a job.”
It appears I am somewhat wrong about this then. I also should have mentioned a lady who is a co-worker of mine, her son, who at the time of he conviction, was in his early 20s, he was caught online trying to set up a meeting with someone he thought was a 13 yr old female, but turned out to be a cop in disguise, they had texts and emails from him, some were pretty nasty, so he was guilty, caught red handed, he got 3 years in prison, he was released and could not live with his parents, because they lived down the street from a school, so he was placed in a local hotel for the time, Im not sure if it was the state or his mother who was paying for this though. Anyway, she showed me a list they give to ex cons who are sex offenders and places that hires them…I was shocked, they were all large companies, like Coke, Pepsi, Budweiser, etc and the starting wage was more than I got when I started my current job!!! However the catch was, to get these jobs, the person had to be an ex-con, and believe they also had to be a sex offender.
I had to go thru a pretty intense background check with my job, mainly because I have computer access to the companies financial and marketing data, they went pretty far back into my life, of course the only thing I have is an arrest for possessing alcohol when I was 19 yrs old, it was a statutory offense, After having a small laugh about this, the person interviewing me asked me why this was still on my record, I may be wrong, but once you are 18, anything you are arrested for stays on your record until you die. They thought it was funny something like this was still on my record when I was 37 yrs old. It is kind of funny though.
I find it strange states and fed govts will help ex-cons get jobs, but I have a problem that someone guilty of drug charges cannot get a student aid, I wonder why this is? what is the big problem with drugs? IMO since I do not agree with any of the drug laws, I do not hold it against anyone I come in contact with if they happen to have drug charges.
The main thing Im trying to convey is, just because people make a mistake and get in trouble once, this does not mean it should continue to follow them for the rest of their lives, especially if they are trying to clean their lives up and stay on the right path. they have already paid their debt to society and IMO, background checks just keep hashing things up, that should remain buried in the past. I think everyones criminal record should start clean every 10-20 yrs, this would allow someone to actually start over with a clean slate and not always be reminded of something they did 20 yrs ago.
I think you may have a point here. In many cases, criminal convictions do follow a person for the rest of their lives. In some respects, you might say that all or some crimes get a life sentence, because the record remains forever.
And of course, with social media, many of us create our own life sentences which follow us for the rest of our lives, the record of which can seldom be completely cleared. But that’s another thread entirely.
My understanding about the rules regarding federal students loans and drug crimes is that people don’t want the federal loan money going to pay for drugs. However, that would be solved much easier by requiring that all student loan money be given directly to the university for tuition purposes and not putting students into extreme debt by allowing them to use loan money to buy whatever they want.
Could you elaborate on this–I am not sure what you are saying. What does the fact that someone is a teenager have to do with it? If you have a teenager who could cashier at a store or an adult–are you saying the two people doing the exact same job should be paid differently even if they perform equally? Or if the teenager is hired to sell a product and turns out to be really good at it, better than an adult–what should he be paid?
Yes, but these people have already paid their debt to society, when they were arrested and spent time in jail for their drug crimes, all this does is reenforce that they have not paid their debt completely and more than likely, will end up right back in the same spot.
I cannot believe someone in our govt has justified this regulation on people that have any drug crimes on their records, even if it was decades ago!!, This also tells me they have little faith any of these people are capable of being rehabilitated while in jail.
Using this logic, it would seem anyone with a DUI would also not be qualified, since they COULD spend some of the money on alcohol, or what about people with theft convictions? They COULD end up stealing the student aid money. I could go on and on with this logic, but it seems they ONLY have a major grudge with drug crimes.
Actually, I contend that when a person takes a student loan and uses it for anything other than tuition and books, they ARE stealing it, particularly when they are a “career student” and have absolutely no intention of ever paying the money back. I agree, however, that if a person has completed their sentence, they should be entitled to seek student loans as much as anyone.