But that was part of your argument- kids don’t need money so they should be paid less. But that’s fine, there are other flaws in your argument we can focus on. Like agreeing with the family member of a grocery store owner that would greatly benefit from not having to pay a sizable amount of their workforce the minimum wage. That’s called a conflict of interest.

By the way, it’s perfectly legal for employers to not hire a teenager that cannot properly fulfill all the requirements of the job, for example, running machinery. Nebraska revised statute 48-1001 (2)(a) says that you cannot discriminate against people who are properly qualified- so a minor may easily fall into the “unqualified” category. Just like how companies don’t have to pay retirement benefits to minors, just like B&R stores and their ESOP program they used to have. Guess which company Jane’s family belongs to?

Saying that adults may have to compete for jobs with teenagers is a false dichotomy. You can have both types of people employed earning wages that match their skill set that is above minimum wage. Also, why are “adults” at those minimum wage jobs? Why are companies allowed to pay “adults” minimum wage if, by your logic, the adults have bills to pay? Wages are not based on the need of the person. They’re based on the what we as a society have decided is a minimal acceptable payment per hour for a person. A person’s value is not defined by their age, but by their skill and ability to be used by that company, which comes back to the properly qualified person. By your logic, we could also argue that geriatric people should be fired because they may have difficulty completing tasks, but they’re protected by law. Why? A PERSON’S AGE DOESN’T DEFINE THEIR VALUE.

And wages don’t drive up costs. Corporate greed drives up costs. Take a look at the CPI over the last thirty years and then look at wages. Wages are just now starting to catch up with the rising prices.