I've found among teenagers there are two camps on the minimum wage rise: those who're thrilled their part-time pay just got bumped up a dollar, and those who've been laid off.
Yep, their job, now that it costs a bit more to have them there, is no longer tenable for many employers. Some would prefer to just reduce that cost and take on whatever menial task the teenager was doing themselves.
Oh and there's another category: teenagers who now can't get jobs. Because what do employers want? Experience.
Many school leavers and students don't have any, they need a hand up. But from an employer's point of view, if you have to pay $17.70 an hour now, why would you shell out for an inexperienced employee?
Take for example the 16-year-old boy in the news this week who has been looking for a farmhand role for a whole year. No one will take him on. They won't take him on because he doesn't have experience.
When I raised this on air, farmers texted me saying there's no way they'd take him on either, with no experience, no 90-day trial, and having to pay him the new minimum wage. The risk is too great, they said.
So what is it kids can do to get a foot in the door?
Well, they could pick fruit. But that requires them to have a car, travel out of their area, pay for petrol, a place to live, and so on.
It's costing them before they even start. And then it's all over in a matter of weeks. The rub of seasonal work.
So do we have a lot of people who can't get jobs? Yes we do. But is it because they're all "lazy"?
Not necessarily.