Youth wage encourages hiring

According to opponents of a youth minimum wage such as James Sleep (of youth movement union Stand Up), the $10.80 an hour that it would require employers to play employees who are between the ages of 16 and 19 "is not a living wage."

If that's the case, it is curious that these same opponents support a situation in which the unemployment rate for 15- to 19-year-olds has been as high as 27.5 per cent in recent years. If $10.80 is somehow not a living wage, then I don't understand how such an organisation which ostensibly advocates for youth supports a world in which so many of those youth looking for work are forced to live on the benefit, an effective rate of far, far less than $10.80. How are these people "living"?

An estimated 2000 teens will be relieved of being part of this unemployment statistic and, from a youth perspective, this is certainly a promising prospect.

There is legitimate opposition to the youth wage in the potential for adult jobs to be displaced in favour of youth. Whether or not this will be the case is debatable.

But regardless, the youth pay rate of $10.80 will reduce unemployment amongst youth, I want to look at why having less youth unemployment is a positive change, even if it means some now receiving a pay rate of less than $13 per hour.

So how exactly will this help youth employment rates? The proposal will only allow the new pay rate to be maintained for six months of employment, meaning the gains will be marginal. However, when considering whether or not to take a chance on a young person, employers will be much less averse to doing so. Now, when they create new jobs, or when they are considering whether or not to engage in an activity which will create the type of labour suited to a young person, they will be far more likely to be comfortable with employing someone young, inexperienced and, as a result, a more risky and costly investment.

The lower pay rate of $10.80 makes the extra training and risk, and frankly often lower quality work, that accompanies a younger employee more justifiable in the eyes of the employer.

This logic has been the subject of attacks, largely in the form of illogical red herrings. Winston Peters, for example, stated the policy "is the Government competing with China for a low wage regime." Claims like this are absurd; the minimum wage in Beijing is a mere $2.73.

This is about New Zealand dealing with domestic issues with unemployment in a particular generation. So why is it important that we do all we can to reduce youth unemployment here?

We can answer this question by looking at the alternatives that youth face. These statistics concern those who have already left school and are searching for work. When this search becomes impossible, young people have a far greater propensity to turn to crime and antisocial behaviour. When young people are forced to while away the hours at home, the chance of drug use or crime occurring is far greater than it is for adults.

It is also of vital importance that citizens are brought into the working world as early as possible. A few years without a job at a young age can create comfort within the system, and can lead to young people never realising the virtues of being in paid employment. A year on the benefit at the age of 17 could easily be enough to create a long-term beneficiary.

And it is those virtues of employment that can have such a profound effect on youth in particular. The feeling of contribution, of purpose, can be incredibly empowering for people of my age. Moreover, a huge amount of skills are learnt and proved when in employment, regardless of its complexity or prestige. Working in even the most menial jobs can teach time management, how to interact with customers and employers, and concepts such as responsibility, not to mention the prospect of promotions within a business. Not only do more young people have the opportunity to learn these skills (which can often have the greatest benefits at younger ages) as a result of a youth minimum wage, but they also have the opportunity to prove that they have these skills. This enhances their chances of getting further employment. Few employers want to take on a 25-year-old with no work experience, a problem that can create long-term unemployment.

It is argued that setting a minimum wage for 16- to 19-year-olds sends them a message that they are worth less, that their value is diminished. I feel confident stating that most of those 2000 16- to 19-year-olds that will be afforded jobs as a result of this policy will feel as if they are worth far more in their new job than they do then when jobless, at home, playing video games and without direction in their lives.

James Penn is deputy head boy at Wanganui High School and captains the NZ secondary schools debating team.