In the U.S. since the 1960s, at the federal level, the law provided for students to work for less than (usually 85% of) the general federal minimum wage.  A reduced apprenticeship wage evolved in the 1980s, taking its most recent form in the 1996 amendment that provides a subminimum wage of $4.25 (which was 82.5% when the federal minimum was $5.15) for 90 consecutive calendar days to youths under 20 who were newly hired. This wage remains unchanged even though the base federal minimum wage has risen to $7.25.

            This apprentice/under-20 subminimum wage is about as close as our federal law has come to a “youth minimum wage,” as it is called by the Department of Labor.  Pure age-based subminimums were proposed and discussed at length in the 1970s and 1980s.  Proponents argued such a wage would reduce the problem of youth unemployment. Even President Ronald Reagan, vehemently opposed to the minimum wage itself, urged the passage of a youth wage to undo what he viewed as the employment damage done by the federal minimum.  Today, considering the strident conservative arguments that minimum wage increases bring on increased unemployment for young (especially African American) workers, it is surprising that an across-the-board teen wage has not been brought back for another look.

            But opponents of such a wage have argued that the advantages of a youth wage would lead to age discrimination as employers hired or retained teens in place of bread-winning adults.  In 1977 (August 17), in response to a proposed amendment for a 75% minimum wage for workers under 20 years old, The New York Times argued that “A 40-year-old textile worker with a family has just as much right to a job as a 17-year-old high school dropout.  There is no justification for Congress to give employers incentives to hire the young at the expense of others.”  In 1981, a national commission's study of the federal minimum wage recommended against the adoption of a youth wage. However, as with many predictions about the labor-market effects of the minimum wage, the degree of impact on adult workers is uncertain.

            Around the world, the policies for youth/apprentice minimum wages are quite varied.  Forty-five countries have them, usually with a mix of employment and age criteria.

            Great Britain's purely age-based youth wage is an exception worth noting.  The youth wages there cover young people up to 21and are divided into two categories, a lowest wage for 16- and 17-year olds and a higher rate for those 18 through 21. (An apprentice wage was removed a few years ago but is being reconsidered.) There is no notable outcry that the youth wage results in adult job loss, in part because the level of each wage is adjusted annually.

            In the U.S. the basic minimum wages federally and in the states are understood to apply to “adults,” those 18 or older. Those under 18 are covered by various federal and state minimum wage provisions for high school and college students and for trainees, as well as by child labor laws governing the number of hours people of certain ages are allowed to work. The regulations get complicated. New Jersey law, for example, states that the minimum wage does not apply to those under 18 but the list of exceptions includes nearly all the jobs where minors work, including farms, restaurants, hotels, laundries, and beauty parlors. At least three states have been more explicit and comprehensive.  Since 1984, Illinois has provided a youth wage for those under 18 (usually about 85%); today Michigan does as well; Washington State requires the adult wage for those 16 and older and reserves the 85% rate for 14- and 15-year-olds.

         Like teenagers themselves, the minimum wage guidelines for those approaching adulthood are variable and inconsistent. 

                                             --Brock Haussamen; revised July 2010