Local Business says that Youth Minimum wage measure allows her to give kids their first job.

Despite the howling from Democrats who are claiming the sky is falling, KSFY has a story on their web site noting how one employer believes that the Youth Minimum Wage Act is going to allow her to give 14 Year old kids their first job:

One local business owner says South Dakota’s new teen minimum wage allows her to give more inexperienced teens their first paycheck.


Dropping the minimum wage for teens under 18 a dollar, from $8.50 to $7.50 an hour, may help some small business owners like Burwell.

“It gave a big sigh, it eased the pressure off me somewhat,” Burwell said.

It could also help DiAnn give more teens a chance to earn their first paycheck.

“Fourteen-year-olds definitely benefit from this, because it gives them more of an opportunity to get into the work field, and learn work ethics,” Burwell said.


Governor Daugaard signed the teen minimum wage bill into law on Friday.

Burwell said the lower teen wage allows her to take a chance on hiring younger and more inexperienced teens.

Read it here.

So, the measure is going to do exactly as it was advertised to do? Imagine that.

30 thoughts on “Local Business says that Youth Minimum wage measure allows her to give kids their first job.”

  1. We Republicans had a chance to “stand up for the little guy” for once but we just couldn’t do it. This law will discriminate against employees based on their age. Older workers will get fewer job opportunities or younger ones less pay.

    And a big snub to the voters as a bonus. “So, the measure is going to do exactly as it was advertised to do? Imagine that.”

  2. The underlying problem upsetting people isn’t the wage, but rather the fact that this isn’t what a majority of South Dakotans voted for. If people wanted a youth minimum wage, they should have either A. not voted for the universal wage change or B. take matters into their own hands and circulate a petition.

    I’m sure we will see plenty of ballot measures come 2016.

  3. Next year they will strip the escalation clause. Their reason will be the bad SD business climate.
    A recent report cited Rep Handoff talking about the percentage of elderly increasing in SD population. The young are leaving to work where they pay a wage you can live on.
    Conservatism without vision – that is a great danger.

  4. I voted against the minimum wage increase because of fear that too many people, specifically the youth in SD would lose jobs. Minimum wage is just a starting wage, it is not a living wage. If the measure that was put to the voters last November included a youth minimum wage and a higher adult wage, thus giving everyone a little piece of what they wanted, I would have voted for it. This new law will help the adults with more bills receive larger starting paychecks, and will help the teens get their first jobs.

  5. I am a republican. Pretty conservative one at that. I won’t argue that there should aybe be some tiers in wages for people who are skilled vs. a young student. However, that is not what SD voted for. The legislature, it appears to me, decided their constituents were wrong. I think that is a dangerous line to walk. They should have left this alone. I’m more upset about them subverting a statewide referendum than I am about the change in wages. Arrogance is unbecoming of our leaders and this bill is an example of plain ‘ol arrogance.

    1. Then I’m sure you would be fine with paying seniors and those receiving any Social Security less than the minimum wage. They are already receiving an income. While we are at it as well, have a lower wage for individuals without a college education, which is what defines skilled labor today. If you have a degree from either a 2 or 4 year school, then you should get paid more for the time and money that you invested in your education.

  6. Yep, we increased the minimum wage for the working poor in South Dakota and what does our majority political party do? They decreased the minimum wage for teenage workers – the ones who are most likely to compete with the working poor for jobs.

    Plus, they lessen the ability of teenagers to earn their own way which means more dependence upon federal programs to seek a higher education someday.

    The labor market for service workers in this state, like the potential teenage worker, is so tight why is there a need for this other than to affect an intended discrimination against the working poor in favor of the potential cheaper teenage worker?

    Once again, our current leadership in Pierre continues to tax in more ways then one the working poor in this state…. and we wonder why our current governor has to hang-out next to the lotion girl at the Mall of America to try to entice people to come to South Dakota to work….. huh?

    1. “Yep, we increased the minimum wage for the working poor in South Dakota”

      Those working on the minimum wage are NOT “working poor”.

      Sorry, but that’s the fact.

  7. Perhaps this law won’t make that much difference in the real world. Fast food chains or other businesses may not take advantage of the teenage minimum wage because of competitive pressures and the inequality of it. In which case, we end up wounding the Republican brand for a big nothing-burger.

  8. Apparently our state is populated with dimwits who don’t know about all our child labor laws which restrict the tasks minors may perform and the hours they can work.

    They can’t operate machinery, pump gas, sell tobacco or alcohol, work after 10 pm on school nights, can’t work overtime, the list goes on and on. Given the restrictions on them it’s surprising anyone is willing to hire them at any wage.

    1. Anne, do us all a favor and stop posting. You’re mean spirited comments add nothing to the conversation.

  9. Anne said “it’s surprising anyone is willing to hire them (teenagers) at any wage.”
    You weren’t, by chance, Sister Anne who taught second grade a few years back? You were always a little quick with the ruler. I forgive you.

    1. anne is right about the restrictions that labor laws place on the duties which minors can perform. yet the 50 percent plus a few who voted for this aren’t in the mood for logic.

      1. Fast, strong, friendly, youthful looks and quick learners. Why would any business want that? No “logic” in hiring young people.

          1. peoples’ emotional investment in the issue prevents their even understanding discussions about it. shoulda let it go folks.

            1. The young have both advantages and disadvantages. That is the truth. Logic should have a basis in truth.

              What’s wrong with that, Spock?

        1. Logic seems to be lacking. I have supervised teen workers. And when I needed someone to stay late, I had to find someone who was over 18.

          When my own kid worked for KFC, she wasn’t old enough to operate the “potato machine”

          I guess logic would dictate a repeal of all the child labor laws. Good luck with that!

          1. Anne is absolutely right. We stopped hiring anyone under 18 years ago. The hassles just aren’t worth it. You haven’t seen the out of control bureaucracy at work until you have endured a DOL audit.

  10. The Dems are all jazzed up and the media is hot about this issue. Surprise. Who would have guessed?

    Our Governor has gone from “not believing in the minimum wage” to reducing the current minimum wage. What a disaster. The most predictable political train-wreck I can recall.

    Suggested headline: Governor Attempts to Revive Democrat Party

Comments are closed.