In 2012, a woman applying for a shop assistant position in Dordrecht was given a blunt rejection: “We’re sorry, but you are too old and expensive for us. We are looking for workers under 23.”

At first glance, this response is a clear case of age discrimination. Yet, in the Netherlands, it is legally supported by the institutionalised youth wage scale. Under the Minimum Youth Wage Decree, the Dutch government enforces an age-dependent compensation system in which young workers are legally paid only a fraction of the adult minimum wage. As of 2026, a 20-year-old earns just 80% of the statutory minimum. That percentage drops steeply with age, with 19-year-olds receiving 60% and 18-year-olds earning only half the hourly rate of a 21-year-old for performing the same work. Although the eligibility threshold was lowered from 23 to 21 in 2019, the underlying principle remains unchanged.

What is presented as a policy to promote youth employment, in reality, perpetuates unequal pay for equal work, shifting the financial burden from companies to young workers. A system that lowers wages simply because a group of people are under a certain age treats them all as inherently less valuable regardless of skill or contribution.

Equal work, unequal pay 

Young people deserve dignified pay for the work they perform. At the heart of that dignity lies a simple and widely accepted principle: equal pay for equal work. If two individuals carry out the same tasks, under the same conditions, their compensation should not depend on arbitrary characteristics such as age. 

The Dutch system of youth wage scales violates this principle. By design, it disadvantages young workers, not because of differences in productivity or responsibility, but purely because of how old they are. An 18-year-old and a 21-year-old can stand side by side, perform identical work to the same standard, and still be paid vastly different wages. The policy draws sharp, rigid cutoffs – 18, 19, 20, 21 – without any clear moral or practical justification for why a worker suddenly becomes more “valuable” overnight.

Some argue that paying younger workers less makes them more attractive to employers. But this claim is built on uncertain ground. Empirical research on the relationship between youth wages and employment outcomes is mixed and inconclusive. There is no clear consensus that suppressing compensation actually improves job opportunities for young people. Instead,  it discourages saving and financial independence, reinforcing cycles of youth underemployment.

A system that rewards disposability

The impact of tying pay to age extends far beyond individual wages. By institutionalising a discount on young workers, the policy not only reduces earnings but also shapes how employers behave and creates distortions in the labour market. Companies become motivated to prioritise younger staff for their lower cost, setting up a cycle in which workers are hired cheaply and then replaced or dismissed as they near the thresholds for higher pay. 

These perverse incentives are most pronounced in low-wage sectors, where young workers are heavily concentrated and the pressure to minimise labour costs is strongest. Evidence from the Netherlands, including the “Happy Birthday, You’re Fired!” study, shows that the stepwise youth wage leads to a spike in job separations in the months before workers become entitled to higher minimum wages, even though their skills and output remain unchanged. 

Some claim that lower youth pay is due to lower productivity or the cost of on-the-job training. These assumptions, however, rarely hold true in the sectors where youth wages are most common. In many low-wage industries, such as retail, hospitality, and fast food, the work is relatively low-skilled, and productivity does not significantly increase with age. An 18-year-old stacking shelves or serving customers is often just as productive as a 21-year-old performing the same tasks. Training for these positions typically lasts only a few days, while wage reductions of 30–50% can persist for months or even years, far exceeding actual training costs.

Young workers are often students with side jobs, so paying them less is presented harmless in neoliberal logic. But this logic masks the broader structural problem. Whether temporary or not, a worker’s contribution has value, and their bargaining power should not determine whether they are fairly compensated. The same logic could be applied to any group with weaker labour market positions – migrants, the long-term unemployed, or older workers – suggesting that employability depends on accepting less for the same work. Minimum wage laws exist to prevent exactly this dynamic. By segmenting the workforce and underpaying those with the least leverage, the youth wage formalises inequality, making underpayment a condition for employment rather than an exception. 

On top of this, when wages are disconnected from productivity, it reduces young workers’ incentive to develop skills and contributes to a decline in morale and job satisfaction, which ultimately harms productivity. If the goal is to integrate young people into the labour market in a meaningful and sustainable way, a system that rewards their disposability is fundamentally counterproductive, even if it remains profitable for employers.

Public money, private gain

This cycle of disposability has at times been reinforced by public policy. Until recently, the Dutch state has, through targeted schemes such as Jeugd-LIV (Low-Income Benefit for young workers), compensated employers for hiring low-wage youth aged 18–21. Public funds were thus used to support businesses that already benefited from paying reduced wages, while the workers themselves remained underpaid.

Critics of raising youth wages often argue that higher pay would hurt employment. On the surface, this argument may seem reasonable. If labour becomes more expensive, demand might fall. But the evidence tells a different story. Centraal Planbureau examined the 2017 increase in minimum wages for 20–22-year-olds and found no negative impact on employment. On the contrary, hours worked increased slightly, boosting overall earnings for young workers. What this really shows is that the youth wage is not about protecting employment. It is a policy that entrenches inequality, rewards companies for paying less, and leaves young workers holding the short end of the stick.

Time to end it

A large majority of the Dutch public already recognises the exploitation at the heart of the current system. Research by Ipsos I&O, commissioned by FNV Young & United, shows that 84% of people in the Netherlands believe that 18-year-olds should be entitled to the full minimum wage. 

For years, attempts to reform the system yielded little progress. That began to change when the Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging (FNV) launched a sustained campaign to raise awareness and mobilise young workers. By forcing the issue onto the political agenda, they helped bring about recent increases in youth wages. 

While the reforms are a positive development, they do not resolve the root problem. The Netherlands still lags behind its European peers. In countries such as Germany and France, 18-year-olds already earn an adult salary, while in the Netherlands, young workers continue to receive reduced pay. As long as age continues to determine pay for identical work, this injustice remains firmly in place.

MERA25 supports fully ending age-based wage scales. From 18 onwards, every worker should receive the same minimum wage, without exceptions.

Achieving this will require continued pressure, political will, and sustained public engagement. But the goal itself is straightforward — a fair labour market cannot be built on structural inequality. If we are serious about dignity, fairness, and equal opportunity, then the principle must be applied without compromise. Doing the same job should never come with a lower paycheck just because of your age.

Do you want to be informed of DiEM25's actions? Sign up here