Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
Rather. 
First, he's not an adult in the US until he's 18. This is not "ageism," it's a legal definition; he's still a minor. Second, he's still a student. Even if he wasn't, 17 year olds who pull down $70k a year or make $200 an hour are, to put it mildly, a rarity.
That said, I don't believe there is a specific formula that is used to determine damages, and it's probably not based in this case on something like "lost wages." |
Ageism is ignoring legal nuances like the possibility of emancipation as of the age of 16 in many (most?) legal jurisdictions within the United States (after which a person as young as 16 would be legally considered an adult for most [all?] legal intents and purposes), along with the fact that a 17 year old that is reasonably competent can perform a lot of work that people 5 to 10 years older are paid significantly more for. (And may easily have a job that pays [even him] somewhere in the lower vicinity of what is a middle class income, or the upper vicinity of what is a lower class one.)
I don't think there is a specific formula either. But I do feel it offends human dignity to question his time's/self's fundamental worth on account his age, whose social significance is generally interpreted by what are essentially laws that were originally designed to cement fathers' control of their daughter's virginity and/or spousal choice.
- Ahi