Well, what is better, or more desirable? A high school student earning some gas money, or someone else getting that job and supporting themselves?

An alternative is to have a two tiered system [as some countries have]. One for teenagers, another for adults, to compensate for lack of experience, or proxy for need.

I don't trust crappy companies not to abuse the hell out of that system.

A healthy career is a journey that often begins long before you depend on the money. A first job is more than just "gas money".

Not a response to my question at all.

Your question was heavily loaded, and misses the time dimension. Today's unemployed HS student might be tomorrow's un(der)-employed head of household. So don't dismiss it as "gas money".

Trying to create a total order by comparing the two alternatives goes down a bad road. There's always someone in need, but if you try to optimize the entire economy around that one story, you will have a disaster.

Maybe it's best to just have more jobs, period, even with low pay? And then make up for needy cases some other way?

"Maybe it's best to just have more jobs, period, even with low pay? And then make up for needy cases some other way?"

Why should that be anyone's responsibility but the company? Why should my tax dollars be used to subsidize some greedy business guy who can't be arsed to pay their employees enough to live on?