Maybe I have been just really lucky/blessed. The exception to the rule. 
Should we ban jobs which don't earn a living wage?
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
- Status
Necronic
Staff member
I have such mixed feelings about the jobless rate amongst graduates. On the one hand it makes me mad that kids are being lied to and told that they will be able to find work with an English/history/communications degree. I think it's criminal that universities have been peddling this bullshit to students. On the other hand, most of these kids are smart and well educated. At what point are they responsible for their own decisions?
It bothers me that people this young are encouraged to make a mistake as bad as financing a 100k college degree that isn't worth the paper it's printed on. It's basically an entire system of predatory lenders who are lauded by society for the good they do us.
But no one wants to say the painful truth. College is for STEM. The English/history/etc classes are fun, and they have a more ephemeral value. But they do not have a broad tangible value. If they did there would be jobs for it.
It bothers me that people this young are encouraged to make a mistake as bad as financing a 100k college degree that isn't worth the paper it's printed on. It's basically an entire system of predatory lenders who are lauded by society for the good they do us.
But no one wants to say the painful truth. College is for STEM. The English/history/etc classes are fun, and they have a more ephemeral value. But they do not have a broad tangible value. If they did there would be jobs for it.
Necronic
Staff member
There's a great article on cracked that I think just about everyone around should read. The way you react to it says a lot about you:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-you-better-person/
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-you-better-person/
I do think that there is a bias on this forum as many of the people here are above average intelligence. To the point where we may have a bit of a preconception about people who aren't.
Someone with an IQ of 85, a bad back and little-to-no real drive in life isn't allowed to make a fair living?I have been working since I was 14. Part-time during H.S. and full-time in the summer. I've worked at McDonald's, Psych Ward, and DirectTV call center (and a cabinet shop during a college interlude). I barely made enough to cover expenses and go to college. BUT, I was able to go to college AND get a PhD. I did get some grants and a couple smallish loans. I also never went anywhere for spring break. I never had a cool car. I rarely ate out or went to concerts (DMB). I sacrificed for the long run and did it. Those shitty jobs (not the cabinet shop) fueled me to not give up and quit. I hated that DirectTV job with every ounce of my being. It was the worst soul-sucking job that I ever had, but I never missed a day.
These jobs are not meant for careers. Go get a job as a brick layer, sheet-rock hanger, trim carpenter. Have a hospital pay your way through nursing school. Take out a loan and get a worth-while degree (i.e. not a fine-arts). Go to truck driving school (my brother did this and gets paid >40k).
So, no. They should not be paid a living wage at McDonald's. And, no. It's not just me that worked my way up. My dad did it (fire chef w/ no degree), my brother-in-law, brother, Aunt, etc. Sacrifice and hard work.
A) not everyone CAN do a higher up job than flipping burgers
B) there simply aren't enough non-burger-flipping (and trash collecting, street swiping, dish washer, petrol station attendant etc) jobs in the world. Someone needs to do these jobs, we sure as hell don't really want to. People with less motivation and/or capacities have these jobs and want to just "get by". We need lots and lots and lots of these people, but if they starve to death while working, that's a problem. There are ever-less of these jobs, but it's still an issue. There's a difference between "having a career" and "not being able to progress".
Also, in case people haven't noticed, the Middle class is slowly being divided, and many of them are being pushed into the Lower Class. The main problem that we have is that we have largely a service economy, which means the majority of jobs are service related jobs. From call centers to short order cooks.
Sure, it's great to say that people are lazy and unmotivated, but that is extremely dissmissive of the facts.
Sure, it's great to say that people are lazy and unmotivated, but that is extremely dissmissive of the facts.
And you just described the #1 reason why I'm not looking forward to retirement. And I plan on retiring in seven years, seven months.
Any full time job should make anything to live by. The examples of people who don't need to support themselves and are just working to get some extra just point to part-time jobs (such as students... if a student is working full time they either don't have much interest in studying or they actually need to make a living).
So, as long as you work ~40h a week you should be able to pay for some living space that is not horrible, food, transportation, etc. I'm not sure you should be able to live by yourself or have a family, since these are not basic rights.
The concept of minimum income is interesting, but I like Basic Income even better. As I see it, if you have a guaranteed income wether you work or not, why should you stop getting the welfare money once you have a job?
If you'll get the job to do better thant he Guaranteed income, then the job only needs to pay the difference. I like this idea a lot, but of course it'll never happen anywhere.
So, as long as you work ~40h a week you should be able to pay for some living space that is not horrible, food, transportation, etc. I'm not sure you should be able to live by yourself or have a family, since these are not basic rights.
The concept of minimum income is interesting, but I like Basic Income even better. As I see it, if you have a guaranteed income wether you work or not, why should you stop getting the welfare money once you have a job?
If you'll get the job to do better thant he Guaranteed income, then the job only needs to pay the difference. I like this idea a lot, but of course it'll never happen anywhere.
You've just describe the two biggest problems facing the Scandinavian welfare state. Particularly many 20-ish young people are dropping out of the labor market semi-permanently to live on government dole.
I disagree, a job should not have to pay out more than what the work is worth to the employer. And it generally does not; in for-profit enterprise, a position that costs more than its value as an input tends to get downsized.
Rational actors take the best option out of those available as they see them, so if peope are working for pittance, then it is because it was the best opion for them given their situation. Any given job is a voluntary contractual matter, so if a person believes they have better options available elsewhere, they are perfectly free to pursue them. Price labor artificially too high (increase minimum wage), and the companies will buy less of it, leading to there being more people who have NO jobs at all. And in reverse, lowering or eliminating the minimum wage and allowing the price of labor to be determined by supply and demand might encourage job creation in low-wage sectors.
Cost of living has increased, while wages have not. Increasing minimum wage is NOT paying unskilled labor anything more than what workers deserve. Funny how conservatives are against the idea of a living wage, yet in the 1950's - 1960's a high school drop out could survive just fine working in a factory.
I don't believe either statement, but I admit I'm too lazy to look things up. I do know that due to unions, in the automotive industry at least, automotive jobs were higher than minimum wage, and promised a pension, so one could choose a "factory job" and live off it and retire safely at that time period, but that was because the wages were higher than minimum and the were significant benefits such as pensions, health care, company store, etc.
But I don't know enough about the era to accept your suggestion that we should go back to that economic model.
It's notable that in the nineties automotive assembly jobs were paying four times minimum wage to start and a number of my classmates did feel that was a reasonable choice for a career. Then the automotive industry went through two significant upheavals, made significant cuts, and while the wages are still 2-3 times minimum wage the rest of the benefits have been gutted. Healthcare, dental, vision is about all you can count on, but if you aren't using the 401k and diversifying your investment you have no future once the next automotive industry shake up causes you to lose your job.
Of course the whole industry is artificially propped up by vehicle tariffs anyway, which is why cars cost so much, but hey, this factory workers deserve living wages, right?
GasBandit
Staff member
I like that article a lot.
The actors in the economy are NOT rational actors in all situations. That's a premise in economics that has been showed wrong in, for instance, the stock markets and I don't see why it should be different for the job market.
On the other hand, it has already been said here how sometimes you may not be able to pursue other jobs because of the poor conditions of the job you already have, so I won't go into it again.
I don't believe the job market and the stock market are comparable in any but the simplest manner. I would expect them to be vastly different.
There is some truth in that. The job market is more about making money with your own effort, while the stock market is more about making money via the efforts of others.
--Patrick
A few weeks ago, I went to Target to pick up some things and I was wearing my caffeine molecule shirt. My cashier asked me if I liked science. I smiled and said almost as much as I like coffee. She laughed and told me she recognized the symbol from college. It was one of the first ones she learned while getting her biology degree. What is someone with a biology degree doing working as a Target cashier likely for minimum wage? I haven't asked her, but I have to wonder if she couldn't get a job in her field without leaving the island, if she couldn't afford a higher degree, or if being a cashier gives her greater flexibility to attend to family obligations. It doesn't make sense to me otherwise.
Oh, absolutely. What I meant is, once the hypotheses of rational actors has been shown to be false in one part of economics please stop taking it as a premise in the rest of it.
Well, I really do think rationality is considered a valid theoretical framework for looking at economic phenomena. As I understand, resources such as information and time may well be constrained and result in an otherwise rational enough actor making a sub-optimal choice, but utility maximisation does strike me as a useful way of explaining behavior. On an individual level or in single situations it may be hard to make predictions regarding choices, but in large numbers it tends to hold true.
But it seems you do not agree with the theories in question, or do not think the concept is a useful way of explaining macroeconomic issues such as the job market. May I inquire as to the alternative models you personally favor as an explanation?
I believe such things limit the options an actor does have, rather than challenge rationality as a method and utility and preference as criteria for choosing between different options. That choice is made between the options they do have, and if all the options are poor, then they make what they perceive to be the best out of a number of bad choices.
There ARE plenty of jobs available for none STEM related degrees; however, many people are unwilling to look for work outside of their immediate geographic vicinity/ are unwilling to work in the middle of no where/ or are too high and mighty to even think about starting in the opening position (mailroom clerk, office monkey etc) that would allow them to eventually move onto something more interesting.
A native relations officer would be better suited to have a sociology/ anthropology/ or hell even a history degree than a PHD in nuclear physics; However, this job requires you to go to remote places in rural parts of Canada, that may not even have electricity etc.
While the U.N. is looking for many engineers, they also need many people with communications degrees and the same can be said about newsrooms and fundraising jobs, embassy positions...
However, I for one absolutely HATE the fact that everything requires a degree now. My uncle dropped out of high-school in the 9th grade... he ended up making 250,000$ a year as the head engineer for one of Canadas more respected engineering firms. He learned on the job and was willing to travel to almost anywhere the job required (Sri Lanka, Papua New Guinea, Tanzania, Turkey, North of The Wall). Places just are no longer willing to take the risk on a kid with a glint in his eye anymore. My uncle succeeded because he had the opportunity to fail.
It's because there's a huge glut of graduates out on the market, and we're recovering from a recession. Most workplaces have their pick of the litter when it comes to applicants right now. Oftentimes even graduates get passed over - you have to have the exact match of requirements on your resume to get the job. Yes, employers can be that picky!
A guy I went to high school with didn't go to college, and instead started working as a barista at a Starbucks, or some other coffee shop. After a while he becomes manager of his branch. Then he goes on to learn, from his job experience, about management and sales. He moves on to a series of sales and marketing firms, building up his connections and knowledge and experience.
Fourteen years later, he ends up as a well-known sales and marketing consultant, flying around the country constantly and telling people how they can improve their operations. He's dating an up-and-coming porn star (seriously, this is a true story) and tells me about how in real life she's completely different from her on-screen persona. He also wants to settle down though, so recently he got a job at a major company, where he earns a ludicrous salary, and telecommutes from home like three or four days a week.
Me, I'm here slaving away at my
Not to mention you also what appears to be a very nice (and pretty) wife-to-be. I'd take that over an up-and-coming porn star anyday, which, after I take that Job in china will never be seen by 1/6th of the world's population anyhow.
Maybe date is too strong a word.
Necronic
Staff member
A native relations officer probably would do better with an anthro degree, not doubt. And its possible that the other positions you have listed would be the same. The problem is that those positions you have described represent a vanishingly small part of the jobs market. There is almost no demand for people in those positions. While the UN is looking for engineers, it can't turn around without tripping over another unemployed communications student.
True enough. Companies can't afford to risk it anymore, especially with engineering. For most other positions there isn't much risk, but in the back of their mind they are saying "Well, this kid worked hard through college, he may have more drive than this other kid that didn't go" even if the education itself is meaningless, it hints at a work ethic. Really it's unfair because there's a decent chance that the only difference between them is that one was willing to take on the debt/had parents to pay for it and the other didn't.
That said, engineering is different. That's not something you do wtihout a college education, not anymore. As opposed to English or History, STEM knowledge builds on itself until it becomes a near indecipherable Tower of Babyl. For the vast majority of people the only way to scale it is through college. Hiring a high school educated person to do engineering these days isn't a just a risk, its simply stupid.
It really isn't this. It's just that no one wants to try and vet someone without a degree anymore. It takes time and money, where as someone with a degree requires much less work. Removing the people without degrees generally reduces the number of applications by half or more too...
Seriously, that's all this is about.
This is absolutely it. At one point I was looking for a job prior to receiving my degree, and would send out resumes and call the hiring managers within a week to verify they received the resume and to see when they would be interviewing. One manager explained that he had, but had cut me out of the running simply because he had 500 resumes for one position, and sorting it by degree, experience, and skill I wasn't close enough to the top to consider. However after chatting with me he decided to bring me in, interview me, and I ended up getting the job.
So yes, not having a degree makes it next to impossible, particularly for hard sciences and engineering, but if you have experience and can demonstrate expertise, then the only thing you have to do is get an interview, and get yourself past the automatic "no degree, no interview" bar.
This.
This is what I had to do to get my current position. I had sooooo much experience, but no previous position associated with that experience. It took almost 2 years to convince someone to finally call me in for an interview, and once they did, I finally got the chance to show that experience in front of someone who actually made hiring decisions instead of someone who merely winnows résumés.
--Patrick
- Status