Export thread

Tress said:

I find their logic to be faulty. The main argument is that they can't support a family on their current wages; entry-level positions in the fast food world were never meant to support families. If that's a concern, find a better job.

Click to expand...

So this brings up the question. If an employer has a job that needs to be done, but they can't afford to pay a lot, or the job simply wouldn't exist (ie, profit margin too low means you don't start the business), is it ok for them to advertise for, and find people willing to do the job for at or just above minimum wage?

In this case, fast food workers in NYC are suggesting that they should be paid more than $14,000 per year (which is half the federal poverty level of $28,000/yr) because they can't afford shelter, food, and other necessities of life, including health care, on minimum wage.

While we could also talk about how their hours are tiny, and to actually work 40 or more hours a week one must maintain at least two jobs, and often three, the issue for this thread is just whether McDonalds and others should be paying them a living wage, regardless of the product they're offering.

Keep in mind that this is unskilled labor. You are not required to know much more than how to follow instructions at such jobs, even reading is optional if you pay careful attention to your training.

I feel like, for all intents and purposes, this is the minimum wage debate. If we have a minimum wage, does that encourage employers to hire fewer people or give fewer hours to those they hire, resulting in unemployment or underemployment? If we don't have a minimum wage, does that mean people are unfairly treated by the 'market' wage if it isn't livable?

I will have to find it again but I read an interesting article that proposed eliminating the minimum wage in favour of a minimum income. I won't attempt to explain the difference here since I don't feel I remember it well enough to proffer a good explanation. Maybe once I find it and re-read it.

More than anything else, I think what it is an indicator that perhaps the industry in question has reached market oversaturation, and maybe that industry/sector might benefit from the metaphorical forest fire and subsequent die-back. Then again, I can also see the parallel between this and the never-ending quest by agribusiness to up yield-per-acre rather than just upping yield by planting more acres. A geographical region can only (naturally) support a certain density of anything. Any higher than the limit and it requires some sort of artificial supplement to prop it up.

--Patrick

Minimum income is an interesting idea. Increases in minimum wage leads to employers playing games, slashing hours, and pitting employees against one another for those precious few hours that remain - all to squeeze out a bit more profit or to look good in front of the higher-ups.

In so many cases, unskilled laborers are treated like playthings, used up, and discarded easily. There is no dignity there, no sense of security, and no real protections under the law against such abuse, especially since many states make it easy to fire employees for any bullshit reason they can come up with.

Switching to minimum income would have major effects. Jobs lost. Inflation. The same things we see every time minimum wage goes up. But those workers would know a vindictive employer can't slash hours over petty shit, that they can afford to maintain basic living conditions, and perhaps not being forced to supplement their meager income with government assistance. Wouldn't it be nice to phase out a large chunk of that for, say, jobs programs that could put those workers cut back to work, and increase the taxpayer base in general? I understand that it's naive to believe it would happen like that, as people would figure out how to skirt such laws or game the system in new ways. But it would be nice to see the standard of living get better for a lot of people...

For that matter, it would be nice to see all households guaranteed a minimum amount of food, shelter, utilities, etc. based on their size/environment, and then the job just becomes how you earn the discretionary portion of your income. But of course that sounds like capitalistic socialism, and everyone will have some reason to make sure it does not interfere with their business model or whatever hate it.

--Patrick

All I know is that if McDonald's has to choose between paying $75/hr to keep a restaurant open using 5 high paid unskilled workers, or $30/hour for two high paid skilled operators and $150,000 one time payment plus $50,000/yr maintenance for more automation, they're going to choose the second in high volume 24/7 markets.

Even unskilled labor should make enough to feed and clothe you. Otherwise it essentially becomes slave labor.

Note that I said you, not an entire family.

I don't agree about the slavelabor bit, though. Students, for instance, are one group of people where a lot of them want extra cash, have extra time, and don't want a job that requires significant training and a career. Many of them don't need a living wage since they are being supported through other means.

Youth in high school don't need a living wage.

stienman said:

I don't agree about the slavelabor bit, though. Students, for instance, are one group of people where a lot of them want extra cash, have extra time, and don't want a job that requires significant training and a career. Many of them don't need a living wage since they are being supported through other means.

Youth in high school don't need a living wage.

Click to expand...

Yeah, not like hey should save for college, car insurance, ell, a car...

stienman said:

I don't agree about the slavelabor bit, though. Students, for instance, are one group of people where a lot of them want extra cash, have extra time, and don't want a job that requires significant training and a career. Many of them don't need a living wage since they are being supported through other means.

Youth in high school don't need a living wage.

Click to expand...

That's what part time employees are for. I've supported myself on a job at Hardees because it was the only job available. You are worked like a dog and paid the least amount of money they can legally pay you. It is absolutely horrid.

Are you saying he needs $15/hr in order to save for that car or college? And that McDonald's should be forced to provide that pay scale for unskilled labor?

This doesn't make sense to me. People are honestly trying to disconnect the expertise level and amount of work from the reward? Socialism for the poorest, capitalism for the richest?

stienman said:

Are you saying he needs $15/hr in order to save for that car or college? And that McDonald's should be forced to provide that pay scale for unskilled labor?

This doesn't make sense to me. People are honestly trying to disconnect the expertise level and amount of work from the reward? Socialism for the poorest, capitalism for the richest?

Click to expand...

So, get rid of the minimum wage and have someone work their fingers to the bone for 3 dollars an hour? Nope, that doesn't sound fucked up, like at all.

I love how conservatives like to make it sound like asking to make a wage that pays your rent and puts food in your mouth is tantamount to asking for caviar and sports cars.

I'm sorry, where did I say, "hey! Lets get rid of the minimum wage! Woo!"

If you're tired of discussing this rationally, maybe take a break.

I'm talking about whether we should _eliminate_ the gap between minimum wage and poverty level, not narrow it, or widen it as you amusingly suggest.

Right now we have a minimum wage which defines the lowest pay an unskilled worker can be paid. It's not a living wage, but apparently people expect it to be.

Is their expectation reasonable? Should we either pay someone a living wage or not pay them at all?

Or is there a good reason to allow unskilled jobs to be paid at less than a minimum wage? Are there workers that don't need a living wage and would like to work a job which doesn't require training?

Does the gap serve a purpose, or is it merely indentured servitude as some appear to suggest?

Yes, my response was extreme, it was in response to your snarky ass socialism comment.

Yes, minimum wage should be a living wage. That's the entire point of having a minimum wage. Minimum wage laws went into effect at the same time as child labor laws for the same reason. Workers were being exploited, overworked, and not even making enough money to live on.

The main issue that you're addressing is the fact that a living wage in a small town is WAY below the poverty line, whereas in a large city, where rent is over 1k per month, then there becomes a huge disparity. This is an urban issue. It may be that rather than having the same minimum wage, it should go by the living wage by area. But then that would also open a whole other can of worms in regards to people getting different levels of pay for the same type of work.

Is there an easy solution? No, but suggesting that people should just take what scraps they can get is societal ignorance of Marie Antoinette proportions.

Not everyone has the opportunity NOT to be unskilled labor, even if they're capable of being skilled labor.

Lets back up a little. What part of this isn't socialist in nature? You are suggesting they receive the wage they require, regardless of the work they do.

You are suggesting that a high school dropout, whether by choice or circumstance, should earn as much flipping burgers, stocking shelves, and bagging groceries as teachers, nurses, and others who went to school for another 4-6 years beyond high school.

Even if we assume that the stores and restaurants somehow magically don't have to raise their prices, and they employ the same number of people for the same hours, what is going to encourage people to stay in school and become skilled when they know they can bag groceries for the rest of their life and raise a family on that salary?

stienman said:

Lets back up a little. What part of this isn't socialist in nature? You are suggesting they receive the wage they require, regardless of the work they do.

You are suggesting that a high school dropout, whether by choice or circumstance, should earn as much flipping burgers, stocking shelves, and bagging groceries as teachers, nurses, and others who went to school for another 4-6 years beyond high school.

Even if we assume that the stores and restaurants somehow magically don't have to raise their prices, and they employ the same number of people for the same hours, what is going to encourage people to stay in school and become skilled when they know they can bag groceries for the rest of their life and raise a family on that salary?

Click to expand...

While I fall more on the socialist side of this argument (oh, big surprise there), you're misrepresenting Bowielee's argument.
He's saying that someones flipping burgers full time (important bit, there) should make enough money to have food and shelter. You're representing his POV as being that they should earn "the same" as a collega graduate. That's not the same, unless you think even college educated jobs should only pay minimum wage.
I don't mind the guy stocking shelves at CostCo having to go without an iPhone and a yearly vacation to the Bahamas. I do mind him keeling over dead because, despite his job, he had to sleep in the gutter and eat out of the garbage can.

Abolishing minimum wage or making it so low as to be impossible to live on is nuts. Increasing it to where it's not beneficial to do anything higher is nuts as well.
See also: unemployment trap, where unemployment benefits are higher than low-paying job income, thus demotivating people to eevr get a job - as is the case in Belgium in some circumstances now.

"Indentured Servitude".

Didn't we have this argument 150 years ago?

stienman said:

Lets back up a little. What part of this isn't socialist in nature? You are suggesting they receive the wage they require, regardless of the work they do.

You are suggesting that a high school dropout, whether by choice or circumstance, should earn as much flipping burgers, stocking shelves, and bagging groceries as teachers, nurses, and others who went to school for another 4-6 years beyond high school.

Even if we assume that the stores and restaurants somehow magically don't have to raise their prices, and they employ the same number of people for the same hours, what is going to encourage people to stay in school and become skilled when they know they can bag groceries for the rest of their life and raise a family on that salary?

Click to expand...

Where in the hell are you getting that I'm saying that unskilled labor should make the same as skilled labor?

If you're having trouble with the term living wage, how about we change it to surviving wage. Either way, paying someone working full time less money than it takes to live on is equivalent to slavery. If working doesn't fulfill your basic needs, you're essentially working for nothing.

Your stance is essentially "let them eat cake".

I'd be curious to know if you've ever met anyone making 14k a year. Hint, not all people are working unskilled labor out of laziness, despite what Glen Beck tells you.

Does this forum count as "met"?

jwhouk said:

"Indentured Servitude".

Didn't we have this argument 150 years ago?

Click to expand...

One can easily argue that people are already becoming indentured worker again, though this time in the hands of credit companies. Having loans/credit equalling or surpassing your likely lifetime earnings is not a rare thing these days, especially in credit happy countries such as the USA. This amounts to not owning anything and spending the rest of your life paying off debt - very much like people who become indentured servants in exchange for passage to the New World and such.

On one hand, people should lower expectations. I honestly believe we, the West, will have to become poorer as the rest of the world becomes richer. It's not a zero-sum game, but there are limits. It's unreasonable to expect a no-education, no-training job to pay enough to live comfortably and with luxuries. I also think it's acceptable for a job to not pay enough to live off of, if it isn't anywhere near full time employment.
On the other hand, someone working full time should earn enough to have the basic necessities of life (food, shelter, education, basic healthcare) and, if we want capitalism to stick around, a small amount of spending money.

The odd thing is, on a forum such as this one, with mostly Americans, I tend to come off as a left-wing semi-socialist filthy commie. On Belgian political fora or in the comments sections of Belgian newspapers, I come off as a neo-liberal right-wing let-them-starve capitalist. Not because my position changes all that much, but because the points of view are so far apart.

I think the underlying problem is that the cost of living is too damn high. I don't have many options for finding a place to live on what I make now, unless I either want to live in an apartment complex where my car is likely to be stolen, or live in a nicer area but on a razor thin budget. If said car then needs a new tire or something, I'd be SOL.

Bowielee said:

Even unskilled labor should make enough to feed and clothe you. Otherwise it essentially becomes slave labor.

Note that I said you, not an entire family.

Click to expand...

That's the entire argument right there. Here's a fun fact. You can live on minimum wage. YOU can. You can't raise kids. You will be poor as hell. You will need to cook every meal, and cook cheap food. You will probably need to take the bus everywhere. But you can do it. As soon as you have kids though, that's another matter.

People need to stop having kids they can't afford.

Necronic said:

That's the entire argument right there. Here's a fun fact. You can live on minimum wage. YOU can. You can't raise kids. You will be poor as hell. You will need to cook every meal, and cook cheap food. You will probably need to take the bus everywhere. But you can do it. As soon as you have kids though, that's another matter.

People need to stop having kids they can't afford.

Click to expand...

No, you're misconstruing my point. Not even a single person in an urban environment can pay their rent or feed themselves on minimum wage without being essentially homeless.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/paying-rent-on-minimum-wage/

Adjust for single bedroom, 60% of wage going to rent, and you're still looking at roughly 45 hours a week.

Bowielee said:

No, you're misconstruing my point. Not even a single person in an urban environment can pay their rent or feed themselves on minimum wage without being essentially homeless.

Click to expand...

Can you do it in manhattan? No. Can you do it in a reasonably priced area, like, say, all of the state of Texas? Yes. With a roommate in a 2 bedroom your rent and bills can easily be below 300$ a month.

And fwiw Krisken's link is talking about affording a 2 bedroom apartment. Defeats the entire purpose of the exercise.

Did you even read the rest of his post? Apparently not.

What part did I miss? Please feel free to be active aggressive in your arguments.

I'm not sure if you two are even in disagreement with one another, other than maybe if this is how things should be or not.

Ok, lets do this since reading and critical thinking is hard I guess-
Minimum wage, 40 hours a week, pay is $15,080

Rent, $600 a month (yes, a one bedroom here is that much) $7,200
Utilities (gas, electric, phone, NO INTERNET) $140 a month, $1680
Food and home supplies- $80 a week, a year, $4160

Total in most optimistic environment- $13040. Hope you don't get sick. Or need gasoline. Or have car repairs.

Roomate in a 2 bedroom. Saves you 3600$ a year, not counting bills.

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.

That wasn't what was being argued. It was "can you live on your own on a minimum wage". Yeah, it's cheaper with a room mate. Most of the time. Finding a good room mate is not easy, though. Take my word on it, I've been through quite a few.

Krisken said:

That wasn't what was being argued. It was "can you live on your own on a minimum wage". Yeah, it's cheaper with a room mate. Most of the time. Finding a good room mate is not easy, though. Take my word on it, I've been through quite a few.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Roommates suck. I have certainly had my fair share.

I didn't realize that was what the argument was. I would agree that it is nearly impossible to live on your own, but again it's part of the sacrifice.

drawn_inward said:

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.

Click to expand...

Skilled jobs are not that numerous. I respect how hard you worked and what you sacrificed, and it's great you were able to find a job to go along with it. Sadly, that isn't possible or feasible for everyone, not to mention so many people who did graduate are having trouble finding jobs.

One of the hardest problems isn't really how much they make, but what kind of jobs exist. Most of us are lucky enough to have desk jobs. There are a lot of communities where every job is physical labor. I don't care if you're making 5$/hr or 12$/hr. many people simply can't do that work past a young age.

When you're young and strong finding decent work is easy enough. If you have 2 legs, 2 arms, some modicum of personal hygiene, and a handful of brain cells you can wait tables which can earn between 20-40k/yr pretty easily. It also allows for a flexible enough schedule to allow school or other training.

But when you're older the problem is a lot harder. That's a very hard problem.

Maybe I have been just really lucky/blessed. The exception to the rule.

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.

I'm also going to go out on a limb here and say something which may be a little controversial- the forum attracts people who are fairly intelligent. No, really. I'm also going to say not everyone has the mental capacity for skilled work. Believe me, I met a crap ton of them.

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/

Krisken said:

I'm also going to go out on a limb here and say something which may be a little controversial- the forum attracts people who are fairly intelligent. No, really. I'm also going to say not everyone has the mental capacity for skilled work. Believe me, I met a crap ton of them.

Click to expand...

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.

drawn_inward said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?
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.

Necronic said:

But when you're older the problem is a lot harder. That's a very hard problem.

Click to expand...

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.

Because a lot of people would decide to just not work and get the guaranteed income. Not to mention there would have to be a huge increase in taxes to pay for that

blotsfan said:

Because a lot of people would decide to just not work and get the guaranteed income. Not to mention there would have to be a huge increase in taxes to pay for that

Click to expand...

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.

tegid said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

phil said:

I think the underlying problem is that the cost of living is too damn high. I don't have many options for finding a place to live on what I make now, unless I either want to live in an apartment complex where my car is likely to be stolen, or live in a nicer area but on a razor thin budget. If said car then needs a new tire or something, I'd be SOL.

Click to expand...

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.

Silent Bob said:

Cost of living has increased, while wages have not...in the 1950's - 1960's a high school drop out could survive just fine working in a factory.

Click to expand...

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?

Necronic said:

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/

Click to expand...

I like that article a lot.

TommiR said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

tegid said:

I don't see why it should be different for the job market.

Click to expand...

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.

stienman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

stienman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

tegid said:

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.

Click to expand...

tegid said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

tegid said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Necronic said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

The_Khan said:

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.

Click to expand...

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!

The_Khan said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 nine-to-five nine-to-eight desk job, earning a pittance. But every time I talk to him, I never feel jealous, or feel like that could've been me. He's the kind of guy who could pull something like that off. He's willing to pay his dues as a barista and jet around the country at the drop of a hat. Me, I'm okay with sitting in front of a computer and going through the daily routines of drudgery.

bhamv3 said:

Me, I'm here slaving away at my nine-to-five nine-to-eight desk job, earning a pittance. But every time I talk to him, I never feel jealous, or feel like that could've been me. He's the kind of guy who could pull something like that off. He's willing to pay his dues as a barista and jet around the country at the drop of a hat. Me, I'm okay with sitting in front of a computer and going through the daily routines of drudgery.

Click to expand...

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.

I don't think I would ever want to date a porn star?

The_Khan said:

I don't think I would ever want to date a porn star?

Click to expand...

Maybe date is too strong a word.

The_Khan said:

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...

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Necronic said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

AshburnerX said:

Removing the people without degrees generally reduces the number of applications by half or more too...

Seriously, that's all this is about.

Click to expand...

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.

stienman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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