Different areas of the country can sustain different levels of minimum wage. The minimum wage isn't a panacea for economic problems and doesn't guarantee growth. San Francisco probably won't descend into banruptcy, anarchy and violence because of this but I don't think anybody is anticipating a boom either. Having the govt arbitrarily set a value on labor will always upset market forces.
Prestor Jon wrote: Different areas of the country can sustain different levels of minimum wage. The minimum wage isn't a panacea for economic problems and doesn't guarantee growth. San Francisco probably won't descend into banruptcy, anarchy and violence because of this but I don't think anybody is anticipating a boom either. Having the govt arbitrarily set a value on labor will always upset market forces.
of course it won't go into anarchy, the Giants won. We are safe for another year.
Excellent. Realistically, the areas that need a minimum wage increase thd most are major urban centers, many of them arent livable on a minimum wage income.
chaos0xomega wrote: Excellent. Realistically, the areas that need a minimum wage increase thd most are major urban centers, many of them arent livable on a minimum wage income.
Yet people are already living there and working minimum wage jobs. If companies couldn't find employees at the minimum wage rate they'd offer more money until they hit a level that allowed them to be properly staffed or they'd go out of business. Not everything needs to be codified into a law. If you're trying to support yourself or your family on a minimum wage job your problem is that you lack marketable skills not that the minimum wage is too low.
The fact that SF isn't going to have $15/hr minimum wage until 2018 shows that they're not really concerned with the wage. Given inflation and cost of living increases earning $15/hr in 2018 isn't going to be appreciably different from earning $10.74/hr today.
chaos0xomega wrote: Excellent. Realistically, the areas that need a minimum wage increase thd most are major urban centers, many of them arent livable on a minimum wage income.
Yet people are already living there and working minimum wage jobs. If companies couldn't find employees at the minimum wage rate they'd offer more money until they hit a level that allowed them to be properly staffed or they'd go out of business. Not everything needs to be codified into a law. If you're trying to support yourself or your family on a minimum wage job your problem is that you lack marketable skills not that the minimum wage is too low.
The fact that SF isn't going to have $15/hr minimum wage until 2018 shows that they're not really concerned with the wage. Given inflation and cost of living increases earning $15/hr in 2018 isn't going to be appreciably different from earning $10.74/hr today.
1. If you knew anyone living off minimum wage in a major city youd probably change your mind. Even rent controlled housing is hard to make work for the working poor in NYC.
Prestor Jon wrote: Yet people are already living there and working minimum wage jobs. If companies couldn't find employees at the minimum wage rate they'd offer more money until they hit a level that allowed them to be properly staffed or they'd go out of business. Not everything needs to be codified into a law. If you're trying to support yourself or your family on a minimum wage job your problem is that you lack marketable skills not that the minimum wage is too low.
People work in sweat shops in China for bugger all, simply because employers can find desperate people to work for almost nothing, it's one step up from starving, what else can they do? That you can always find someone, somewhere prepared to take very little to do a job doesn't justify taking advantage of them to only pay tiny wages, and later blame them for lacking marketable skills. Any unskilled work is likely to have more applicants than employment positions, so companies can always pick those prepared to accept the least money. The same is true in western countries although not to such extremes as the far east, but employers can easily find someone to take any low wage as an alternative to unemployment. Such people only achieve surviving on low wages by living in substandard accommodation with poor diet and unable to provide basics for their children and other dependents.
Your logic excuses exploitation rather than challenges the need for a minimum wage set in law.
Prestor Jon wrote: Different areas of the country can sustain different levels of minimum wage. The minimum wage isn't a panacea for economic problems and doesn't guarantee growth. San Francisco probably won't descend into banruptcy, anarchy and violence because of this but I don't think anybody is anticipating a boom either. Having the govt arbitrarily set a value on labor will always upset market forces.
of course it won't go into anarchy, the Giants won. We are safe for another year.
chaos0xomega wrote: Excellent. Realistically, the areas that need a minimum wage increase thd most are major urban centers, many of them arent livable on a minimum wage income.
Yet people are already living there and working minimum wage jobs. If companies couldn't find employees at the minimum wage rate they'd offer more money until they hit a level that allowed them to be properly staffed or they'd go out of business. Not everything needs to be codified into a law. If you're trying to support yourself or your family on a minimum wage job your problem is that you lack marketable skills not that the minimum wage is too low.
The fact that SF isn't going to have $15/hr minimum wage until 2018 shows that they're not really concerned with the wage. Given inflation and cost of living increases earning $15/hr in 2018 isn't going to be appreciably different from earning $10.74/hr today.
1. If you knew anyone living off minimum wage in a major city youd probably change your mind. Even rent controlled housing is hard to make work for the working poor in NYC.
2. Inflation is nowhere near that high.
If somebody can't find a job that pays better than minimum wage why are they living in an area they can't afford? Again, the problem in that scenario is that the person isn't equipped with valuable enough skills to demand a wage capable of supporting him/her and/or his/her family. That's not the fault of the their employer, their employer is just trying to offer a wage that people are willing to work for that can fit into their operating budget. Nobody is forced to take a job they don't want.
I included cost of living with inflation, which to my mind includes the taxes and healthcare costs being taken out of the paycheck in addition to the rising costs of food, shelter, fuel, etc.
Prestor Jon wrote: Yet people are already living there and working minimum wage jobs. If companies couldn't find employees at the minimum wage rate they'd offer more money until they hit a level that allowed them to be properly staffed or they'd go out of business. Not everything needs to be codified into a law. If you're trying to support yourself or your family on a minimum wage job your problem is that you lack marketable skills not that the minimum wage is too low.
People work in sweat shops in China for bugger all, simply because employers can find desperate people to work for almost nothing, it's one step up from starving, what else can they do? That you can always find someone, somewhere prepared to take very little to do a job doesn't justify taking advantage of them to only pay tiny wages, and later blame them for lacking marketable skills. Any unskilled work is likely to have more applicants than employment positions, so companies can always pick those prepared to accept the least money. The same is true in western countries although not to such extremes as the far east, but employers can easily find someone to take any low wage as an alternative to unemployment. Such people only achieve surviving on low wages by living in substandard accommodation with poor diet and unable to provide basics for their children and other dependents.
Your logic excuses exploitation rather than challenges the need for a minimum wage set in law.
Or people could demand better wages and working conditions. Somehow the western world managed to go through extensive labor reforms long before we ever had minimum wage requirements. We've already seen a shift in factories to SE Asia instead of China specifically because China wanted an increase in wages and conditions to help increase domestic consumer spending and strenthen their economy. It takes two parties to agree to a labor contract.
If somebody can't find a job that pays better than minimum wage why are they living in an area they can't afford? Again, the problem in that scenario is that the person isn't equipped with valuable enough skills to demand a wage capable of supporting him/her and/or his/her family. That's not the fault of the their employer, their employer is just trying to offer a wage that people are willing to work for that can fit into their operating budget. Nobody is forced to take a job they don't want.
I included cost of living with inflation, which to my mind includes the taxes and healthcare costs being taken out of the paycheck in addition to the rising costs of food, shelter, fuel, etc.
Erroneous thinking, you're basically saying that a person doesn't have appropriate skills and/or knowledge, ergo they are unworthy of having an even halfway decent life. Further, 'nobody is forced to take a job they don't want' at gunpoint, however there is no real alternative in our society, except to die in poverty, so yes, as a matter of fact they are forced to take those jobs. You said it yourself, they lack the skills for something better, so what other option do they have?
As for why they are living in an area they can't afford, not much of an option there either. When you're living hand to mouth where do you have available to yourself the savings needed to relocate to a new area and start a new life?
Beyond that, I will point out that more and more people with college educations are being forced to work minimum wage jobs because there aren't enough jobs to go around for everyone at the moment (and there never will be), do those people, who DO have skills for something better but cannot find such employment, also deserve to only scratch out a meager living? FYI, I happen to be recently unemployed with an Engineering degree, and even I'm having trouble finding a new job. This is true of more than a few people that I know, sadly enough.
Beyond that, I will point out that more and more people with college educations are being forced to work minimum wage jobs because there aren't enough jobs to go around for everyone at the moment (and there never will be), do those people, who DO have skills for something better but cannot find such employment, also deserve to only scratch out a meager living? FYI, I happen to be recently unemployed with an Engineering degree, and even I'm having trouble finding a new job. This is true of more than a few people that I know, sadly enough.
Do they all have "skills for something better?" Are you sure?
You get a degree in French History, it should be your understanding that the list of jobs for said major is going to be slim. That's on you, not the job market.
And, truth be told, tons of these graduates think they're "too good" for some of the jobs that are above minimum wage that they could get. Or they refuse to look for things outside of their degreed area. Thanks to Obamacare, I know for a fact that most schools in Ohio are having trouble finding substitute teachers. I asked my wife if they had lots of recent college grads subbing, and she said "we have very few." Why? Oh yes, because many think they're too good for the job.
With the holiday season approaching, there is NO REASON anyone with a college degree should be without work. When I worked at FedEx as my 2nd job when I was laid off in 08, we hired a ton of people around the holidays, at around $14 an hour no less. But not everyone is willing to work on a loading dock, for various reasons.
It's that "deserve" that you throw in there that's the problem. You deserve nothing. You don't "deserve" to be able to afford a place to live on your own. That's why in college people have roommates. You don't "deserve" to drive a new car. That's why the used car market exists.
If somebody can't find a job that pays better than minimum wage why are they living in an area they can't afford? Again, the problem in that scenario is that the person isn't equipped with valuable enough skills to demand a wage capable of supporting him/her and/or his/her family. That's not the fault of the their employer, their employer is just trying to offer a wage that people are willing to work for that can fit into their operating budget. Nobody is forced to take a job they don't want.
I included cost of living with inflation, which to my mind includes the taxes and healthcare costs being taken out of the paycheck in addition to the rising costs of food, shelter, fuel, etc.
Erroneous thinking, you're basically saying that a person doesn't have appropriate skills and/or knowledge, ergo they are unworthy of having an even halfway decent life. Further, 'nobody is forced to take a job they don't want' at gunpoint, however there is no real alternative in our society, except to die in poverty, so yes, as a matter of fact they are forced to take those jobs. You said it yourself, they lack the skills for something better, so what other option do they have?
As for why they are living in an area they can't afford, not much of an option there either. When you're living hand to mouth where do you have available to yourself the savings needed to relocate to a new area and start a new life?
Beyond that, I will point out that more and more people with college educations are being forced to work minimum wage jobs because there aren't enough jobs to go around for everyone at the moment (and there never will be), do those people, who DO have skills for something better but cannot find such employment, also deserve to only scratch out a meager living? FYI, I happen to be recently unemployed with an Engineering degree, and even I'm having trouble finding a new job. This is true of more than a few people that I know, sadly enough.
If an adult person has lived for 18+ years and managed to not acquire a single useful job skills that qualifies them for a job that doesn't literally have a labor pool of millions to choose from then that's the individual's fault not their employer. Nobody just suddenly appears one day fully grown and on their own or with a family. If you want to have a family then it's your responsiblity to find a way to provide for them. If an adult has nothing to offer an employer except the most basic level of labor I don't see the need for the state to force his/her employer to pay an artificially high wage in order to placate the unskilled worker's desire to have cool stuff.
Raising minimum wage increases labor costs which only forces employers to cut hours, raise prices and reduce staff to maintain their budgets and margins. The people who are making $10.74/hr in SF today aren't any more valuable to their companies in 2018 but they'll be paid more so something has to give. The employees haven't improved themselves, they're still working the same jobs and now it will be harder for other people to get minimum wage jobs because employers will raise standards because the jobs are costing them more and there'll be lower turnover because the jobs pay more. If working minimum wage isn't enough to support your family the problem was that you started a family you couldn't afford not that your employer isn't paying you enough.
As for college students, it's already been said but I'll reiterate it, if you spend 4 years at a college racking up debt in exchange for a degree it is your personal responsibility to make sure you got your money's worth. If you college degree doesn't qualify you for a worthwhile job why did you get it? Whose fault is that? The job market? Nope, that's on you for choosing a major that doesn't provide you with any career options.
It surprises me that you think living in NJ is worth every penny. I grew up in an affluent suburb in NJ and most everybody I know has moved out to states with a lower cost of living. My wife and I each have a job that allows us to support a growing family, own nice property and have a nice life on a very blue collar income level that would barely allow us to keep the apt we rented 10 years ago in NJ. While Jersey isn't the cesspool some people like to mock it as the jacked up cost of living is too high to ever really be worth it IMO.
Beyond that, I will point out that more and more people with college educations are being forced to work minimum wage jobs because there aren't enough jobs to go around for everyone at the moment (and there never will be), do those people, who DO have skills for something better but cannot find such employment, also deserve to only scratch out a meager living? FYI, I happen to be recently unemployed with an Engineering degree, and even I'm having trouble finding a new job. This is true of more than a few people that I know, sadly enough.
This isn't really true either. A minimum wage job keeps people living below the poverty line, no? Well, just discussed yesterday, a report during my poli-sci class, that around 4% of people with a Bacelor's degree are living below the poverty line.
This isn't saying that college grads aren't overqualified or "underworked" for their jobs, just that there's far less people living in poverty/minimum wage type situations than you'd think.
But then, we can also talk about the jobs that Mike Rowe champions for. There's a MASSIVE shortage of welders around the country. The field of plumbing is actually fairly quickly diminishing, as many long time plumbers are retiring out, and not nearly enough people are coming into the profession to fill the void. It's just that, in the US especially, we've spent so much time and money indoctrinating kids to believe that College=Success, that many basically refuse to SEE other avenues of making money.
I ate a $16 burger at movie house grill Saturday watching Fury. It was absolutely awesome, with steakfries and a seamingly endless succession of Crowns and SoCos.
Raising minimum wage increases labor costs which only forces employers to cut hours, raise prices and reduce staff to maintain their budgets and margins.
Employers have been cutting hours and reducing staff without increases to the minimum wage, all the while reporting greater increases in profit margins, so thats irrelevant. The businesses that will really be hurt by the move are small mom & pops, theoretically it will be offset by people having more disposable income available to them and thus spending more. To a major corporation like McDonalds or Burger King. When I was working Burger King/McD's I prepared hundreds of burgers a day (in addition to scrubbing down the entire kitchen, dining area, and restrooms nightly) for $8.15/hr over an 8 hour shift ($65 a day). Assuming the average 150 or so burgers I made over that time period, you're talking $.43 per in labor costs. Going to $15/hr, it becomes $.80 in labor costs, so the labor rate doubles, but not a lot else does, as all the buns, produce, meat, etc. which go into producing said burgers are handled by people making in excess of the minimum wage or by largely labor unintensive industrial processes. In any case, again, the increased costs will theoretically be offset by increased sales, as more people will again have more income available to them with which to purchase said goods. There are certain industries that will be hit harder than others, that I can't deny, but the fast food industry really isn't one of them. Beyond that, specifically relating to fast food, its technically classified as a luxury good anyway, and truth be told, the gak needs to cost more, as its affordability is in part what has caused the obesity epidemic in this country.
I dont doubt that it will effect a lot of margins, but I don't really give a damn about reduced margins when many of the corporations in question are operating with million/billion dollar profits, they can make do with less money and still afford to hand out stupid bonuses to top executives.
As a side note, increases in the minimum wage are believed to be a driving force behind an increase in middle class wages as the lack of any real movement in minimum wage over the past few decades correlates with the relative flatness of middle class wages (and it makes a sort of logical sense that if bottom earners income is flat over time, that middle earners would also see a flat income over time, as there is nothing to motivate an increase).
It surprises me that you think living in NJ is worth every penny. I grew up in an affluent suburb in NJ and most everybody I know has moved out to states with a lower cost of living. My wife and I each have a job that allows us to support a growing family, own nice property and have a nice life on a very blue collar income level that would barely allow us to keep the apt we rented 10 years ago in NJ. While Jersey isn't the cesspool some people like to mock it as the jacked up cost of living is too high to ever really be worth it IMO.
Different strokes I guess. I consider Jersey to pretty much be paradise on earth.
But then, we can also talk about the jobs that Mike Rowe champions for. There's a MASSIVE shortage of welders around the country. The field of plumbing is actually fairly quickly diminishing, as many long time plumbers are retiring out, and not nearly enough people are coming into the profession to fill the void. It's just that, in the US especially, we've spent so much time and money indoctrinating kids to believe that College=Success, that many basically refuse to SEE other avenues of making money.
Agreed, but thats a separate discussion about the educational system entirely.
The problem with Western society as things stand, is that there are less jobs around generally these days. Agriculture and mining generally got downsized during the industrial revolution, and most of the manufacturing and industrial sectors have been edged out over the past half a century by places like Japan and China. Not all of them, but enough of them to have seriously hit the number of jobs available in those fields.
The result is that the logical decision of most parents is to push their children to pursue jobs in the service, financial and high-tech sectors. But there simply aren't enough of those to go around. You can produce more and more graduates qualified for those particular jobs, but the result is that all the jobs are filled up, and there's still an excess of graduates left over. Meanwhile, on the bottom end, those jobs concerned with resource production and industry have been contracting further and further in number, because mechanisation keeps edging further and further in. It even happens at the low end of the service industry with self-checkouts replace shop assistants, basic admin jobs done by specifically designed computer programs, and so on. Businesses like replacing people with machines because they work out cheaper in the long run, and are predictable and reliable.
The overall result is that there simply aren't enough jobs to go around. There can only be so many doctors and lawyers, and only so many people with the aptitude for those jobs. The inevitable knockon consequence of that is that there are multiple suitable candidates for any job, which means that employers, not needing to give decent wages or working conditions to attract workers, simply do not. They are businesses, their incentive is to produce the maximum profit possible in most circumstances. If workers can be had for basement prices, then basement prices are what their jobs will pay.
Unfortunately, that has the cumulative effect of making it harder for money to move around. If people get paid less, they have less money to spend on luxuries, like eating out at restaurants. Anything that isn't essential starts getting cut out, and more expensive essentials get replaced with cheaper ones. All the money slowly flows into the pockets of fewer and fewer people, and stops circulating in a way that keeps economies functioning. The result being a recession (as I'm sure most of you know).
As such, it is ultimately the Government that has to regulate and legislate appropriately. Businesses will never pay top dollar for something that they can pay chicken feed for, because that flies in the face of the purpose of business (namely, to make a profit). It is structurally incapable of self-regulating to ensure the general health of the economy. With all humanitarian issues put to one side, a minimum wage helps to achieve that by helping the money to keep circulating in the way it needs to for a healthy functioning economy.
With regards to people saying that a higher minimum wage destroys ma and pa businesses, bankrupts firms, and results in $20 hamburgers, I would say that a Government can be inventive. Minimum wages do not need to be uniformly applied. It is possible to tie the need to pay a certain level of minimum wage to a business's value/profits/tax status/turnover. For example, if you tie a higher minimum wage to companies with a total turnover in excess of three million dollars, you immediately exclude all the ma & pa businesses from going bust. Companies larger than that usually generate more than enough profit to be able to absorb a minimal wage increase.
That is of course, purely a spurious example, but it should demonstrate how a higher minimum wage can be instituted in such a way so as to dodge the more negative consequences.
Easy E wrote: How do we expect decent hard-working people to exercise their right to bear arms if we don't provide a minimum wage high enough to buy firearms with?
Given my pistol retails at around $850 and any decent bullpup goes for around $2000 these days, that'd be a pretty good hike.
Easy E wrote: Or, we could create a Federal program that hands-out guns to people in need. We could call it... the Army!
Except that you can only use those guns on the Army's terms and have to store them in the base armory where they'll be safe and sound in case of emergency.
I personally think a higher minimum wage would be a net benefit for America, but I also readily concede I'm not an economist and that's just my gut feeling. Will we actually see rents double, and $20 hamburgers? Now we're going to find out for sure, 100%.
Ketara wrote: The problem with Western society as things stand, is that there are less jobs around generally these days. Agriculture and mining generally got downsized during the industrial revolution, and most of the manufacturing and industrial sectors have been edged out over the past half a century by places like Japan and China. Not all of them, but enough of them to have seriously hit the number of jobs available in those fields.
Yes there are less jobs in some sectors but there are also more jobs in other sectors. Manufacturing/Industrial jobs have been declining in the US for decades. We don't have a market for buggy whips anymore but we do have a market for smart phone apps. Technology, employment sectors, the economy they all change as time goes by. The market will dictate where the jobs are much more efficiently and effectively than politicians.
Ketara wrote: The result is that the logical decision of most parents is to push their children to pursue jobs in the service, financial and high-tech sectors. But there simply aren't enough of those to go around. You can produce more and more graduates qualified for those particular jobs, but the result is that all the jobs are filled up, and there's still an excess of graduates left over. Meanwhile, on the bottom end, those jobs concerned with resource production and industry have been contracting further and further in number, because mechanisation keeps edging further and further in. It even happens at the low end of the service industry with self-checkouts replace shop assistants, basic admin jobs done by specifically designed computer programs, and so on. Businesses like replacing people with machines because they work out cheaper in the long run, and are predictable and reliable.
Pushing children to only aspire for white collar jobs is a matter of personal preference but it's not a fault of the economy or the job sector, it's parenting. There are plenty of people out there who are perfectly happy encouraging their children to get jobs in trades and other well paying blue collar jobs. We agree that the market only needs so many hedge fudge managers, lawyers, stockbrokers etc. but you seem to believe that there is only a binary choice, get the nice high paying job or get stuck making minimum wage. There are plenty of opportunities beyond white collar jobs that are great jobs. If you don't get a high paying job and your only alternative is a minimum wage job then you've made some serious errors in judgement in regards to your education and job skills. If you graduate college and can only find work in fast food or some similar service or retail sector job then the problem isn't the economy the problem is that you didn't do enough to better yourself while you were in college. A diploma doesn't guarantee a job. We agree that technology eliminates jobs but again that is true for job sectors not the overall economy. While some jobs are eliminated others are created and some, like trades, won't go away anytime soon.
The solution to the problem of only being able to get a minimum wage job is to better yourself not to get the govt to artificially inflate wages because you'd like more money.
Ketara wrote: The overall result is that there simply aren't enough jobs to go around. There can only be so many doctors and lawyers, and only so many people with the aptitude for those jobs. The inevitable knockon consequence of that is that there are multiple suitable candidates for any job, which means that employers, not needing to give decent wages or working conditions to attract workers, simply do not. They are businesses, their incentive is to produce the maximum profit possible in most circumstances. If workers can be had for basement prices, then basement prices are what their jobs will pay.
That's demonstrably untrue, at least it is in the US. There are plenty of unfilled jobs they're just not jobs on Wall St. or in manufacturing etc. There's a difference between not getting the job you want and not being able to get a job. I'm not working in a sector I had envisioned being in but after college I worked a lot of temp jobs, part time jobs and minimum wage jobs while I networked and got my foot in the door on a career path, got some additional certifications and education and got a good job. If too many people are setting unrealistic goals or making poor education choices that's not a fault of the economy. Artificially setting wages only exacerbates the problem. If minimum wage jobs pay more than employers raise standards for who they hire making it harder for unskilled people to get minimum wage jobs not easier. The reason service and retail sector employers don't raise wages much is because the pool of qualified applicants has always been vast. Most people are already qualified to work in fast food, retail stores, wait staff, etc. so there is enough competition that employers can find people willing to work for the wages offered. That's always been the case, working at Walmart is always going to pay less than more skilled jobs because being a stockist or cashier is something most people can do, if you're overqualified you can get a better job and they can get somebody else to take your place.
Ketara wrote: Unfortunately, that has the cumulative effect of making it harder for money to move around. If people get paid less, they have less money to spend on luxuries, like eating out at restaurants. Anything that isn't essential starts getting cut out, and more expensive essentials get replaced with cheaper ones. All the money slowly flows into the pockets of fewer and fewer people, and stops circulating in a way that keeps economies functioning. The result being a recession (as I'm sure most of you know).
We agree that slow circulation of money is bad for the economy and contributes to recessions. I don't think it's a certainty that not buying enough luxury goods causes a recession and if you want to increase the purchase of luxury goods you're not going to get from increasing minimum wage. If you're making minimum wage and it's debatable on whether or not it's a living wage, especially in urban areas like SanFran then increasing minimum wage isn't going to impact a person's discretionary income. If you're struggling to survive the last thing you want to do is squander a pay increase on eating out more or buying more Starbucks coffee or GW models.
A quick google search found a yelp review that showed that a big mac meal in SanFran is $7.99 which with tax would be like $8.04 but I'll just use $8 as a round number. Current minimum wage is $10.77/hr so a person is earning $431 gross each week. If a minimum wage employee at a big mac meal for lunch every day that's $40 a week or 9% of their gross pay. In 2015 the minimum wage will be $15/hr in SanFran, let's assume a big mac meal will cost $9 in 2018 so now an employee is making $600 gross a week but eating a big mac for lunch every weekday is a total of $45 or 8% of their weekly pay. Raising the minimum wage doesn't make eating big macs every day any more affordable in 2018 for somebody on minimum wage than it is in 2014.
Instead of having the govt raise minimum wage to encourage struggling people and families to buy stuff they don't need and can't afford in the name of stimulating the economy we'd be better off if a person on minimum wage took the initiate to be fiscally responsible. Buy a loaf of a bread, a jar of peanut butter and a half dozen apples, use that to make yourself lunch everyday instead of eating out, use other cost cutting habits to save up money, enroll in night classes at a community college or vocational school and try to acquire some job skills that will get him/her a better job. That way the person/family is actually better off in the end and not still working a minimum wage job but with a slightly higher paycheck.
Recessions come from the boom and bust cycle and the booms come from bubbles. The most recent real estate bubble came from people using money from loans banks shouldn't have made to buy homes they couldn't afford and then losing their homes and crashing the market. Increasing minimum wage for the purpose of using the govt to spur discretionary spending on luxury good isn't a sound economic policy.
Ketara wrote: As such, it is ultimately the Government that has to regulate and legislate appropriately. Businesses will never pay top dollar for something that they can pay chicken feed for, because that flies in the face of the purpose of business (namely, to make a profit). It is structurally incapable of self-regulating to ensure the general health of the economy. With all humanitarian issues put to one side, a minimum wage helps to achieve that by helping the money to keep circulating in the way it needs to for a healthy functioning economy.
Healthy profitable businesses will help the economy more than govt interference. People working minimum wage jobs aren't victims of corporate greed they're just people working the best job they could get. They work a basic job for a basic level of pay. The govt doesn't need to make laws founded on emotion rather than reason. People have free will and are responsible for their own lives it's not the govt's job to save people from the consequences of their decisions.
And again, struggling people are going to use a pay increase to do things like keep the lights on, pay rent, buy groceries etc. they are not going to go out and buy luxury goods or nonessential items because they still won't have the fiscal resources to do so. If you want them to be better off then help them get a better job don't help them stay in a minimum wage job.
Ketara wrote: With regards to people saying that a higher minimum wage destroys ma and pa businesses, bankrupts firms, and results in $20 hamburgers, I would say that a Government can be inventive. Minimum wages do not need to be uniformly applied. It is possible to tie the need to pay a certain level of minimum wage to a business's value/profits/tax status/turnover. For example, if you tie a higher minimum wage to companies with a total turnover in excess of three million dollars, you immediately exclude all the ma & pa businesses from going bust. Companies larger than that usually generate more than enough profit to be able to absorb a minimal wage increase.
That is of course, purely a spurious example, but it should demonstrate how a higher minimum wage can be instituted in such a way so as to dodge the more negative consequences.
So you agree that a govt imposed higher minimum wage hurts small businesses but it's ok to force bigger businesses to pay higher wages for the same level of work because why? The amount of skill and work required for a minimum wage job is the same. Why is it ok for somebody to make $10/hr working for Bob's Burgers but somebody doing the same job for McDonald's should be paid $15/hr? It's the same job. The amount of profit McDonald's makes doesn't make sweeping the floor or making fries or taking out the trash any different than doing it for a mom and pop restaurant. Is your argument that we need to increase minimum wage in order to enact a punititive measure against big businesses? That's just another example of the govt arbitrarily picking winners and losers in the marketplace which is not a recipe for better economic health or stability.
Yes there are less jobs in some sectors but there are also more jobs in other sectors. Manufacturing/Industrial jobs have been declining in the US for decades. We don't have a market for buggy whips anymore but we do have a market for smart phone apps. Technology, employment sectors, the economy they all change as time goes by. The market will dictate where the jobs are much more efficiently and effectively than politicians.
That is a frankly, ridiculous statement/counterargument. 'It doesn't matter if you lose jobs, because there are always other jobs in other sectors'. If that were true, on any level, unemployment issues would be virtually non-existent. If a mine closes down in a town focused on mining, an equivalent number of phone shops and doctor positions with free training do not miraculously appear within the same town.
Quite simply, the above reasoning fails to take into account:
a) the distribution of jobs across specific geography,
b) the necessity for additional job training to switch career when your skill becomes obsolete,
c) the existence of towns/villages heavily dominated by a specific industry.
Yes, 'other jobs' do exist. But that does not mean they are anywhere near where the person lives, that the person is adequately trained for them, or that an equivalent number of jobs is magically created whenever mechanisation renders another batch of jobs obsolete. The job market is not self-replenishing at a set level.
Pushing children to only aspire for white collar jobs is a matter of personal preference but it's not a fault of the economy or the job sector,it's parenting.
No my friend, it's to do with realism. There aren't so many 'buggy whip' makers anymore, are there? So naturally, parents don't push for their kids to be Buggy Whip craftsmen. Likewise, parents no longer push their kids to be miners in towns with defunct mines, or work in non-existent factories. There's also the fact that white-collar professions have traditionally accrued the best pay and social status throughout the recent history of the world (the well paid plumber is a relatively recent innovation), so when there's a paucity of jobs in agriculture or industry, the natural way to try and make sure your kids are well off is to try and get a good education.
Ergo, you are correct that the parenting is the starting point for getting those kids moving in those directions, but the parents are driven to that decision by the job market and economy.
There are plenty of people out there who are perfectly happy encouraging their children to get jobs in trades and other well paying blue collar jobs. We agree that the market only needs so many hedge fudge managers, lawyers, stockbrokers etc. but you seem to believe that there is only a binary choice, get the nice high paying job or get stuck making minimum wage.
Read what I wrote. More specifically, the bit where I said: 'Not all of them(the jobs), but enough of them to have seriously hit the number of jobs available in those fields.
It's not 'white or nothing', but it has become, 'white collar jobs, minimum wage jobs, or a severely depleted pool of alternative jobs'.
There are plenty of opportunities beyond white collar jobs that are great jobs.
This is true. But not enough of them to accommodate every person who works in a minimum wage job or is unemployed. Hence the problem.
If you don't get a high paying job and your only alternative is a minimum wage job then you've made some serious errors in judgement in regards to your education and job skills. If you graduate college and can only find work in fast food or some similar service or retail sector job then the problem isn't the economy the problem is that you didn't do enough to better yourself while you were in college. A diploma doesn't guarantee a job. We agree that technology eliminates jobs but again that is true for job sectors not the overall economy. While some jobs are eliminated others are created and some, like trades, won't go away anytime soon.
I would firstly point to my first reply. 'Jobs' are not spread evenly across the country. Secondly, if (like my Uncle Ruben), you graduated with a degree in computing back in the days when computers were run with punch cards, your degree is now worthless. And your profession isn't exactly one that enables you to move sideways, or apply that knowledge somewhere else. You're basically someone who has no degree, in a nutshell. There are other examples of technical degrees becoming obsolete due to advancing technology. Thirdly, what about those who barely pass or fail or drop out of college? Debt? Check. No technical skills? Check. Worthless qualification? Check. For those people, it's minimum wage, or nothing.
The solution to the problem of only being able to get a minimum wage job is to better yourself not to get the govt to artificially inflate wages because you'd like more money.
The 'American Dream' is unrealistic and a big steaming pile of absolute rubbish.
I personally, am at the relative bottom end of the socio-economic scale. My family is exceedingly poor and I'm partially disabled. Through my own willpower and hard work, I'm currently putting myself through a PhD at one of the best Universities in the world whilst working full-time. I'm the perfect success story of 'bettering yourself', and you know something? I completely disagree with it. I look at my circumstances, and look at other people in the same position and worse, and realise that I got the lucky breaks many of them did not. I got a stable, loving family. I got a decent level of intelligence. I got born into a country where my university fees were subsidised, and I happen to live in a huge city with the job opportunities available to me that I use to pay my way.
Not everyone is so lucky as me.
That's demonstrably untrue, at least it is in the US. There are plenty of unfilled jobs they're just not jobs on Wall St. or in manufacturing etc.
That's grand. Are they unskilled jobs? Do they pay enough to allow people to do them whilst working to 'better' themselves? And most importantly, are there enough of them for everyone currently in a minimum wage job or unemployed to have one?
There's a difference between not getting the job you want and not being able to get a job.
You've clearly never lived in a deprived slum of an area where every minimum wage job has eighty applicants. Or even noticed that they exist.
I'm not working in a sector I had envisioned being in but after college I worked a lot of temp jobs, part time jobs and minimum wage jobs while I networked and got my foot in the door on a career path, got some additional certifications and education and got a good job.
Aren't you lucky to have gone to college, and lived in an area where those jobs were available, eh wot?
If too many people are setting unrealistic goals or making poor education choices that's not a fault of the economy.
Education? I'm presuming you got a decent one if you went to college. What about those kids who went to terrible schools? Or who never got to go to college or study, due to needing to support a relative? Or quite simply live in a town where there aren't enough jobs to give a good blue collar training and job to everyone who needs one?
Artificially setting wages only exacerbates the problem. If minimum wage jobs pay more than employers raise standards for who they hire making it harder for unskilled people to get minimum wage jobs not easier.
Wait, what? A minimum wage means that someone who's hiring someone to flip burgers suddenly demands all of his employees need a degree? That's some pretty weird (and ludicrous) reasoning there.
The reason service and retail sector employers don't raise wages much is because the pool of qualified applicants has always been vast. Most people are already qualified to work in fast food, retail stores, wait staff, etc. so there is enough competition that employers can find people willing to work for the wages offered. That's always been the case, working at Walmart is always going to pay less than more skilled jobs because being a stockist or cashier is something most people can do, if you're overqualified you can get a better job and they can get somebody else to take your place.
You're leaving out a vital step in the above. The reason service and retail sector employers don't raise wages, is because they are businesses focused on extracting as much money as cheaply as possible. And due to that pool of candidates (who you just mentioned), they know they don't have to.
Funny though, that huge pool of unqualified candidates desperate for any kind of paid employment, just lurking around there, not going anywhere. Almost makes you wonder why they don't just don their cloaks made from the American Flag, step out the door and better themselves! Laziness probably. Amirite?
We agree that slow circulation of money is bad for the economy and contributes to recessions. I don't think it's a certainty that not buying enough luxury goods causes a recession and if you want to increase the purchase of luxury goods you're not going to get from increasing minimum wage.
Anything that isn't an ;'essential good' is by definition a ;luxury good'. Once people have enough money to buy 'essential goods', they spend the rest on 'luxury goods'. They don't just put the excess cash it in the bath at home, and roll around in it, Scrooge McDuck style.
If you're making minimum wage and it's debatable on whether or not it's a living wage, especially in urban areas like SanFran then increasing minimum wage isn't going to impact a person's discretionary income.
...that's exactly what it does. If you need £20 to survive, and you earn £20, you have no spare money. If you earn £30, but still only need £20, you get to spend the rest elsewhere. On things like courses that allow you to switch professions, or even (heaven forbid), things you enjoy.
If you're struggling to survive the last thing you want to do is squander a pay increase on eating out more or buying more Starbucks coffee or GW models.
Precisely. Which is why a good minimum wage takes them out of 'struggling to survive' zone, and into the 'living comfortably with enough to pay the essentials and a little bit left over to spend' zone. Not sure what you're not seeing here. Earning more money = spending more money.
Instead of having the govt raise minimum wage to encourage struggling people and families to buy stuff they don't need and can't afford in the name of stimulating the economy we'd be better off if a person on minimum wage took the initiate to be fiscally responsible.
Ah, I see, it's the poor people's fault for being poor. Because they spend all the money on blackjack, hookers, and GW, right? That's why they're poor. Otherwise they'd have money! Foolish, silly, fiscally irresponsible poor people.
Buy a loaf of a bread, a jar of peanut butter and a half dozen apples, use that to make yourself lunch everyday instead of eating out, use other cost cutting habits to save up money, enroll in night classes at a community college or vocational school and try to acquire some job skills that will get him/her a better job. That way the person/family is actually better off in the end and not still working a minimum wage job but with a slightly higher paycheck.
But wait!
What if they're fiscally responsible AND poor!
That would mean...well, they wouldn't have the money to go to community college! Or have the spare time to attend them even if they did have the money! Horror of horrors!
Well, I suppose those nasty poor people are to blame. Being poor and all. It's just their fault for not working hard enough to better themselves. If they REALLY wanted to escape poverty and minimum wage jobs that barely pay enough to meet the essentials, they'd take up farming at night instead of sleeping or something. Amirite?
Recessions come from the boom and bust cycle and the booms come from bubbles. The most recent real estate bubble came from people using money from loans banks shouldn't have made to buy homes they couldn't afford and then losing their homes and crashing the market. Increasing minimum wage for the purpose of using the govt to spur discretionary spending on luxury good isn't a sound economic policy.
Recessions come from multiple areas and causes. But generally speaking, a downward spiralling recession is caused by people not spending money, and if it all sits in rich peoples bank accounts. nobody has money to spend.
Healthy profitable businesses will help the economy more than govt interference.
Whelp. In that case, we should all go on minimum wage! Just think about it, if everyone earns barely enough to feed themselves, and works for the glory of their employers, every businesses profits will skyrocket! And that will fix the economy!
People working minimum wage jobs aren't victims of corporate greed they're just people working the best job they could get. They work a basic job for a basic level of pay. The govt doesn't need to make laws founded on emotion rather than reason. People have free will and are responsible for their own lives it's not the govt's job to save people from the consequences of their decisions.
'Corporate greed' is a stupid phrase. It's a stupid thing to rail against, and an equally stupid thing to defend. Why? Because businesses make money. It's why they exist. Railing against that is silly. The only alternative is communism, and that's not currently practical.
The flip side of the coin is that unbridled capitalism is also silly. We have regulations on food labelling, medicines, and many other things for a reason. That reason is because if you give business too much free rein, it becomes counterproductive. You end up with people dying from medicines that don't do what they claim (because it's cheaper to deceive people than invent new medicines), slavery (because its cheaper to oppress people and enslave them than pay them), hi-tech weapons systems sold to nutters (because hey, everybody needs to make a profit), and so on.
There's a pendulum between too much government interference, and too little. People working for peanuts is a bad thing. It causes social unrest, it causes poverty and hardship, and it encourages people to look for less than legal ways of making money. The ideal citizen is one who earns enough to meet his essentials, pay his taxes, splash out on something once or twice a month (helping the money move around) and generally be a productive member of society.
Business, alas, does not have the same goals. The ideal employee is someone who works for next to nothing, but is trapped so they cannot leave (saves on retraining costs).
And again, struggling people are going to use a pay increase to do things like keep the lights on, pay rent, buy groceries etc. they are not going to go out and buy luxury goods or nonessential items because they still won't have the fiscal resources to do so. If you want them to be better off then help them get a better job don't help them stay in a minimum wage job.
By making the minimum wage higher, you enable them to have the money needed to pursue those other opportunities. That's kind of the point.
So you agree that a govt imposed higher minimum wage hurts small businesses but it's ok to force bigger businesses to pay higher wages for the same level of work because why?
Because they can. In the same way we make richer people pay more tax than poor people. Because they can. It's called social responsibility.
The amount of skill and work required for a minimum wage job is the same. Why is it ok for somebody to make $10/hr working for Bob's Burgers but somebody doing the same job for McDonald's should be paid $15/hr?
Because if I just put up the wages for everyone, Bobs Burgers goes out of business. We end up with one unemployed man, and one man making a decent wage at McDonalds. If we do it the other way, you end up with one man making a decent wage, and one still making a crap wage. Which isn't perfect, but is still better the final alternative: i.e. two people making a crap wage.
The amount of profit McDonald's makes doesn't make sweeping the floor or making fries or taking out the trash any different than doing it for a mom and pop restaurant. Is your argument that we need to increase minimum wage in order to enact a punititive measure against big businesses? That's just another example of the govt arbitrarily picking winners and losers in the marketplace which is not a recipe for better economic health or stability.
No, it's the government ensuring that more people are ideal citizens, and less ideal employees, which is healthier for society as a whole. Not to mention morally preferable. Otherwise, a millionaire should be paying the same level of tax as someone who is unemployed.
We mess with markets all the time. The free market is an illusion. The Government sets rules and restrictions, and as long as they're not untenable, the market adapts and persists. In my suggestion above, everyone but McDonalds wins. But their loss just equals them making slightly less profit. As long as they are still reasonably profitable, no real harm has been done to them, and with the additional money moving around the economy, they actually benefit from a more robust economic situation.
I personally think a higher minimum wage would be a net benefit for America, but I also readily concede I'm not an economist and that's just my gut feeling. Will we actually see rents double, and $20 hamburgers? Now we're going to find out for sure, 100%.
Well. $20 burger. Hmmm.
A McDouble is about $1.50. Calfornia's state-wide minimum wage is $9.00/hr. This means an increase of about to ~67%. Going back to that McDouble at $20 that's roughly an increase of 1950%. Now since the minimum wage only went up by 67% this means that increase of 1950% represents only 67% more than the original minimum-wage labor costs (assuming the company passes all those costs on to the customer. This means that the original minimum-wage labor costs for the burger were roughly 1168% the price of the burger.
In other words to get $20 McDoubles, the original minimum-wage labor cost for that McDouble would have to be roughly $17.50. (The new labor costs are around $30 for the $20 burger)
Now since all the McDouble ingredients are centrally produced and distributed we'll leave the pre-restaurant costs out of the equation here. That is we'll just assume the minimum-wage labor costs for the burger are entirely in the restaurant (employees in other parts of the chain are being payed more already). The time order-to-customer is ~3 minutes for that burger, maximum... maybe less.
Since we know the minimum wage ($9.00 - currently) and we know the minimum wage labor cost of the burger ($17.50) we can figure the man-hours put into that burger at the restaurant (about 1.9). Since we know the burger only takes 3 minutes to prep we can figure out how many employees are working on the burger. At 0.05 hours of prep time we can easily see it takes 38 workers to get your burger from the grill to your car. Though this should already be obvious, given the high quality of the product.
EDIT: Just your burger mind you. Since as I understand it a McDonalds employee can be working on 3-5 orders at once your burger actually only accounts for 30-20% of the workload of any given employee. Meaning the actual number of real people handling your burger in that 3 minute time window is somewhere between ~75-190. Amazing the number of folks they can fit back there.
No my friend, it's to do with realism. There aren't so many 'buggy whip' makers anymore, are there? So naturally, parents don't push for their kids to be Buggy Whip craftsmen.
And yet we have plenty of people getting Art History and philosophy degrees.......
Because those are useless apparently and no one can get a decent job with them. Nope, we can't study what we love. And it isn't like philosophy is used to help teacher people.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Because those are useless apparently and no one can get a decent job with them. Nope, we can't study what we love. And it isn't like philosophy is used to help teacher people.
They are functionally useless. The number of jobs one can get in the Art History or Philosophy fields is minuscule.
Used to "help teacher people?" I have no idea what that even means.
Auto correct strikes aga in.
It not like they can be archivists, painters, teachers or a myriadifferent of other things.
But nope, you must produce something tangible for a degree to be worth something
hotsauceman1 wrote: Auto correct strikes aga in.
It not like they can be archivists, painters, teachers or a myriadifferent of other things.
But nope, you must produce something tangible for a degree to be worth something
Lots of archivist positions where you are these days? Or maybe you're just unfamiliar with the definition of minuscule?
Please, list the myriad of other things. I'll wait.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Auto correct strikes aga in.
It not like they can be archivists, painters, teachers or a myriadifferent of other things.
But nope, you must produce something tangible for a degree to be worth something
Who are they going to teach, other people pursuing worthless degrees?
None of the positions you describe requires higher education. The problem isn't with people who want to be archivists or painters, but the fact that people are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on education in areas that provide very little return on investment. and then petitioning the government (of all entities) to forgive the debt they accrued through their own poor decisions.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Philosophy is extremely useful for learnING how people learn and logic is especially adept at that.
But continue to insult degrees you never took
I'm telling you, as someone that has one, that yes, it is.
They don't rank on some arbitrary list from 2010? Sweet. Really great research you're doing there. You cite wikipedia lately on a term paper, too?
Do you know why a philosophy degree might (and I stress might here) not be on your list? Because people that tend to get them GET LAW DEGREES. On its own, the degree is worthless.
And since Nuggz already said it well, I'll just repost:
The problem isn't with people who want to be archivists or painters, but the fact that people are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on education in areas that provide very little return on investment. and then petitioning the government (of all entities) to forgive the debt they accrued through their own poor decisions.
Well they beat out fine arts and Spanish majors, so they must be doing great!
Meanwhile, someone who works a construction job will be paid about the same wage, the difference is that they don't have over $100k in debt to pay off.
Meanwhile, someone who works a construction job will be paid about the same wage, the difference is that they don't have over $100k in debt to pay off.
This talk about whether a philosophy major is worthwhile is starting to send this thread terminally off topic. It started as a reasonable segue, but hasn't been for a bunch of posts. Bring it back to the topic at hand or stop discussing it in this thread please.
Raising the minimum wage is just a feel good circle jerk of an action liberals like to trumpet. It cannot actually ever accomplish what proponents claim it will because,
1) Only a small portion of workers are actually minimum wage earners. So the people being directly effected is minimal.
2) It increases the costs of everything, which means prices go up for everyone without a corresponding wage increase for everyone.
3) Wage and Prices are really just opposite sides of the same coin. When wages are increased, costs follow. So the only real effect is changing the numbers, value doesn't change. Bob the min wage worker isn't going to end up with increased purchasing power when minimum wage is increased. He'll instead have either reduced hours, increased cost of living, or both.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Because those are useless apparently and no one can get a decent job with them. Nope, we can't study what we love. And it isn't like philosophy is used to help teacher people.
Yes, they are useful. But only in very small numbers.
We also do not actually need some degrees to benefit from their field. We don't need very many artists, and the things which make you a great one aren't something you can be taught.
Its similar with philosophy.
The ideal solution would be to artificially stifle the number of people allowed to declare these very niche and largely superfluous majors. Most of the people getting them would be far more useful if they went to a trade school or another degree that is actually in demand.
An ideal society would have no more than maybe a third of its population get college degrees. The rest would be a mixture between unskilled labor and skilled trade school labor.
Of those who got a college degree, the bulk would be in areas like business, science, medicine, and technology. With no more than 10% being in areas like art, philosophy, and language combined(the main purpose of these few majors would be to maintain the teacher population to give the other 90% of the graduates a well rounded education)
Someone who gets a degree that isn't in demand deserves no pity when the only available position they're qualified for pays minimum wage.
In Yee Olde Dayes, if a person worked 9 hours a day, for 6 days a week, a person [Man, in historical context] could provide a home to raise their family in. Note that "lunch break" isn't included in that 9 hours.
In Ontario, Canada, minimum wage is $11 an hour. At 54 hours of work, given time and a half after 44, a person would gross $649.00 . After deductions, take home would be about $430 per week.
My mortgage, for the smallest house in a modest neighbourhood just outside of one of the poorest neighbourhoods in London, ON, is $1100 every 4 weeks. Property taxes amount to roughly $200 per month, utilities another 200 ish... Life and property insurances cost about 400... My family doesn't have food or clothing on their backs, and I can't even afford to keep a roof over their heads. $1500 a month / 4 weeks, and my take home would be $1720. Working "longer than average" hours for 6 days a week, and I'd have just over $200 to feed, clothe, entertain, provide school supplies, maintain my property, SAVE FOR A RAINY DAY...
It's not that minimum wage is low. The industrial revolution created a society in which a man could work a long week, and be unable to provide for a family. I'm grateful that I'm not in that situation, but in the days of yore, even an uneducated cave man could have a home that he owned, with reasonably nutritious food and decent possessions if he were willing to work for it. Current minimum wage doesn't allow a person to sustain reproduction. A basic human right is denied to such a person. A guy can't just wander off into the wild, clear some forest, and make a living. It's illegal. A man without land holdings MUST be employed by someone to acquire the necessities of life. Minimum wage doesn't allow that.
And when you where supporting a family, it wasnt in ideal conditions.
The war on povertyy is more like a managing problem, it can only be stifled, not eradicated. But throwing money at it and thinking "Well they are poor because they have no money, so lets give them money" Ignores Class based racism, how money is transfered from one generation to another an the very reason why they dont have money
Grey Templar wrote: 1) Only a small portion of workers are actually minimum wage earners. So the people being directly effected is minimal.
2) It increases the costs of everything, which means prices go up for everyone without a corresponding wage increase for everyone.
3) Wage and Prices are really just opposite sides of the same coin. When wages are increased, costs follow. So the only real effect is changing the numbers, value doesn't change. Bob the min wage worker isn't going to end up with increased purchasing power when minimum wage is increased. He'll instead have either reduced hours, increased cost of living, or both.
Isn't there a contradiction between #1 and the other two points? If few people are making minimum wage then how does it have such a huge effect on prices? You would think that if most employees are making above minimum wage then prices would primarily be determined by the cost of paying those above-minimum workers and not change very much. For example, if you increase the minimum wage by 25% then you aren't going to get a 25% increase in prices (unless the company just uses it as an excuse to raise prices and get more profit), so the purchasing power of the minimum wage worker does increase. The only way you'd get the kind of inflation you're talking about is if ALL wages increased simultaneously, rather than the increase closing the gap between the lowest and average wages.
The ideal solution would be to artificially stifle the number of people allowed to declare these very niche and largely superfluous majors. Most of the people getting them would be far more useful if they went to a trade school or another degree that is actually in demand.
You're assuming that "usefulness" consists entirely of how much money a degree will provide, and neglecting the value of education for its own sake. This is not a good assumption.
Being able to afford a family isn't a fundamental right.
Why shouldn't it be? Why should we have such a huge gap in wealth that large parts of society are unable to afford even basic things like having a family? It might not be a fundamental right in the same sense that not starving to death is a pretty fundamental right, but why should we consider it an acceptable situation?
Grey Templar wrote: I buy that poor tend to stay poor, but that has nothing to do with racism.
It has to do with racism when opposition to programs intended to help the poor (and help them get out of poverty) are opposed based on racist stereotypes about "welfare queens", "black people are lazy", etc, and racism makes it a lot easier to succeed and improve your life if you're white.
Grey Templar wrote: Raising the minimum wage is just a feel good circle jerk of an action liberals like to trumpet. It cannot actually ever accomplish what proponents claim it will because,
1) Only a small portion of workers are actually minimum wage earners. So the people being directly effected is minimal.
2) It increases the costs of everything, which means prices go up for everyone without a corresponding wage increase for everyone.
3) Wage and Prices are really just opposite sides of the same coin. When wages are increased, costs follow. So the only real effect is changing the numbers, value doesn't change. Bob the min wage worker isn't going to end up with increased purchasing power when minimum wage is increased. He'll instead have either reduced hours, increased cost of living, or both.
Being able to afford a family isn't a fundamental right.
"Class based racism"?
I don't buy that thats a thing. I buy that poor tend to stay poor, but that has nothing to do with racism.
EDIT: I mean seriously, you're presenting such an insane caricature of the "out of touch conservative" I can scarcely believe it's real. This is exactly the kind of thing someone would post if they were trying to make fun of your position through sarcasm, and that's something I know a thing or two about. Please oh please use the term "Bootstraps" it would so make my day.
greatbigtree wrote: In Yee Olde Dayes, if a person worked 9 hours a day, for 6 days a week, a person [Man, in historical context] could provide a home to raise their family in. Note that "lunch break" isn't included in that 9 hours.
In Ontario, Canada, minimum wage is $11 an hour. At 54 hours of work, given time and a half after 44, a person would gross $649.00 . After deductions, take home would be about $430 per week.
My mortgage, for the smallest house in a modest neighbourhood just outside of one of the poorest neighbourhoods in London, ON, is $1100 every 4 weeks. Property taxes amount to roughly $200 per month, utilities another 200 ish... Life and property insurances cost about 400... My family doesn't have food or clothing on their backs, and I can't even afford to keep a roof over their heads. $1500 a month / 4 weeks, and my take home would be $1720. Working "longer than average" hours for 6 days a week, and I'd have just over $200 to feed, clothe, entertain, provide school supplies, maintain my property, SAVE FOR A RAINY DAY...
So not only do you expect to own your own house earning minimum wage, but you also expect to be able to be the sole provider for a family?
It's not that minimum wage is low. The industrial revolution created a society in which a man could work a long week, and be unable to provide for a family. I'm grateful that I'm not in that situation, but in the days of yore, even an uneducated cave man could have a home that he owned, with reasonably nutritious food and decent possessions if he were willing to work for it. Current minimum wage doesn't allow a person to sustain reproduction. A basic human right is denied to such a person. A guy can't just wander off into the wild, clear some forest, and make a living. It's illegal. A man without land holdings MUST be employed by someone to acquire the necessities of life. Minimum wage doesn't allow that.
This isn't and has never been remotely true! Unless your "uneducated cave man" already owned the land and decided to build the house using his own hands and logs that he found in the woods, the VAST majority of the population in the 18th didn't own their own homes and if someone did what you claim they did, they would be hanged for poaching in the King's lands. Also that "reasonably nutritious food" of yours:
In Europe's preindustrial and overwhelmingly agricultural society, people did not in general live long lives. While there were exceptions, by our standards, life expectancy was appallingly low for most and almost inconceivable to a modern audience living in an advanced industrial society where longevity is constantly being revised upwards. Europe's impoverished past came to an end in the nineteenth century with the advent of the agricultural and industrial revolutions. But before then, a great deal of suffering had taken place as Europe, as a whole, was plagued by a very high rate of infant mortality that significantly reduced, statistically, overall life expectancy. Clearly many of the sad deaths from the European past were tied to poor nutrition and the apparent lack of key vitamins, substances that modern researchers would consider as absolutely critical for proper cell development and amino-acid synthesis. In fact, it could probably be argued that Europe's preindustrial era was beset by a constant avitaminosis of some kind or another.
Your entire post is full of fallacies... Do you know what happened to a man without land holdings that wasn't employed by someone else (and a non-skilled job paid much, much less in comparative terms, often payment for those types of jobs would just consist of food for the day), before the industrial age? He would literally starve to death!
You're assuming that "usefulness" consists entirely of how much money a degree will provide, and neglecting the value of education for its own sake. This is not a good assumption.
Why not? Education that has no practical application in society has no value to said society so why should we subsidise it?
Why shouldn't it be? Why should we have such a huge gap in wealth that large parts of society are unable to afford even basic things like having a family? It might not be a fundamental right in the same sense that not starving to death is a pretty fundamental right, but why should we consider it an acceptable situation?
Why should society subsidise the proliferation of people that don't contribute anything to it?
If an individual can't even support itself and its family then what are the chances that his descendants won't just continue the cycle? Why should society spend resources on those people?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Because those are useless apparently and no one can get a decent job with them. Nope, we can't study what we love. And it isn't like philosophy is used to help teacher people.
You can study whatever the hell you want. You can't however expect society to support you. You gotta earn Boy!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Auto correct strikes aga in.
It not like they can be archivists, painters, teachers or a myriadifferent of other things.
But nope, you must produce something tangible for a degree to be worth something
Having an art history degree is irrelevant to if you are a good house painter. Frankly I'd rather pay Jesus $15 an hour than you. Jose crossed thousands of miles to get here and will work three times as hard as you. You'll whine and fart around all day and leave paint stains on the carpet.
Because when you need a painter, you don't call Budha, you call Jesus.
No my friend, it's to do with realism. There aren't so many 'buggy whip' makers anymore, are there? So naturally, parents don't push for their kids to be Buggy Whip craftsmen.
And yet we have plenty of people getting Art History and philosophy degrees.......
Philosophy is a reasonably useful degree, insomuch as it teaches flexibility of thought. Let's be honest, any humanities based degree , from english literature to early modern history, has relatively few real world job applications. The graduates themselves tend to be prized though, because of the transferable skills that are picked up during the course of the degree. The degrees themselves are useful qualifications when chasing generic white collar jobs.
That is of course, assuming they have a good humanities degree from a decent university. If you went to Joe McSloan's local Degree Parlour to get your degree in Art History, you aren't going anywhere with it. Which is kind of the problem right now over here in the UK. The targeted goal of the last government was to get 50% of young people through and into University, and such a high number of graduates is unsustainable. You tend to find that your employability slots into tiers:
Oxbridge 1st:- Auto-employ more or less anywhere.
Russell Group 1st/Oxbridge upper second class:- Fits in nicely on any good graduate scheme for the big companies.
Russell Group upper second class/Plate Glass 1st:- Can get in on the good graduate schemes with a little hard work, can get into the 'meh' graduate schemes without too much effort.
[i]Plate Glass upper second class/1st from any remaining lower ranked university down to the sixties:- Can get into the 'meh' graduate schemes with a little hard work
All remaining lower ranked Universities at 2:1's (or even 1sts for the worst ones):- A struggle to get into the 'meh' graduate schemes.
(I know there are some few excellent Uni's that aren't technically Plate Glass or Russell Group - like Bath- but those are few, and I'm not including them due to keeping things simple)
As things stand, we have over 120 institutions here in the UK. If you got that Philosophy or Art History degree down to the 4th tier of the little chart I made there, you'll be fine employability wise. You're just as employable as if you took an engineering course. But when you get past that top thirty/forty institutions, and you start seeing people with 2:2 degrees in Philosophy from the University of Bolton, then it becomes worthless.
But that is an issue with the number of graduates and low quality Universities available, not the inherent employability qualities of the degree subject itself. Which is another topic altogether, really.
As things stand, we have over 120 institutions here in the UK. If you got that Philosophy or Art History degree down to the 4th tier of the little chart I made there, you'll be fine employability wise. You're just as employable as if you took an engineering course. But when you get past that top thirty/forty institutions, and you start seeing people with 2:2 degrees in Philosophy from the University of Bolton, then it becomes worthless.
Or is it what you're really saying is if you get into those schools you get a job, regardless of what you take.
Networks and alumnis matter.
As things stand, we have over 120 institutions here in the UK. If you got that Philosophy or Art History degree down to the 4th tier of the little chart I made there, you'll be fine employability wise. You're just as employable as if you took an engineering course. But when you get past that top thirty/forty institutions, and you start seeing people with 2:2 degrees in Philosophy from the University of Bolton, then it becomes worthless.
Or is it what you're really saying is if you get into those schools you get a job, regardless of what you take.
Networks and alumnis matter.
Alumnus and on-site networking isn't really so much a thing here beyond Oxbridge.
What you tend to find is that there's a very heavy corporate investment at the upper echelons (i.e., the Russell Group and equivalent quality), where the students have many opportunities presented to them. There are open days, small training courses, presentations, and help getting placements in the holidays. All the big companies, from the banks, to the big consultancy firms flood the places with their literature (when my girlfriend was the University of Warwick, it was literally left in their bedrooms upon arriving).
Meanwhile, at the Plate Glass and equivalents, the names are well enough respected, and the regard for the quality of their education and entrance standards is such that even without any real networking or professional affiliation, the degrees are inherently worthwhile.
Most of the Ex-Polytechnics though, simply don't have that level of respectability. When you accept people who got D's at A Level for degree courses, why should businesses look at your graduates when there are so many from far more discerning and competitive institutions? The oversupply simply enables them to weed out the lower echelon of candidates by University name alone.
I'd consider that networking and alumnis. Its the same thing for the IVY Leagues here. Go to one and their vast network will find you a job, whether you are worthy or not.
no, it's the hole where you conStanly berate college degrees you dont think are worthy. Like how you constantly insult Sociology
Now you're just making stuff up.
My sister-in-law is a social worker. My Mother-in-Law is a social worker. My wife is a teacher. I was a teacher. My aunt is a teacher. One cousin is a guidance counselor. Another is a Special Needs educator.
I've never, nor will I ever, insult service professions.
But please, keep making things up. It makes my day!
Grey Templar wrote: 1) Only a small portion of workers are actually minimum wage earners. So the people being directly effected is minimal.
2) It increases the costs of everything, which means prices go up for everyone without a corresponding wage increase for everyone.
3) Wage and Prices are really just opposite sides of the same coin. When wages are increased, costs follow. So the only real effect is changing the numbers, value doesn't change. Bob the min wage worker isn't going to end up with increased purchasing power when minimum wage is increased. He'll instead have either reduced hours, increased cost of living, or both.
Isn't there a contradiction between #1 and the other two points? If few people are making minimum wage then how does it have such a huge effect on prices? You would think that if most employees are making above minimum wage then prices would primarily be determined by the cost of paying those above-minimum workers and not change very much. For example, if you increase the minimum wage by 25% then you aren't going to get a 25% increase in prices (unless the company just uses it as an excuse to raise prices and get more profit), so the purchasing power of the minimum wage worker does increase. The only way you'd get the kind of inflation you're talking about is if ALL wages increased simultaneously, rather than the increase closing the gap between the lowest and average wages.
The ideal solution would be to artificially stifle the number of people allowed to declare these very niche and largely superfluous majors. Most of the people getting them would be far more useful if they went to a trade school or another degree that is actually in demand.
You're assuming that "usefulness" consists entirely of how much money a degree will provide, and neglecting the value of education for its own sake. This is not a good assumption.
1) no its not a contradiction. This is because everyone relies on services and products that are supported by minimum wage labor. Nothing works in isolation. And people whose wages did not increase actually lose purchasing power, because their wage doesn't increase but costs are.
2) education only has value if it provides something for society. Education for educations sake doesn't provide society anything except someonewho has received a product of society, but isn't producing an equivalent use. Another art major who will never use his degree just wasted a higher education slot someone else could have used. If only 1 in 10 recepiants of a degree use that degree, 9 out of 10 should have not received it.
hotsauceman1 wrote: You seem to get sociology mixed up with social work. You have said before sociology is a useless degree
I'm not mixing anything up. Pretty much the only practical fields one can get into with a sociology degree is social work/social services.
And I've said if you're going to get that degree, you better not be taking loans out for it, because the ROI on a sociology degree is one of the worst out there.
2) education only has value if it provides something for society. Education for educations sake doesn't provide society anything except someonewho has received a product of society, but isn't producing an equivalent use. Another art major who will never use his degree just wasted a higher education slot someone else could have used. If only 1 in 10 recepiants of a degree use that degree, 9 out of 10 should have not received it.
Pretty much.
We'd be in a much better position if student lending were risk based. Get that Art History degree, that's fine. But you shouldn't be lendable because the ROI simply isn't there for it.
feth HSM, I'd love to see social workers and teachers aids get 15/hr. Because a whole helluva lot of them don't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Or you could go into research like me. Social work isn't the only option.
And that, my friend, is where the degree is even less worth it fiscally.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Y'know...We have been down this endless rabbit hole before.
I got some vodka waiting for me and a midterm tommorow
The one where you don't know what you're talking about?
Is that the one?
Just want to be clear we're talking about the same rabbit hole.
Guys, c'mon, don't go down rabbit holes you're not equipped for it, that's totally a job for a dachshund.
no, it's the hole where you conStanly berate college degrees you dont think are worthy. Like how you constantly insult Sociology
@hotsauceman1
Look at my avatar... chillax my man.
These are constructive criticisms... dakkanaught's tough love man.
First and foremost, find something you love doing (or will love doing). All that's really been said is that going to college is an extremely expensive proposition, such that we're encouraging you to explore your desires and skillsets to find things you'd love doing.
Because, if you can't wake up and feel excited about going to work/school... then, imo, it's not worth it. Life's too short man.
Case in point.
Me and My ex went to school at the same time. Same school, different degrees.
Her: She got her undergrad in Elementary Teaching... then had to go to Grad School to get her Masters in order to finalize her Teaching Certificate. That was 6 years of school. (maybe 7... )
Me: I simply got my undergrad MIS (Master of Business in Information Systems) that only took me 4 years.
Her schooling cost nearly TWICE as much as mine did. And yet, I earn almost three times as much as she does as an elementary teacher.
Does that suck? Yeah... but, that's reality.
However, did it ever make her "unhappy"? Nope. She was fullfilling her desires in making an impact to those kids.
Me? I work in the IT field in one of the largest Healthcare organization in the Mid-West... and I feel like "I get to play at work". Because if my interests in the industry.
TL;DR: I get that you're sensitive to any criticism because I know you're putting in a lot of time and effort during your college years. Because, we all have great plans on what we want to do in life and are adverse to failing.
But, take it from the folks who've been through this and take heart. (whatever it may be).
TL;DR #2: If nothing else... here's my suggestions.
1) When all else possible, try taking night classes. The folks teaching these classes are much more likely the type of folks who has a day job in their industry and "teach" night class as a 2nd job. These teachers are invaluable as they can impart real-world knowledge of their industry. The "academia" type professors can only take you so far... you really need to be expose to "practical knowledge" as well.
2) If you're taking night classes, get a job during the day and try to make it close to your career choice. Having a "working" resume is absolutely crucial nowadays. Maybe even try volunteering to any of the "social work" charites in your area... those are great too.
3) Have a backup plan. I changed my degree 4 times.
I have come to terms that I'm not going to be driving Mercedes with my degree, but to hear people on this forum constantly berate my major, to say that it won't amount to anything is a pain because it is what I love. Yesterday I got sacked into an article about Foxconn factories because i loved it. I never feel as if I do think want to go to class.
But to hear people on this forum not only berate sociology, but many things people love to study is just annoying.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I have come to terms that I'm not going to be driving Mercedes with my degree, but to hear people on this forum constantly berate my major, to say that it won't amount to anything is a pain because it is what I love. Yesterday I got sacked into an article about Foxconn factories because i loved it. I never feel as if I do think want to go to class.
But to hear people on this forum not only berate sociology, but many things people love to study is just annoying.
Don't confuse noting the lack of economic prospects with attacking your degree.
Now we will attack your classes, professors, and everything else.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: You'll also note there are a lot of STEM types on here. Those evil STEMers like math and stuff. (lawyers just like enough math to calculate billable hours and bonuses...)
hotsauceman1 wrote: I have come to terms that I'm not going to be driving Mercedes with my degree, but to hear people on this forum constantly berate my major, to say that it won't amount to anything is a pain because it is what I love. Yesterday I got sacked into an article about Foxconn factories because i loved it. I never feel as if I do think want to go to class.
But to hear people on this forum not only berate sociology, but many things people love to study is just annoying.
Don't confuse noting the lack of economic prospects with attacking your degree.
Now we will attack your classes, professors, and everything else.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: You'll also note there are a lot of STEM types on here. Those evil STEMers like math and stuff. (lawyers just like enough math to calculate billable hours and bonuses...)
What are you looking to do with your degree FYI?
I'm hoping Sociological research. One of my favorite things is Race and gender and how the two interact
I'm hoping Sociological research. One of my favorite things is Race and gender and how the two interact
OK, pretend your tlaking to a neanderthal (which is factual in this case). What does that mean? What types of jobs are that? Note this is not an attack my boy is seriously considering being a professor so its not a criticism if thats an academic career. I literally don't know what you're referring to.
Easy E wrote: How do we expect decent hard-working people to exercise their right to bear arms if we don't provide a minimum wage high enough to buy firearms with?
Or, we could create a Federal program that hands-out guns to people in need. We could call it... the Army!
Aww heck, that's what Hi-Points are for. $140 will get you a 9MM pistol with a 10 round magazine. It's bulky, heavy, fugly and feels like pot-metal, but it comes with a lifetime warranty and goes bang when you pull the trigger.
Yes there are less jobs in some sectors but there are also more jobs in other sectors. Manufacturing/Industrial jobs have been declining in the US for decades. We don't have a market for buggy whips anymore but we do have a market for smart phone apps. Technology, employment sectors, the economy they all change as time goes by. The market will dictate where the jobs are much more efficiently and effectively than politicians.
That is a frankly, ridiculous statement/counterargument. 'It doesn't matter if you lose jobs, because there are always other jobs in other sectors'. If that were true, on any level, unemployment issues would be virtually non-existent. If a mine closes down in a town focused on mining, an equivalent number of phone shops and doctor positions with free training do not miraculously appear within the same town.
Quite simply, the above reasoning fails to take into account:
a) the distribution of jobs across specific geography,
b) the necessity for additional job training to switch career when your skill becomes obsolete,
c) the existence of towns/villages heavily dominated by a specific industry.
Yes, 'other jobs' do exist. But that does not mean they are anywhere near where the person lives, that the person is adequately trained for them, or that an equivalent number of jobs is magically created whenever mechanisation renders another batch of jobs obsolete. The job market is not self-replenishing at a set level.
The majority of people in the workforce have switched jobs at least once. There are plenty of companies that offer moving stipends to entice qualified applicants to relocate to where the job is located. Within my circle of friends, family, coworkers and business contacts I know people that moved here from Az, Ind, NY, NJ, PA, and Tenn in addition to people that emmigrated from Mexico, Venezuela, Canada and Japan. They all managed to get here and none of them are rich. Before I had finished elementary school my family had moved 5 times and we did it on a middle class income during a recession. Losing your job doesn't mean you'll never get a decent job again.
We've already closed down the majority of our mining towns and textile towns a long time ago. There's currently half as many people living in Detroit as there was 50 years ago because the car factories closed. The 700,000+ people that have moved out over the past decades aren't just wandering the earth jobless and forlorn.
Yes, if a person is an weak job applicant that managed to get a minimum wage job and that job goes away that person is in dire straits. However, that person was already in dire straits because they already had the pre-existing condition of lacking useful marketable skills. Even when that person had a low paying job he/she needed to upgrade their marketability in order to get a good paying job.
There are federal and state assistance programs, as well as private charities, that offer help to the destitute but that's a topic that is beyond the scope of minimum wage.
Prestor Jon wrote: ote]Pushing children to only aspire for white collar jobs is a matter of personal preference but it's not a fault of the economy or the job sector,it's parenting.
No my friend, it's to do with realism. There aren't so many 'buggy whip' makers anymore, are there? So naturally, parents don't push for their kids to be Buggy Whip craftsmen. Likewise, parents no longer push their kids to be miners in towns with defunct mines, or work in non-existent factories. There's also the fact that white-collar professions have traditionally accrued the best pay and social status throughout the recent history of the world (the well paid plumber is a relatively recent innovation), so when there's a paucity of jobs in agriculture or industry, the natural way to try and make sure your kids are well off is to try and get a good education.
Ergo, you are correct that the parenting is the starting point for getting those kids moving in those directions, but the parents are driven to that decision by the job market and economy.
If parents want to artificially limit the aspirations of their children that's bad parenting in my book. If you want to teach little Johnny that there's only a few jobs worth having then that's a personal choice on your part and can't be blamed on a nebulous entity like the economy.
So far our children have, at various times, expressed an interest in growing up to be a construction worker, a fireman, a lineman for the electric company, a landscaper, a farmer, a nurse, a veterinarian, a pizzeria owner, a mechanic, an ice cream parlor owner, an archaeologist, a stablehand, a faerie and a zombie slayer. Among that list there are only 3 jobs that aren't currently held by people we know. As parents my wife and I would be happy if our kids grew up to be any of those things, well except for the last two that would be weird, or something completely different. There's a plethora of jobs that aren't "white collar" and provide a nice living. Most people we know aren't white collar and they're content.
Prestor Jon wrote: There are plenty of people out there who are perfectly happy encouraging their children to get jobs in trades and other well paying blue collar jobs. We agree that the market only needs so many hedge fudge managers, lawyers, stockbrokers etc. but you seem to believe that there is only a binary choice, get the nice high paying job or get stuck making minimum wage.
Read what I wrote. More specifically, the bit where I said: 'Not all of them(the jobs), but enough of them to have seriously hit the number of jobs available in those fields.
It's not 'white or nothing', but it has become, 'white collar jobs, minimum wage jobs, or a severely depleted pool of alternative jobs'.
Obviously, I have no idea what the job market is like where you live but where I live in NC there are plenty of job opportunities that aren't white collar jobs. It may seem like there are already plenty of tradesmen out there but trust me, you start going through them and you'll realize that there's never enough good ones to go around. I realize that not everyone wants to go to vocational school or learn a trade (and we don't need everybody to) but we are nowhere near to exhausting the opportunities in those fields.
Prestor Jon wrote: There are plenty of opportunities beyond white collar jobs that are great jobs.
This is true. But not enough of them to accommodate every person who works in a minimum wage job or is unemployed. Hence the problem.
Not exactly. While it's unlikely that there are enough higher payer jobs to absorb all of the people working minimum wage jobs or are unemployed, would those people have the desire or qualifications to get those jobs even if there were enough openings? It would be interesting to see data on just how many apprenticeship programs and entry level openings there are in trades and similar jobs and gauge the interest in them among the people working minimum wage jobs. Trades like welders and pipe fitters struggle to find people and both pay good money.
Unfortunately for people who work minimum wage jobs those jobs often don't require the employees to learn a lot of marketable skills on the job. Putting in years of work in a minimum wage job and still not being able to transition to a better job is the key problem. Instead of being a stepping stone it traps you in a holding pattern. I know people who worked the floor, then became a shift supervisor, key holder, assistant manger, finally store manager or district manager but that's a long road, not easy and not common. Increasing the minimum wage doesn't help people transition to a better job it just makes it easier to live on a minimum wage job but people shouldn't be aspiring to work a minimum wage job for decades.
Prestor Jon wrote: If you don't get a high paying job and your only alternative is a minimum wage job then you've made some serious errors in judgement in regards to your education and job skills. If you graduate college and can only find work in fast food or some similar service or retail sector job then the problem isn't the economy the problem is that you didn't do enough to better yourself while you were in college. A diploma doesn't guarantee a job. We agree that technology eliminates jobs but again that is true for job sectors not the overall economy. While some jobs are eliminated others are created and some, like trades, won't go away anytime soon.
I would firstly point to my first reply. 'Jobs' are not spread evenly across the country. Secondly, if (like my Uncle Ruben), you graduated with a degree in computing back in the days when computers were run with punch cards, your degree is now worthless. And your profession isn't exactly one that enables you to move sideways, or apply that knowledge somewhere else. You're basically someone who has no degree, in a nutshell. There are other examples of technical degrees becoming obsolete due to advancing technology. Thirdly, what about those who barely pass or fail or drop out of college? Debt? Check. No technical skills? Check. Worthless qualification? Check. For those people, it's minimum wage, or nothing.
I have an Uncle Bryan who got a computing degree in the punch card days, true story I swear on my kids. The first company he worked for got bought out and instead of using his buyout money to go back to school or going to work for another company started by his coworkers he decided to use it for travelling money and take an extended vacation. Not a great decision on his part.
There are lots of jobs that require people to maintain licenses, certifications, etc. and pretty much every job is subject to changes and innovations over time. Some companies will cover some or all of the costs incurred by their employees to stay current, some companies don't. I know plenty of people who have either saved up, taken out a loan or gotten money from their employer to take classes to get degrees or certifications that would enhance their job security, get them a raise or help them get a better job.
We're going to keep making technological progress and it's going to continue to affect the job market. That is nothing new and people can handle it. Do you think the state has a greater responsibility for our uncles' job security than they do to themselves?
Prestor Jon wrote: The solution to the problem of only being able to get a minimum wage job is to better yourself not to get the govt to artificially inflate wages because you'd like more money.
The 'American Dream' is unrealistic and a big steaming pile of absolute rubbish.
I personally, am at the relative bottom end of the socio-economic scale. My family is exceedingly poor and I'm partially disabled. Through my own willpower and hard work, I'm currently putting myself through a PhD at one of the best Universities in the world whilst working full-time. I'm the perfect success story of 'bettering yourself', and you know something? I completely disagree with it. I look at my circumstances, and look at other people in the same position and worse, and realise that I got the lucky breaks many of them did not. I got a stable, loving family. I got a decent level of intelligence. I got born into a country where my university fees were subsidised, and I happen to live in a huge city with the job opportunities available to me that I use to pay my way.
Not everyone is so lucky as me.
Wow. You mad bro? You must have some pretty sweet rock skipping skills to want to throw stones across the pond.
I have several friends and coworkers who have achieved the "American Dream." It exists and it is achievable. My friend who's a few years younger than me grew up poor in a bad part of Pittsburgh with his mother raising him and his brothers alone because his dad skipped out on them. They struggled to pay the bills each month and at times had to go weeks without electricity. Before he finished high school he had started working on construction sites as a general helper and cleaning up. After graduating high school he went to work for a construction company, worked his way up over the years to be a job superintendent and a few years back got his General Contractor license, started his own company, hired his brothers and now does millions of dollars of work each year bringing home more money than me.
Another friend of mine comes from a dysfunctional family situation that had done emotional and financial harm to him. He enlisted in the army after high school, served in Afghanistan, come back, got a job with a maintenance company and over the last couple years took classes at night and on vacation time to become a certified HVAC technician and get a very nice job with a national corporation.
One of my coworkers emmigrated here from Puerto Rico and English is his second language. He's been working for our company for years, he's #2 in his dept and years ago had saved up enough money to open up his own auto repair shop with a couple of employees and he puts in extra hours there. He makes a nice living, supports his family and is very happy.
The American Dream isn't easy because it's based on hard work, which is hard. It's not impossible. Not everyone is as successful as they want to be for a variety of reasons but it's certainly possible to better yourself. Go to any town or city in America and talk to people and you'll find that lots of them are employed, happy and got to where they are through committed, responsible, hard work.
What you consider luck isn't really luck. Yes, we don't get to choose our parents but our parents aren't good, stable, loving parents by cosmic benevolence. They make a conscious choice to the tough work of parenting and making their relationship work. I speak from experience on that but you can ask anyone on Dakka that's a parent. It has a lot of fun moments and is very rewarding but parenting is also hard work. We can't choose our genes either but healthy intelligent people will reproduce healthy intelligent children the majority of the time. Yes, children can be born with mental or physical issues even with healthy parents but good parents can also mitigate or overcome those issues. Same with education subsidies, it's not like you kicked over a rock in the yard and found education subsidies. People in societies like the UK and US made a conscious decision to value education, to work hard to earn money to pay taxes to the state so that the state can provide assistance for people to get an education, better themselves and society in the process. Plenty of other nations/societies don't value education the same way. While we don't get to choose the soceity we're born into the fact that western civilization values education isn't a product of happenstance. The point is that while we are all unique individuals the families and societies into which we are born are not so rare as to not be replicated in a sustainable way because they are the product of choices and actions of others. I had good parents who valued educations, I can follow their example and be a good parent who values education, my children can grow up to be good parents who value educations etc. That's not random chance or luck.
Prestor Jon wrote: That's demonstrably untrue, at least it is in the US. There are plenty of unfilled jobs they're just not jobs on Wall St. or in manufacturing etc.
That's grand. Are they unskilled jobs? Do they pay enough to allow people to do them whilst working to 'better' themselves? And most importantly, are there enough of them for everyone currently in a minimum wage job or unemployed to have one?
There's a difference between not getting the job you want and not being able to get a job.
You've clearly never lived in a deprived slum of an area where every minimum wage job has eighty applicants. Or even noticed that they exist.
I don't want to lower the level of discourse here so I'm just going to say that you shouldn't worry, I make sure to schedule the time I spend volunteering in my community to allow me enough time to polish my monocle and attend yacht christenings.
Prestor Jon wrote: I'm not working in a sector I had envisioned being in but after college I worked a lot of temp jobs, part time jobs and minimum wage jobs while I networked and got my foot in the door on a career path, got some additional certifications and education and got a good job.
Aren't you lucky to have gone to college, and lived in an area where those jobs were available, eh wot?
Again, I don't consider it random chance that I was raised by parents who worked hard to make me take school seriously, want to better myself with higher education, and worked hard and sacrificed to provide me with the opportunity to attain a degree without piling up a crippling amount of debt. I am a product of my upbringing, not everyone had the same kind of childhood but since that's completely outside of my control and not my responsibility anyway I fail to see why I should feel guilty about it.
Prestor Jon wrote: If too many people are setting unrealistic goals or making poor education choices that's not a fault of the economy.
Education? I'm presuming you got a decent one if you went to college. What about those kids who went to terrible schools? Or who never got to go to college or study, due to needing to support a relative? Or quite simply live in a town where there aren't enough jobs to give a good blue collar training and job to everyone who needs one?
Raising minimum wage doesn't do anything to fix bad schools or a flawed public education system. I don't understand your point about people who support relatives instead of going to college. If by supporting you mean working a job to earn money to support them financially then they already have a job that pays well enough to support at least 2 people so they're doing pretty good. Not every job needs a college degree and once you have a job it's easier to acquire more skills or transistion to a better job. If you find yourself in a town that has full employment and excess people then I suggest you look for a job in a neighboring town. I personally drive a 45-60 minute commute of 36 miles each way to get to work in the next county over from our house. If you are physically trapped in a town with literally no jobs available and you can't afford public transportation and you don't own a car and you don't have any job skills then yeah, you're probably not going to find a job. There are govt assistance programs for people like that and if that person is properly motivated he/she can use those programs to find a job.
Prestor Jon wrote: Artificially setting wages only exacerbates the problem. If minimum wage jobs pay more than employers raise standards for who they hire making it harder for unskilled people to get minimum wage jobs not easier.
Wait, what? A minimum wage means that someone who's hiring someone to flip burgers suddenly demands all of his employees need a degree? That's some pretty weird (and ludicrous) reasoning there.
It's pretty weird (and ludicrous) that you chose to refute a claim I never made. Did I say a higher minimum wage will require applicants to have a college degree? No I didn't. Take the SanFran example, current minimum wage $10.77, annual salary for a full time employee $ 21,540 the increased minimum wage in 2018 $15/hr for an annual salary of $30,000. The higher salary is a bigger investment in the employee by the employer and makes the job more attractive to a wider pool of applicants. Take three applicants, a high school dropout, a high school graduate and a high school graduate who's currently a part time student at a local community college. Which ones are interested in earning $21k a year? Which ones are interested in earning $30k a year? Which one would you hire for $30k a year? See how the higher minimum wage makes it harder for the weakest applicants to get jobs?
Prestor Jon wrote: The reason service and retail sector employers don't raise wages much is because the pool of qualified applicants has always been vast. Most people are already qualified to work in fast food, retail stores, wait staff, etc. so there is enough competition that employers can find people willing to work for the wages offered. That's always been the case, working at Walmart is always going to pay less than more skilled jobs because being a stockist or cashier is something most people can do, if you're overqualified you can get a better job and they can get somebody else to take your place.
You're leaving out a vital step in the above. The reason service and retail sector employers don't raise wages, is because they are businesses focused on extracting as much money as cheaply as possible. And due to that pool of candidates (who you just mentioned), they know they don't have to.
Funny though, that huge pool of unqualified candidates desperate for any kind of paid employment, just lurking around there, not going anywhere. Almost makes you wonder why they don't just don their cloaks made from the American Flag, step out the door and better themselves! Laziness probably. Amirite?
I'm pretty sure that my explanation of how service sector employers don't have to raise wages because they have a large pool of applicants competing for job openings covers the concept that they don't want to pay more than they need to in order to get the jobs filled.
I'm not sure what it's like where you are but when I was working service sector jobs (I didn't earn more than $10/hr until I was in my late 20's) the majority of my coworkers were students and people who didn't plan on making working food service or retail a career. Most people I met viewed minimum wage jobs as either part time work or a stepping stone.
Prestor Jon wrote: We agree that slow circulation of money is bad for the economy and contributes to recessions. I don't think it's a certainty that not buying enough luxury goods causes a recession and if you want to increase the purchase of luxury goods you're not going to get from increasing minimum wage.
Anything that isn't an ;'essential good' is by definition a ;luxury good'. Once people have enough money to buy 'essential goods', they spend the rest on 'luxury goods'. They don't just put the excess cash it in the bath at home, and roll around in it, Scrooge McDuck style.
Again, I don't know how people behave in your neck of the woods but in the US we actually changed from a negative savings rate to actual having people saving money by the end of the recession that started in '08-09. Maybe people are also swimming in it like Scrooge McDuck, I doubt it since Duck Tales reruns don't get much airtime these days. My point still stands, people subsisting on minimum wage don't have enough money left over after their essential spending to buy enough luxury goods to guarantee economic growth and stability. Raising wages raises prices which reduces any increase in buying power achieved through wage increases and people making minimum wage would be better off saving money to help them acquire more marketable skills and to have in case of unexpected emergencies.
Prestor Jon wrote: If you're making minimum wage and it's debatable on whether or not it's a living wage, especially in urban areas like SanFran then increasing minimum wage isn't going to impact a person's discretionary income.
...that's exactly what it does. If you need £20 to survive, and you earn £20, you have no spare money. If you earn £30, but still only need £20, you get to spend the rest elsewhere. On things like courses that allow you to switch professions, or even (heaven forbid), things you enjoy.
Raising wages raises prices and people barely getting by should have other spending priorities than hedonism.
Prestor Jon wrote: ]If you're struggling to survive the last thing you want to do is squander a pay increase on eating out more or buying more Starbucks coffee or GW models.
Precisely. Which is why a good minimum wage takes them out of 'struggling to survive' zone, and into the 'living comfortably with enough to pay the essentials and a little bit left over to spend' zone. Not sure what you're not seeing here. Earning more money = spending more money.
If you're working minimum wage and get a small pay increase it's not in your best interests to run out and spend it all. It's not going to give you much more buying power anyway.
Prestor Jon wrote: Instead of having the govt raise minimum wage to encourage struggling people and families to buy stuff they don't need and can't afford in the name of stimulating the economy we'd be better off if a person on minimum wage took the initiate to be fiscally responsible.
Ah, I see, it's the poor people's fault for being poor. Because they spend all the money on blackjack, hookers, and GW, right? That's why they're poor. Otherwise they'd have money! Foolish, silly, fiscally irresponsible poor people.
Why are poor people poor? How should people earning a low income prioritize their spending? If people are going to break out of a cycle of poverty they have to change the behaviors that keep them in a cycle of poverty. I fail to see why you want to encourage poor people to spend all their money, that'snot going to help their situation.
Prestor Jon wrote: Buy a loaf of a bread, a jar of peanut butter and a half dozen apples, use that to make yourself lunch everyday instead of eating out, use other cost cutting habits to save up money, enroll in night classes at a community college or vocational school and try to acquire some job skills that will get him/her a better job. That way the person/family is actually better off in the end and not still working a minimum wage job but with a slightly higher paycheck.
But wait!
What if they're fiscally responsible AND poor!
That would mean...well, they wouldn't have the money to go to community college! Or have the spare time to attend them even if they did have the money! Horror of horrors!
Well, I suppose those nasty poor people are to blame. Being poor and all. It's just their fault for not working hard enough to better themselves. If they REALLY wanted to escape poverty and minimum wage jobs that barely pay enough to meet the essentials, they'd take up farming at night instead of sleeping or something. Amirite?
The govt awards billions of dollars of student loans every year and colleges have a variety of financial aid options and course schedules. The majority of college graduates I know paid for school with loans. If they're fiscally responsible and employed they should be able to work their way into a better financial situation. That's the benefit of being fiscally responsible.
You seem to have a low opinion of the abilities of the working poor. They're working, they have opportunities to improve themselves and many of them take advantage of them and improve their job prospects and careers. You seem to believe that poor people can't help themselves and need the govt to save them. Govt dependency isn't going to help their job prospects either.
Prestor Jon wrote: ]Recessions come from the boom and bust cycle and the booms come from bubbles. The most recent real estate bubble came from people using money from loans banks shouldn't have made to buy homes they couldn't afford and then losing their homes and crashing the market. Increasing minimum wage for the purpose of using the govt to spur discretionary spending on luxury good isn't a sound economic policy.
Recessions come from multiple areas and causes. But generally speaking, a downward spiralling recession is caused by people not spending money, and if it all sits in rich peoples bank accounts. nobody has money to spend.
People spending within their means is a good thing. Yes it leads to a contraction but it also avoids credit bubbles and debt. If you think the economy is in recession because rich people aren't spending money then you should try to encourage them to spend more. Having the state force employers to pay minimum wage employees an additional dollar an hour isn't going to offset rich people sitting on billions of dollars.
If it all the economy needs is people spending money then why did people spending credit they couldn't repay crash the economy in the first place?
Prestor Jon wrote: Healthy profitable businesses will help the economy more than govt interference.
Whelp. In that case, we should all go on minimum wage! Just think about it, if everyone earns barely enough to feed themselves, and works for the glory of their employers, every businesses profits will skyrocket! And that will fix the economy!
I'm not sure why you don't realize that a healthy company is providing goods and services to consumers. No company makes a profit simply by cutting labor costs, they need to actually move product or provide services. If companies have enough customers to fluorish then that means lots of people are buying goods and services which creates and secures jobs. That's good for the economy. Companies are in business to serve customers not to screw over their employees.
Prestor Jon wrote: ]People working minimum wage jobs aren't victims of corporate greed they're just people working the best job they could get. They work a basic job for a basic level of pay. The govt doesn't need to make laws founded on emotion rather than reason. People have free will and are responsible for their own lives it's not the govt's job to save people from the consequences of their decisions.
'Corporate greed' is a stupid phrase. It's a stupid thing to rail against, and an equally stupid thing to defend. Why? Because businesses make money. It's why they exist. Railing against that is silly. The only alternative is communism, and that's not currently practical.
The flip side of the coin is that unbridled capitalism is also silly. We have regulations on food labelling, medicines, and many other things for a reason. That reason is because if you give business too much free rein, it becomes counterproductive. You end up with people dying from medicines that don't do what they claim (because it's cheaper to deceive people than invent new medicines), slavery (because its cheaper to oppress people and enslave them than pay them), hi-tech weapons systems sold to nutters (because hey, everybody needs to make a profit), and so on.
There's a pendulum between too much government interference, and too little. People working for peanuts is a bad thing. It causes social unrest, it causes poverty and hardship, and it encourages people to look for less than legal ways of making money. The ideal citizen is one who earns enough to meet his essentials, pay his taxes, splash out on something once or twice a month (helping the money move around) and generally be a productive member of society.
Business, alas, does not have the same goals. The ideal employee is someone who works for next to nothing, but is trapped so they cannot leave (saves on retraining costs).
We both agree that businesses want to make money and that govt needs to provide a certain amount of regulation to ensure a fair market wherein everyone plays by a known set of rules. We're not going to agree on how much regulation is necessary for each given industry etc.
Prestor Jon wrote: And again, struggling people are going to use a pay increase to do things like keep the lights on, pay rent, buy groceries etc. they are not going to go out and buy luxury goods or nonessential items because they still won't have the fiscal resources to do so. If you want them to be better off then help them get a better job don't help them stay in a minimum wage job.
By making the minimum wage higher, you enable them to have the money needed to pursue those other opportunities. That's kind of the point.
Are you raising the minimum wage to provide more resources to get a better job (there's better ways to do that) or are you increasing the minimum wage to allow more people to continue to work minimum wage jobs without having to make fiscal sacrifices? If people can live the life they want on a minimum wage job, why would they be determined to move on from on?
Prestor Jon wrote: ]So you agree that a govt imposed higher minimum wage hurts small businesses but it's ok to force bigger businesses to pay higher wages for the same level of work because why?
Because they can. In the same way we make richer people pay more tax than poor people. Because they can. It's called social responsibility.
Rich people would pay more taxes than poor people even if everyone paid the same flat rate. We are going to strongly disagree on the definition of a person's social responsibilities. It's not really on topic so I'm not going to expound on it. Suffice it to say I don't feel responsible for the decisions of others and I make a significant contribution to society by making sure that I take care of myself and my family beyond which my social responsibilities don't extend much.
Prestor Jon wrote: The amount of skill and work required for a minimum wage job is the same. Why is it ok for somebody to make $10/hr working for Bob's Burgers but somebody doing the same job for McDonald's should be paid $15/hr?
Because if I just put up the wages for everyone, Bobs Burgers goes out of business. We end up with one unemployed man, and one man making a decent wage at McDonalds. If we do it the other way, you end up with one man making a decent wage, and one still making a crap wage. Which isn't perfect, but is still better the final alternative: i.e. two people making a crap wage.
We disagree on the relative merits of your chosen alternatives.
Prestor Jon wrote: ]The amount of profit McDonald's makes doesn't make sweeping the floor or making fries or taking out the trash any different than doing it for a mom and pop restaurant. Is your argument that we need to increase minimum wage in order to enact a punititive measure against big businesses? That's just another example of the govt arbitrarily picking winners and losers in the marketplace which is not a recipe for better economic health or stability.
No, it's the government ensuring that more people are ideal citizens, and less ideal employees, which is healthier for society as a whole. Not to mention morally preferable. Otherwise, a millionaire should be paying the same level of tax as someone who is unemployed.
We mess with markets all the time. The free market is an illusion. The Government sets rules and restrictions, and as long as they're not untenable, the market adapts and persists. In my suggestion above, everyone but McDonalds wins. But their loss just equals them making slightly less profit. As long as they are still reasonably profitable, no real harm has been done to them, and with the additional money moving around the economy, they actually benefit from a more robust economic situation.
We agree that the govt interferes in markets all the time. I believe the govt interferes too much and less interference would be better. You believe the govt should interfer more. Considering that our economy is far from perfect with an already high level of interference I don't see how we fix it with even more.
*I don't know where I messed up the quotes if a mod wants to fix it go for it. Never mind I pulled it up by it's bootstraps.
Easy E wrote: How do we expect decent hard-working people to exercise their right to bear arms if we don't provide a minimum wage high enough to buy firearms with?
Or, we could create a Federal program that hands-out guns to people in need. We could call it... the Army!
Aww heck, that's what Hi-Points are for. $140 will get you a 9MM pistol with a 10 round magazine. It's bulky, heavy, fugly and feels like pot-metal, but it comes with a lifetime warranty and goes bang when you pull the trigger.
If you can save up $140 you can wait a few more months, keep saving and buy a Glock. C'mon man, friends don't let friends own high points.
The majority of people in the workforce have switched jobs at least once. There are plenty of companies that offer moving stipends to entice qualified applicants to relocate to where the job is located. Within my circle of friends, family, coworkers and business contacts I know people that moved here from Az, Ind, NY, NJ, PA, and Tenn in addition to people that emmigrated from Mexico, Venezuela, Canada and Japan. They all managed to get here and none of them are rich. Before I had finished elementary school my family had moved 5 times and we did it on a middle class income during a recession. Losing your job doesn't mean you'll never get a decent job again.
We've already closed down the majority of our mining towns and textile towns a long time ago. There's currently half as many people living in Detroit as there was 50 years ago because the car factories closed. The 700,000+ people that have moved out over the past decades aren't just wandering the earth jobless and forlorn.
Yes, if a person is an weak job applicant that managed to get a minimum wage job and that job goes away that person is in dire straits. However, that person was already in dire straits because they already had the pre-existing condition of lacking useful marketable skills. Even when that person had a low paying job he/she needed to upgrade their marketability in order to get a good paying job.
There are federal and state assistance programs, as well as private charities, that offer help to the destitute but that's a topic that is beyond the scope of minimum wage.
Stop. Rewind.
My original statement was that there are no longer as many jobs in industry/agriculture as there once were, and that increasing mechanisation has diminished the total number of jobs available (relative to the population size). You rebutted that it didn't matter if jobs were lost, because 'Yes there are less jobs in some sectors but there are also more jobs in other sectors.
My counterpoint was that a job is not magically created every time one was lost, and even if it was, geographical issues, industry reliant areas, and non-transferable skillsets would mean that not every person who lost a job due to that mechanisation would necessarily be able to find another one. The implication/relevance being that they would end up working minimum wage/finding it hard to even get a job, through no fault of their own.
Responding that, 'Well, people move areas for jobs all the time' does not contradict me. It does not counterbalance my original point of the jobs pool being generally diminished overall. Yes, some people have the funds/contacts/skillsets to be able to switch. Many do not. It is them I am focusing on, and they who are relevant to this discussion.
Spoiler:
If parents want to artificially limit the aspirations of their children that's bad parenting in my book. If you want to teach little Johnny that there's only a few jobs worth having then that's a personal choice on your part and can't be blamed on a nebulous entity like the economy.
So far our children have, at various times, expressed an interest in growing up to be a construction worker, a fireman, a lineman for the electric company, a landscaper, a farmer, a nurse, a veterinarian, a pizzeria owner, a mechanic, an ice cream parlor owner, an archaeologist, a stablehand, a faerie and a zombie slayer. Among that list there are only 3 jobs that aren't currently held by people we know. As parents my wife and I would be happy if our kids grew up to be any of those things, well except for the last two that would be weird, or something completely different. There's a plethora of jobs that aren't "white collar" and provide a nice living. Most people we know aren't white collar and they're content.
Stop. Rewind.
My argument is that parents are driven to push their kids to white collar jobs because there are less available good jobs in the blue-collar sector compared to the previous few centuries due to mechanisation. That is an economics issue. Pushing your kids to the sectors where good work is most available (the white collar sector), is not bad parenting. It is attempting to give them better odds of increased wage/social status/employability. The motivation for them doing this however, originates with economics. Which is my point.
You may tell your children to be zombie slayers, but your motivation for that is undoubtedly less based on economics. If you equate the two together, it may explain why you have difficulty comprehending other people's parenting motivations.
Spoiler:
Obviously, I have no idea what the job market is like where you live but where I live in NC there are plenty of job opportunities that aren't white collar jobs. It may seem like there are already plenty of tradesmen out there but trust me, you start going through them and you'll realize that there's never enough good ones to go around. I realize that not everyone wants to go to vocational school or learn a trade (and we don't need everybody to) but we are nowhere near to exhausting the opportunities in those fields.
Ketara wrote:This is true. But not enough of them to accommodate every person who works in a minimum wage job or is unemployed. Hence the problem.
Spoiler:
PrestorJohn wrote:Not exactly. While it's unlikely that there are enough higher payer jobs to absorb all of the people working minimum wage jobs or are unemployed, would those people have the desire or qualifications to get those jobs even if there were enough openings? It would be interesting to see data on just how many apprenticeship programs and entry level openings there are in trades and similar jobs and gauge the interest in them among the people working minimum wage jobs. Trades like welders and pipe fitters struggle to find people and both pay good money.
So you concur that there are not enough of these jobs available for every person on minimum wage or unemployed? That's the sole point of contention here. If so, the logical follow up point is, 'Are there enough for every unemployed person, and every person trapped in a minimum wage job?'
Spoiler:
PrestonJohn wrote:Unfortunately for people who work minimum wage jobs those jobs often don't require the employees to learn a lot of marketable skills on the job. Putting in years of work in a minimum wage job and still not being able to transition to a better job is the key problem. Instead of being a stepping stone it traps you in a holding pattern. I know people who worked the floor, then became a shift supervisor, key holder, assistant manger, finally store manager or district manager but that's a long road, not easy and not common. Increasing the minimum wage doesn't help people transition to a better job it just makes it easier to live on a minimum wage job but people shouldn't be aspiring to work a minimum wage job for decades.
I agree with all of this except the bizare idea that people trapped in a minimum wage job 'aspire' to work there. And it all proves my point, namely, that people get stuck in minimum wage jobs and are not able to extricate themselves into a nice little blue collar job. They simply do not have the time, tools, or money to do anything except be trapped in that job.
Spoiler:
PrestorJohn wrote:
I have an Uncle Bryan who got a computing degree in the punch card days, true story I swear on my kids. The first company he worked for got bought out and instead of using his buyout money to go back to school or going to work for another company started by his coworkers he decided to use it for travelling money and take an extended vacation. Not a great decision on his part.
Not really. Did he then get unemployed for a sustained period of time, or trapped in a minimum wage job he couldn't extricate himself from? Because that's what happened to mine. His skills weren't transferable, and he didn't have the resources to extricate himself from it. He also didn't get the nice payoff to begin with.
Spoiler:
PrestorJohn wrote:There are lots of jobs that require people to maintain licenses, certifications, etc. and pretty much every job is subject to changes and innovations over time. Some companies will cover some or all of the costs incurred by their employees to stay current, some companies don't. I know plenty of people who have either saved up, taken out a loan or gotten money from their employer to take classes to get degrees or certifications that would enhance their job security, get them a raise or help them get a better job.
We're going to keep making technological progress and it's going to continue to affect the job market. That is nothing new and people can handle it. Do you think the state has a greater responsibility for our uncles' job security than they do to themselves?
In the case of my uncle, he took out the business loan you're talking about to try and break free of his minimum wage trap. The small company he tried to start got strangled at birth due to market circumstances, and the additional financial pressure guaranteed he stayed minimum wage for the rest of his days. He was never paid enough to get additional skills or training, and his newly acquired debts prevented him from being able to even think about taking risks like moving area.
Had he possessed a living wage as opposed to an 'existing wage', he might have been able to extricate himself from it.
Spoiler:
PrestorJohn wrote:Wow. You mad bro? You must have some pretty sweet rock skipping skills to want to throw stones across the pond.
I have several friends and coworkers who have achieved the "American Dream." It exists and it is achievable.
Achievable for some. Which is my point.
Spoiler:
PrestorJohn wrote:What you consider luck isn't really luck. Yes, we don't get to choose our parents but our parents aren't good, stable, loving parents by cosmic benevolence. They make a conscious choice to the tough work of parenting and making their relationship work. I speak from experience on that but you can ask anyone on Dakka that's a parent. It has a lot of fun moments and is very rewarding but parenting is also hard work. We can't choose our genes either but healthy intelligent people will reproduce healthy intelligent children the majority of the time. Yes, children can be born with mental or physical issues even with healthy parents but good parents can also mitigate or overcome those issues.
That's absolutely wonderful, and completely and utterly irrelevant. The point I'm making here (to put it bluntly), is that not everyone is blessed with the specific combination of circumstances that allows them to pull themselves out of the gutter. My parents are foster carers, and Jesus, you should see some of the kids that pass through their hands. They have psychological issues and disadvantages that make your anecdotal examples and my own look like a walk in the park. They are not equipped in any way, shape or form, to be able to partake in 'the American Dream'.
Which is why it is rubbish. Yes, a good chunk of us working poor can climb the financial/social ladder, one fingernail at a time, through hard work and perseverance. But others try and fail despite working harder than us, and others still are incapable of trying for reasons not their own. Those people are often destined to spend their lives making an absolute pittance, trapped in dead end minimum wage jobs or unemployed. But they deserve a reasonable standard of living, or the opportunity to break out of that trap.
Spoiler:
PrestorJohn wrote:The point is that while we are all unique individuals the families and societies into which we are born are not so rare as to not be replicated in a sustainable way because they are the product of choices and actions of others. I had good parents who valued educations, I can follow their example and be a good parent who values education, my children can grow up to be good parents who value educations etc. That's not random chance or luck.
That's exactly what it is. You were luck enough to be born with good parents. There are many who do not. You were lucky enough to be born into a society that values education. You were lucky enough to be born into a society that provides the means to access it. You were lucky in many, many ways.
Spoiler:
PrestorJon wrote:I don't want to lower the level of discourse here so I'm just going to say that you shouldn't worry, I make sure to schedule the time I spend volunteering in my community to allow me enough time to polish my monocle and attend yacht christenings.
Then please explain to me how the wonderful American Dream allows somebody on the outskirts of Liverpool, who wasn't quite smart enough to go to University, who can only get a three days of zero hour contracted work per week (that barely pays higher than his dole money being minimum wage) to 'better himself'? He has no money, no ability to move around, and no educational opportunities. All the nice blue collar jobs you mention have about three hundred applicants, so he has no hope of getting those.
How does the 'American Dream' dictate he should proceed?
Spoiler:
PrestorJohn wrote:Again, I don't consider it random chance that I was raised by parents who worked hard to make me take school seriously, want to better myself with higher education, and worked hard and sacrificed to provide me with the opportunity to attain a degree without piling up a crippling amount of debt. I am a product of my upbringing, not everyone had the same kind of childhood but since that's completely outside of my control and not my responsibility anyway I fail to see why I should feel guilty about it.
It is nothing but purest LUCK. Random chance dictated the circumstances of your birth, your parents, your society, your intelligence, your geographical location, and your access to resources.
Nobody is telling you to be ashamed. You should be proud of what you achieved with what you had. But not everybody gets even as good a start as did.
Spoiler:
PrestorJohn wrote:Raising minimum wage doesn't do anything to fix bad schools or a flawed public education system. I don't understand your point about people who support relatives instead of going to college. If by supporting you mean working a job to earn money to support them financially then they already have a job that pays well enough to support at least 2 people so they're doing pretty good.
Yes. Pretty good. Working themselves to the bone six days a week pulling ten hour shifts just to meet subsistence level. What lucky people they are, and how well they are doing.
Clearly a slightly higher wage to enable them to try and develop themselves and strive for something better is a laughable notion. Waitaminute...
Spoiler:
PrestorJohn wrote:Not every job needs a college degree and once you have a job it's easier to acquire more skills or transistion to a better job.
Unless of course, you happen to be trapped in one of those minimum wage, low skilled jobs....
Spoiler:
PrestorJohn wrote:If you find yourself in a town that has full employment and excess people then I suggest you look for a job in a neighboring town. I personally drive a 45-60 minute commute of 36 miles each way to get to work in the next county over from our house. If you are physically trapped in a town with literally no jobs available and you can't afford public transportation and you don't own a car and you don't have any job skills then yeah, you're probably not going to find a job. There are govt assistance programs for people like that and if that person is properly motivated he/she can use those programs to find a job.
Ah, I see. Rather than having them paid a living wage, the Government should pick up the tab of the private businesses being able to employ people for peanuts, and either subsidise the trapped people, or pay for them to get the opportunities they might be able to seek for themselves if they earned a bit more.
Less government interference indeed.
Spoiler:
PrestorJohn wrote:It's pretty weird (and ludicrous) that you chose to refute a claim I never made Did I say a higher minimum wage will require applicants to have a college degree?
You said that if minimum wage goes up, employers raise their standards on who they hire. Presumably, you mean academic standards. So where that burger flipping job would have required no qualifications, it now requires some, right?
Spoiler:
PrestorJohn wrote:Take the SanFran example, current minimum wage $10.77, annual salary for a full time employee $ 21,540 the increased minimum wage in 2018 $15/hr for an annual salary of $30,000. The higher salary is a bigger investment in the employee by the employer and makes the job more attractive to a wider pool of applicants. Take three applicants, a high school dropout, a high school graduate and a high school graduate who's currently a part time student at a local community college. Which ones are interested in earning $21k a year? Which ones are interested in earning $30k a year? Which one would you hire for $30k a year? See how the higher minimum wage makes it harder for the weakest applicants to get jobs?
Wait, so your argument is that if you bump up minimum wage, people with better qualifications will apply for the job?
That's.......absurd. Sorry, but it really is. It works on the premise that the burger flipping job will provide sufficient financial remuneration so as to be competitive enough to lure better qualified people out of other job fields into applying.
Yes, you are correct in the initial thought. If flipping burgers suddenly paid £100,000 a year, I'd be queueing outside for a job, along with most people. But seriously? Think it through. It's logically ridiculous. If minimum wage was suddenly raised to £100,000 per year, every other job would have to pay at least that as well. The result being that actually, I'd look for for jobs with more job satisfaction than burger flipping, that would be 100% cast iron guaranteed to pay me an equivalent amount or more.
Spoiler:
Prestor Jon wrote:
I'm pretty sure that my explanation of how service sector employers don't have to raise wages because they have a large pool of applicants competing for job openings covers the concept that they don't want to pay more than they need to in order to get the jobs filled.
I'm not sure what it's like where you are but when I was working service sector jobs (I didn't earn more than $10/hr until I was in my late 20's) the majority of my coworkers were students and people who didn't plan on making working food service or retail a career. Most people I met viewed minimum wage jobs as either part time work or a stepping stone.
Sadly, not everyone has that luxury. Hence the aforementioned trapped people.
Spoiler:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Again, I don't know how people behave in your neck of the woods but in the US we actually changed from a negative savings rate to actual having people saving money by the end of the recession that started in '08-09. Maybe people are also swimming in it like Scrooge McDuck, I doubt it since Duck Tales reruns don't get much airtime these days. My point still stands, people subsisting on minimum wage don't have enough money left over after their essential spending to buy enough luxury goods to guarantee economic growth and stability. Raising wages raises prices which reduces any increase in buying power achieved through wage increases and people making minimum wage would be better off saving money to help them acquire more marketable skills and to have in case of unexpected emergencies.
In terms of economic benefit, raising minimum wage vastly offsets any minor adjustments caused in the living essentials, assuming it is kept within sensible limits. If you quadrupled it, yes, costs would also skyrocket. But if you say, put it up by three or four dollars, and are clever about only generally applying it to companies that can afford it, the net result is less private profit, and more money ploughed back into the tax system and general economy.
A penny apiece from the masses doth far outweigh a pound a pound apiece from the few.
Spoiler:
PrestorJon wrote:Raising wages raises prices and people barely getting by should have other spending priorities than hedonism.
Technically, anything you buy that isn't essential is inherently hedonistic.
You also keep jumping back to this bugbear that 'prices will rise'. I agree, yes, they will do, if you institute a ridiculously huge minimum wage rise applied uniformly.
But no-one is suggesting that.
Spoiler:
PrestorJon wrote:If you're working minimum wage and get a small pay increase it's not in your best interests to run out and spend it all. It's not going to give you much more buying power anyway.
What if I'm spending it on 'bettering myself'? Because y'know, that was the point earlier on. First you say that people should better themselves, but then you say that if they were given the financial means to do so, they should save it. Which is it? Do they try and better themselves, or do they put it away for a rainy day?
Spoiler:
PrestorJon wrote:Why are poor people poor?
Because they have no money. It's what you might call a defining attribute of being 'poor'.
Spoiler:
PrestorJon wrote:How should people earning a low income prioritize their spending? If people are going to break out of a cycle of poverty they have to change the behaviors that keep them in a cycle of poverty. I fail to see why you want to encourage poor people to spend all their money, that'snot going to help their situation.
Keeping them locked in a cycle of poverty also does not help their situation. If you earn a bit more, you might be able to prioritise all that 'American Dream' stuff.
Spoiler:
PrestorJon wrote:The govt awards billions of dollars of student loans every year and colleges have a variety of financial aid options and course schedules. The majority of college graduates I know paid for school with loans. If they're fiscally responsible and employed they should be able to work their way into a better financial situation. That's the benefit of being fiscally responsible.
I see. So your logic is, 'If you have a minimum wage job, and are fiscally responsible, you should be able to earn enough to better yourself'. In other words, you believe the minimum wage is sufficient as it is, and it provides the means to pay for the essentials and offer opportunity? Please clarify if that is indeed your position.
Spoiler:
PrestorJon wrote:You seem to have a low opinion of the abilities of the working poor. They're working, they have opportunities to improve themselves and many of them take advantage of them and improve their job prospects and careers. You seem to believe that poor people can't help themselves and need the govt to save them. Govt dependency isn't going to help their job prospects either.
How is raising the minimum wage Government dependency? It's the exact opposite. It's making businesses who are capable of doing so bear the brunt of the costs to improve the lot of society as a whole. Beyond writing on a bit of paper, it doesn't cost the Government a penny. As things stand, maintaining the status quo is what costs the Government money, and requires vast state intervention, because people don't earn enough to survive or better themselves without it!
In other words, I'm anti-Government intervention! By raising the minimum wage, there is less burden on the taxpayer, less subsidies required, and less social schemes required!
Spoiler:
PrestorJon wrote:People spending within their means is a good thing. Yes it leads to a contraction but it also avoids credit bubbles and debt. If you think the economy is in recession because rich people aren't spending money then you should try to encourage them to spend more. Having the state force employers to pay minimum wage employees an additional dollar an hour isn't going to offset rich people sitting on billions of dollars.
If it all the economy needs is people spending money then why did people spending credit they couldn't repay crash the economy in the first place?
Okay, to the basics....
If minimum wage is raised, people are by definition, spending within their means. It means they have cash to spend that isn't dependent on loans. It isn't debt. That's why it's good for the economy.
If people were taking out loans to spend, then you would be entirely correct. But nobody has ever, at any stage, advocated that. Ever.
Spoiler:
PrestorJon wrote:I'm not sure why you don't realize that a healthy company is providing goods and services to consumers. No company makes a profit simply by cutting labor costs, they need to actually move product or provide services. If companies have enough customers to fluorish then that means lots of people are buying goods and services which creates and secures jobs. That's good for the economy. Companies are in business to serve customers not to screw over their employees.
No. People do not create businesses to 'serve customers'. No business ever came into existence for the pure pleasure of distributing goods to mankind. The motivation of your average CEO to come into work isn't 'to serve customers'. They exist, to make money. You're deceiving yourself if you think otherwise.
There are organisations that do exist to help people, but they're called charities.
Spoiler:
PrestorJon wrote:We both agree that businesses want to make money and that govt needs to provide a certain amount of regulation to ensure a fair market wherein everyone plays by a known set of rules. We're not going to agree on how much regulation is necessary for each given industry etc.
We don't appear to be disagreeing on regulation. I'm just nitpicking at some exceedingly illogical defences for what is currently turning into an exploitative system that is bad for the economy (aka, a minimum wage that is too low for purpose). There's a healthy balance between state, and industry. The pendulum has swung slightly too far one way, and it needs to be forcibly realigned for the good of all (even the businesses that bear the costs). And by signing a bit of paper, the government can do that.
Spoiler:
PrestorJon wrote:Are you raising the minimum wage to provide more resources to get a better job (there's better ways to do that) or are you increasing the minimum wage to allow more people to continue to work minimum wage jobs without having to make fiscal sacrifices? If people can live the life they want on a minimum wage job, why would they be determined to move on from on?
Both, to an extent. I'm not advocating raising it to ridiculous levels. It shouldn't be raised so high as to dent the economy, or smash small businesses. But by raising it by a proportionate amount, you can get two birds with one stone. It means people trapped there have a tolerable quality of life (not extremely comfortable, it is a no-skill job after all), and potentially, the financial tools to get out if they're prepared to exert themselves.
I want to read it..because I'm sure there's lots of interesting discourse there....but man...I'm here for the pithy one liners and being told I berate particular fields of study.
I want to read it..because I'm sure there's lots of interesting discourse there....but man...I'm here for the pithy one liners and being told I berate particular fields of study.
Bahahaha...yeah, this, 100%.
I've spent about 4 hours today shopping for holsters. If I'd just spent the time working, I could have just bought all 3 candidate holsters and given the rest away to needy children in the hood.
Stormwall wrote: The only problem I have with this is that the average Mcdonalds worker now makes most than more Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, etc.
It's bad enough a Mcdonalds manager already made a close figure to a Sergeant... now the wages have been uped.
We'll just have to wait and see what happens in San fran.
$15 an hour would put them higher than lots of non-service professions, as well.
Don't worry. This will spur on the automation of fast food. Soon the only people at McDonalds will be the manager and a service techie for the machines.
So they'll be flat out unemployed instead of overpaid.
Stormwall wrote: The only problem I have with this is that the average Mcdonalds worker now makes most than more Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, etc.
It's bad enough a Mcdonalds manager already made a close figure to a Sergeant... now the wages have been uped.
We'll just have to wait and see what happens in San fran.
$15 an hour would put them higher than lots of non-service professions, as well.
Personal Rambling:
Spoiler:
I agree. I am unsure what worries me more. The fact that most minimum wage jobs are usually designed for people in highschool, (such as fast food,) had protestors push this issue until the minimum wage was raised. That being stated, I am most worried that professions such as the services, manufacturing, and nursing will really be affected by this. Why should a nurse or a CNC machinist work for 14$ where I live when someone out in San Fran makes 15$ an hour to do something infinitely less complicated. Why should our veterans have gone through the wire, just to see that when they come home someone at a minimum wage job made way more than they did at their rank. (I am talking about lower enlisted here obviously.) I sometimes worry over the economic and moral state of America, if you read the news too much it seems as if the country is constantly going downhill. (That is a subject for another thread all together though.) I feel like this kinda relates to the whole meme about being a hypocrite, where someone wearing a fast food uniform upon hearing your a veteran or a (insert profession you worked hard to enter here,) talk and they go "Oh I was going to join the service but... I didn't want to wear a uniform or be told what to do. Now do you want a large side of fries with that meal?"
That is mostly just a personal tidbit though, don't hate me for it. I don't mean any real disrespect to people working in the fast food industry, it's just that the protesters acted as if they were entitled to something more that the rest of the working middle class/lower class wasn't. It felt like the rest of our working class had to accept this. I guess this is all personal conjecture though, and it really doesn't influence this discussion. (Now I know some white knight or some crud is going to go "If it doesn't influence why did you post it plox?!11! I simply posted it because I felt like it had to be said. Yet again, no offense intended. Though someone will surely tear it apart in debate I'm sure.)
Now moving on to more important aspects of this discussion, I am worried about inflation. While I don't think this will hyper inflate the economy, what is stopping someone who lives outside of San Fran coming in and doing a minimum wage job that anyone can get, and going to a cheaper area, milking the profits? IE: When workers who have main residence in my state of Virginia (the southwestern poor area,) but, they work factory jobs in Philadelphia, making bank due to this. (I won't get into this but, you guys surely can understand the point I am trying to convey.)
Still, while I doubt this is the true for this situation, it reminds me of when I was a kid in school and learned of Germany and bread in social studies/world history.
I agree. I am unsure what worries me more. The fact that most minimum wage jobs are usually designed for people in highschool, (such as fast food,) had protestors push this issue until the minimum wage was raised. That being stated, I am most worried that professions such as the services, manufacturing, and nursing will really be affected by this. Why should a nurse or a CNC machinist work for 14$ where I live when someone out in San Fran makes 15$ an hour to do something infinitely less complicated. Why should our veterans have gone through the wire, just to see that when they come home someone at a minimum wage job made way more than they did at their rank. (I am talking about lower enlisted here obviously.) I sometimes worry over the economic and moral state of America, if you read the news too much it seems as if the country is constantly going downhill. (That is a subject for another thread all together though.) I feel like this kinda relates to the whole meme about being a hypocrite, where someone wearing a fast food uniform upon hearing your a veteran or a (insert profession you worked hard to enter here,) talk and they go "Oh I was going to join the service but... I didn't want to wear a uniform or be told what to do. Now do you want a large side of fries with that meal?"
That is mostly just a personal tidbit though, don't hate me for it. I don't mean any real disrespect to people working in the fast food industry, it's just that the protesters acted as if they were entitled to something more that the rest of the working middle class/lower class wasn't. It felt like the rest of our working class had to accept this. I guess this is all personal conjecture though, and it really doesn't influence this discussion. (Now I know some white knight or some crud is going to go "If it doesn't influence why did you post it plox?!11! I simply posted it because I felt like it had to be said. Yet again, no offense intended. Though someone will surely tear it apart in debate I'm sure.)
Now moving on to more important aspects of this discussion, I am worried about inflation. While I don't think this will hyper inflate the economy, what is stopping someone who lives outside of San Fran coming in and doing a minimum wage job that anyone can get, and going to a cheaper area, milking the profits? IE: When workers who have main residence in my state of Virginia (the southwestern poor area,) but, they work factory jobs in Philadelphia, making bank due to this. (I won't get into this but, you guys surely can understand the point I am trying to convey.)
Still, while I doubt this is the true for this situation, it reminds me of when I was a kid in school and learned of Germany and bread in social studies/world history.
I guess that's all I feel on the subject really. I hope this doesn't break any rules, etc. I tend to avoid the moral discussions.
What's funny is that, nearly every day in my political science class, the professor exclaims how the economic disparity in the US is actually the greatest threat to the US. The top 1% controls far more of the total wealth in the US than the bottom 99%, and within the past couple of years, we've seen the "Middle Class" have it's share of the wealth and importance to everyday life shrink to nearly WW2 levels.
Of course, just how to "fix" the problem is where politics come into play, and we can all see how well that one's working out
Stormwall wrote: The only problem I have with this is that the average Mcdonalds worker now makes most than more Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, etc.
Is that taking into account food, board, medical care, and other amenities? Do people in San Fran now also get the GI Bill or 0% mortgages? Trying to compare it on a dollar for dollar base does not work. Not to mention there is less stigma attached to saying you are a Marine than saying you are a McDonald's Employee.
2) education only has value if it provides something for society. Education for educations sake doesn't provide society anything except someonewho has received a product of society, but isn't producing an equivalent use. Another art major who will never use his degree just wasted a higher education slot someone else could have used. If only 1 in 10 recepiants of a degree use that degree, 9 out of 10 should have not received it.
Pretty much.
We'd be in a much better position if student lending were risk based. Get that Art History degree, that's fine. But you shouldn't be lendable because the ROI simply isn't there for it.
feth HSM, I'd love to see social workers and teachers aids get 15/hr. Because a whole helluva lot of them don't.
.
Wait, WHAT? Where, In any of my posts did I imply they they shouldnt?
Where can I get mine?? I served for 10 years, and I still have a percentage on my mortgage
Ahtman, I know you're referring to the VA Home loan guarantee, but really it's simply a 0 down payment loan that I actually have to pay extra for.... I'm paying that down payment, and then some to the VA over the 30 year loan.
Stormwall wrote: The only problem I have with this is that the average Mcdonalds worker now makes most than more Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, etc.
Is that taking into account food, board, medical care, and other amenities? Do people in San Fran now also get the GI Bill or 0% mortgages? Trying to compare it on a dollar for dollar base does not work. Not to mention there is less stigma attached to saying you are a Marine than saying you are a McDonald's Employee.
Oh joy. First off, the reason for that is Marines earn the title. Anyone can work at fast food. Not everyone can be a Marine. It is the "Few and the Proud," for a reason.
The dental and other healthcare you get in the services actually can harm you more so than help. People have had to have full dental work in the civilian world after service due to the free dental received in any of the boot camps and even afterwords in garrison. I personally know someone who had to dump 16 grand to fix his teeth that were worked on in Boot camp and "corrected," with , cheap fillings that only had a life of 5-10 years. Healthcare is usually on a "Here is a straw Corporal. Why's that? So you can suck it the up." When service members do get care, it's either amazing and right the first time or you end up getting the wrong care and more injuries on top of what you originally came in for. I had some issues in that last regard. Oh yes, the food is "free," too. It's free because it is automatically deducted from your base pay. Not to mention extra expenses, the free "housing," comes at a price. You have added expenses, such as uniforms and haircuts, plus gear maintenance. Gear that is used and damaged on deployment is quite expensive, especially if CIF won't take it back. Haircuts alone can reach an extra 1000$ a year. When living in the barracks you are assigned work, you miss sleep, anyone can mess with you, etc. Imagine living in a large room, usually run down, looking like garbage with a bunch of rowdy men in it. Not to mention those in charge, who find work to keep them busy. (Many of these reasons are why our servicemembers enter contract marriages, to move out of the barracks.) Mr.mcjoe at Mcdonalds gets to go home and have his freedoms.
Though that last sentence is trivial, as almost every service member after Vietnam has raised their hand an taken the oath voluntarily.
As for the G.I bill, I am still fighting for mine. I will get it but, it is a hurry up and wait process. (I only got it due to the fact I got Medboarded out after a surgery, and received the full 36 months. Even though my injury is service related, I am still pending atm for it.) That bill is the better version of the other one, and can be cut at any time. It's not a guarantee like the other one. When you are active you must find the time to go to school too. If you are deployed you obviously cannot go to a school in Afganistan, etc. Furthermore, when in a garrison environment, you must be allowed to by your superiors. If the shop (I am a pogue,) doesn't let that fly, you will have to wait till you get out. Most of the time you give up sleep if you wish to go to school, if you even get it. The bill is accrued by the time you serve too, so you cannot just go all out ham and knock out a degree right away. It can often times take multiple enlistments to do it.
At the end of the day it isn't just about San Fran, it's about the fact that if it worked there, what it if it upped nationwide due to differences in costs?
(Any vets who see errors with this, please correct them.) Anyways, you are right, I didn't take that into account. But, now I have. It is "still embracing the suck," for a reason.
Where can I get mine?? I served for 10 years, and I still have a percentage on my mortgage
Ahtman, I know you're referring to the VA Home loan guarantee, but really it's simply a 0 down payment loan that I actually have to pay extra for.... I'm paying that down payment, and then some to the VA over the 30 year loan.
Exactly. Oh and have fun waiting on the VA.
Anyways, I mean no offense but, that's kinda personal experience. The user I just quoted can probably echo this. I don't mind discussing this more but, I am unsure if this is off-topic to the thread or not, and I don't feel the subject warrants its own thread.
Off topic, I probably shouldn't have typed this up. I'm still not happy with being out. Sorry for the wall of text you guys.
Where can I get mine?? I served for 10 years, and I still have a percentage on my mortgage
Ahtman, I know you're referring to the VA Home loan guarantee, but really it's simply a 0 down payment loan that I actually have to pay extra for.... I'm paying that down payment, and then some to the VA over the 30 year loan.
The vets I know said they got a 0% mortgage so I really don't know. That could be what they really meant, but it is still a deal most people don't get. I'll ask again later to confirm if I remember, and since it isn't super important I might not. The point was that a direct dollar to dollar comparison doesn't really work well as it ignores a lot of things. It just isn't that simple.
Stormwall wrote: Oh joy. First off, the reason for that is Marines earn the title.
Which of course has feth all to do with any point anyone made.
You probably haven't read the myriad of other posts in which this has been discussed, but that isn't actually true. They aren't typically just waiting around to hire anyone and everyone; it isn't super exclusive, but it isn't a public service either. You are helping to prove my point that there is more of a negative stigma attached to fast food work though, so thanks for that.
Stormwall wrote: Not everyone can be a Marine. It is the "Few and the Proud," for a reason.
Which, again, has feth all to do with anything stated. Everything else past this was basically a straw man, with the added fun of moving the goal posts.
There are some people predicting that a lot of knowledge jobs are going to start to be lost to computerisation, such as accounting and law.
This sort of thing is called increasing productivity.
It seems to me that it starts to fall apart when productivity is so high that workers are not needed to make stuff, and can't get the pay to buy the stuff or services being produced.
Countries with more expensive labor costs than the US have managed to hold on to the McJob, so my uneducated guess is that we don't have to worry too much about that yet.
Slarg232 wrote: While true, I'm talking about the biggest fast food business in the world suddenly not needing 80% of it's employees.
How is that meaningfully different than when almost all major car manufacturers became automated? Ford, GM, and Chrysler employed a lot more people before machines took over a lot of the work.
Slarg232 wrote: While true, I'm talking about the biggest fast food business in the world suddenly not needing 80% of it's employees.
How is that meaningfully different than when almost all major car manufacturers became automated? Ford, GM, and Chrysler employed a lot more people before machines took over a lot of the work.
I dunno.
First guess would be that those people still had a useful skillset (Manufacturing) rather than just needing work.
Slarg232 wrote: First guess would be that those people still had a useful skillset (Manufacturing) rather than just needing work.
Putting bolts on tires for eight hours doesn't seem radically better than making hamburgers for eight hours a day. It is more physically demanding but the thinking process involved is generally the same. There is a bit more risk as well, but they also made more money as well. Still, both are low process, repetition jobs.These aren't the people designing the cars or the manufacturing process. Even if we ignore that how are they going to find another job with that skillset since all the jobs that required that skillset have been replaced by robots?
Slarg232 wrote: First guess would be that those people still had a useful skillset (Manufacturing) rather than just needing work.
Putting bolts on tires for eight hours doesn't seem radically better than making hamburgers for eight hours a day. It is more physically demanding but the thinking process involved is generally the same. There is a bit more risk as well, but they also made more money as well. Still, both are low process, repetition jobs.These aren't the people designing the cars or the manufacturing process. Even if we ignore that how are they going to find another job with that skillset since all the jobs that required that skillset have been replaced by robots?
Slarg232 wrote: While true, I'm talking about the biggest fast food business in the world suddenly not needing 80% of it's employees.
How is that meaningfully different than when almost all major car manufacturers became automated? Ford, GM, and Chrysler employed a lot more people before machines took over a lot of the work.
What happens is that as many of them who have the skills and resources possible try and transfer to something else, to try and make a living. Some will open businesses. Some will become destitute.
The problem is that once again, a potential source of jobs and income dries up. And the more areas that it happens in, well....
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems to me that it starts to fall apart when productivity is so high that workers are not needed to make stuff, and can't get the pay to buy the stuff or services being produced.
d-usa wrote: And people will be willing to pay more for a non-automated service to still get that human touch.
That is why prostitution needs to be legalized.
Actually, no. Fully automatized sex would be much more pleasurable for people. That one Bruce Willis film did it...Total Recall? I can't remember. Sandra Bullock was in it too...I guess...where people just slip on a helmet and get stimulated. That's perfect sex for pleasure as it perfectly stimulates your very own brain in the way you like it the best.
Interestingly, Japanese car makers, who were first to roboticise their production lines, retained human assembly workers in a lot of areas because robots are unable to cope with problems or be creative about making further improvements to processes.
I agree. I am unsure what worries me more. The fact that most minimum wage jobs are usually designed for people in highschool, (such as fast food,) had protestors push this issue until the minimum wage was raised. That being stated, I am most worried that professions such as the services, manufacturing, and nursing will really be affected by this. Why should a nurse or a CNC machinist work for 14$ where I live when someone out in San Fran makes 15$ an hour to do something infinitely less complicated. Why should our veterans have gone through the wire, just to see that when they come home someone at a minimum wage job made way more than they did at their rank. (I am talking about lower enlisted here obviously.) I sometimes worry over the economic and moral state of America, if you read the news too much it seems as if the country is constantly going downhill. (That is a subject for another thread all together though.) I feel like this kinda relates to the whole meme about being a hypocrite, where someone wearing a fast food uniform upon hearing your a veteran or a (insert profession you worked hard to enter here,) talk and they go "Oh I was going to join the service but... I didn't want to wear a uniform or be told what to do. Now do you want a large side of fries with that meal?"
That is mostly just a personal tidbit though, don't hate me for it. I don't mean any real disrespect to people working in the fast food industry, it's just that the protesters acted as if they were entitled to something more that the rest of the working middle class/lower class wasn't. It felt like the rest of our working class had to accept this. I guess this is all personal conjecture though, and it really doesn't influence this discussion. (Now I know some white knight or some crud is going to go "If it doesn't influence why did you post it plox?!11! I simply posted it because I felt like it had to be said. Yet again, no offense intended. Though someone will surely tear it apart in debate I'm sure.)
Now moving on to more important aspects of this discussion, I am worried about inflation. While I don't think this will hyper inflate the economy, what is stopping someone who lives outside of San Fran coming in and doing a minimum wage job that anyone can get, and going to a cheaper area, milking the profits? IE: When workers who have main residence in my state of Virginia (the southwestern poor area,) but, they work factory jobs in Philadelphia, making bank due to this. (I won't get into this but, you guys surely can understand the point I am trying to convey.)
Still, while I doubt this is the true for this situation, it reminds me of when I was a kid in school and learned of Germany and bread in social studies/world history.
I guess that's all I feel on the subject really. I hope this doesn't break any rules, etc. I tend to avoid the moral discussions.
What's funny is that, nearly every day in my political science class, the professor exclaims how the economic disparity in the US is actually the greatest threat to the US. The top 1% controls far more of the total wealth in the US than the bottom 99%, and within the past couple of years, we've seen the "Middle Class" have it's share of the wealth and importance to everyday life shrink to nearly WW2 levels.
Of course, just how to "fix" the problem is where politics come into play, and we can all see how well that one's working out
What's funnier is that professor is mostly at or near that top 1%.
if mc donalds replaced every single worker with a robot, my confidence in the food would go up significantly...
I remember far too much of what people who work there actually do...
from my time working there of course...
not that i personally did anything to the food (though I saw it a lot)
wait, does having a fight with the sauce dispensing guns count as doing stuff to the food? we never served it after all...
oh god good times... I cant beleive I used to get paid to fool around, chat with kids my own age, huck ketchup off the roof, and occationally press a button on the cooker or assemble a burger and frites
FYi around here fast food pays 15-20 bucks, well above minimum wage, even at MC d's, so apparently when they need to pay more and can also afford to pay more, they certainly do pay more.
Slarg232 wrote: First guess would be that those people still had a useful skillset (Manufacturing) rather than just needing work.
Putting bolts on tires for eight hours doesn't seem radically better than making hamburgers for eight hours a day. It is more physically demanding but the thinking process involved is generally the same. There is a bit more risk as well, but they also made more money as well. Still, both are low process, repetition jobs.These aren't the people designing the cars or the manufacturing process. Even if we ignore that how are they going to find another job with that skillset since all the jobs that required that skillset have been replaced by robots?
Not to mention how the Union destroyed much of the ability to control costs.... Seriously, how is using a semi-motorized machine to put a door on for 8 hours a day worth 20-30 bucks an hour? VW Chattanooga is PROVING every day that that job isn't worth as much, and that they can get a non-union employee to do the same work for a bit less money, but with better benefits and treatment.
@Whembly, no she really isnt... 30 year trial lawyer, and she's now working as a professor at a community college. If you think she's in the top 1%, you've no idea where that top 1% is mate Seriously though, the top 1% people are the Walton family (Walmart), Koch brothers, Bill Gates, the Hilton's. Ya know, THAT kind of money.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Not to mention how the Union destroyed much of the ability to control costs....
I thought about mentioning the Unions but was afraid it might derail it to much, but yeah, their stranglehold on the industry is problematic.
Honestly, it may not be a bad discussion, because if you look around, there's a ton of unions that have strangled various industries at at least the local level.
I recall how nurses in Oregon went on strike for wages, they were asking for more money than actual doctors made per year, and they were already sitting at something like 50-60k/year.
Look at the various teachers' strikes. It may not be a good example, because teachers generally get gakked on every day of every year, and when the new budget rolls around, they get gakked on some more. But, how many of them would legitimately go on strike if it weren't for the unions "forcing" them to?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Not to mention how the Union destroyed much of the ability to control costs....
I thought about mentioning the Unions but was afraid it might derail it to much, but yeah, their stranglehold on the industry is problematic.
Honestly, it may not be a bad discussion, because if you look around, there's a ton of unions that have strangled various industries at at least the local level.
I recall how nurses in Oregon went on strike for wages, they were asking for more money than actual doctors made per year, and they were already sitting at something like 50-60k/year.
Look at the various teachers' strikes. It may not be a good example, because teachers generally get gakked on every day of every year, and when the new budget rolls around, they get gakked on some more. But, how many of them would legitimately go on strike if it weren't for the unions "forcing" them to?
Only for really bad things, or lack of promised things. The teachers at my old high school nearly did because the school was refusing to put any sort of raise in the contracts. They won in the end, and didn't even have to go on strike.
Unions can be bad if they go overboard, but are good when they focus on getting their members proper work conditions and help on negotiating contracts and alike.
Unions can be bad if they go overboard, but are good when they focus on getting their members proper work conditions and help on negotiating contracts and alike.
Because so many college educated people are just completely unable to negotiate on their own, right?
Unions can be bad if they go overboard, but are good when they focus on getting their members proper work conditions and help on negotiating contracts and alike.
Because so many college educated people are just completely unable to negotiate on their own, right?
This isn't 1900s Chicago.
It is sometimes difficult to know what your rights and responcibilities are, and not everyone has a stong personality to stand up for themselves or others without support.
And collective negotiation is almost always more powerful than workers negotiating on their own.
You know, it's funny how the biggest opponents of union "abuse" tend to also be advocates of capitalism and the free market. Shouldn't belief in the power of the free market mean supporting unions? After all, a union is nothing more than a group of people getting together to efficiently market their services and secure the best sale price that the market will allow. And I can't see how belief in the free market is at all compatible with talking about how much an employee "deserves" to be paid for a job, since the fair price for labor is by definition the price that an unrestricted market decides on.
Grey Templar wrote: Nope. A union works against the market value of labor, its goal is to inflate the price of its members labor above and beyond what the market is.
Therefore, its by definition NOT what the fair price of labor is.
Surely if the market value of their labour is lower than what they're demanding, you can just fire them and hire other people to do the same thing for cheaper? Isn't that how a free market works?
If you're in a position where you can't afford for all your workers to up and leave, then their value is whatever they say it is. In the same way that if I'm starving, and somebody offers me a sandwich for a thousand pounds, if there's nobody else around to buy from then that sandwich is worth a thousand pounds. Monetary values are dictated by the market. Right?
Grey Templar wrote: Nope. A union works against the market value of labor, its goal is to inflate the price of its members labor above and beyond what the market is.
And this is exactly my point: the union is part of the free market. If a group of sellers of labor decide that the best strategy is to form an organization and negotiate collectively with buyers of labor then that is a valid free-market strategy. And, like all participants in a free market, their goal is to maximize their own profits, not to settle for lower prices that help someone else's profits. Therefore the market price is what the sellers of labor and buyers of labor agree to, not your hypothetical price that you think the labor is worth.
Therefore, its by definition NOT what the fair price of labor is.
Only if you define "fair" as "the price that would exist in a restricted market where sellers of labor are banned from negotiating collectively" and assume that the fair price in a free market is the same as the price in a market which includes regulations that favor some individuals/businesses over others.
Grey Templar wrote: You can, assuming the Union doesn't strong arm people into not freelancing.
But even if the Union controls all the labor, they're not creating a new market. They're exercising a monopoly.
Incorrect. It would be more appropriate to say that they're forming an oligopoly to combat the inherent power of the employer as a monopsonist of their labour.
Grey Templar wrote: You can, assuming the Union doesn't strong arm people into not freelancing.
Well yes, if the union attempts to use illegal methods (threatening to kill any non-union employees, etc) that's not acceptable. But that rarely, if ever, happens. And negotiating exclusive contracts with buyers of labor that prevent hiring anyone outside of the union is a valid free-market strategy.
But even if the Union controls all the labor, they're not creating a new market. They're exercising a monopoly.
Monopolies are part of unrestricted capitalism and the free market.
Peregrine wrote: And negotiating exclusive contracts with buyers of labor that prevent hiring anyone outside of the union is a valid free-market strategy.
In the theatre here in Britain, you usually have to be a card carrying Union member to get hired, or the hirer has to pay some sort of fee. I believe it's the same in Hollywood.
I worked at a theater in the area as a projectionist and found out later all the other ones were part of a projectionist union of some sort. I would not have been able to do that job elsewhere.
Unions can be bad if they go overboard, but are good when they focus on getting their members proper work conditions and help on negotiating contracts and alike.
Because so many college educated people are just completely unable to negotiate on their own, right?
This isn't 1900s Chicago.
That's funny, I didn't see where he made that claim.
So getting defensive over imagined slights or just building straw men?
Scoffing at the notion that educated people need unions to help them negotiate for their pay.
Teacher's unions aren't beneficial to good teachers.
Except he didn't claim that, you did.
And don't make ridiculous blanket claims like that; my wife is a damn good teacher and a member of Loudoun Education Association (even though we live in a right-to-work state).
And don't make ridiculous blanket claims like that; my wife is a damn good teacher and a member of Loudoun Education Association (even though we live in a right-to-work state).
That's fine.
My is also, and isn't a union member. Most of the teachers Under 30ish in her district aren't, in fact. Because they all WANT merit based pay. They all want to not be concerned they're going to lose their jobs due to seniority and not due to ability if a levy fails.
My wife was 1 above the cutoff last year when their levy passed by 12%. She was also a teacher of the year in Cincinnati last year. But had there been a few hundred votes in another direction, or had it simply failed like it did the previous May, she'd have lost her job.
When I taught, we were more or less bullied/misled into joining our teachers union. The two teachers in my building that were not level members were basically blacklisted and were left out of lots of activities.
Needless to say, I've no love for unions as a whole, but certainly none for teacher's unions.
And don't make ridiculous blanket claims like that; my wife is a damn good teacher and a member of Loudoun Education Association (even though we live in a right-to-work state).
So getting defensive over imagined slights or just building straw men?
The case of your wife is anecdotal, and you haven't demonstrated how LEA membership is beneficial to her; something you need to do in order to prove your point.
As with companies and governments - there are good unions, bad unions and unions that just tick along in the middle. I woild suggest that the majority of all three groups are in the third group.
As mentioned, unions are essentially companies selling workers - this makes sense in a capitalist society; they in turn try to get the best return for the people they represent.
Sometimes this puts them at odds with companies or governments (especially when governments are controlled by companies ). This can negatively impact everyone involved.
Grey Templar wrote: Nope. A union works against the market value of labor, its goal is to inflate the price of its members labor above and beyond what the market is.
And this is exactly my point: the union is part of the free market. If a group of sellers of labor decide that the best strategy is to form an organization and negotiate collectively with buyers of labor then that is a valid free-market strategy. And, like all participants in a free market, their goal is to maximize their own profits, not to settle for lower prices that help someone else's profits. Therefore the market price is what the sellers of labor and buyers of labor agree to, not your hypothetical price that you think the labor is worth.
Therefore, its by definition NOT what the fair price of labor is.
Only if you define "fair" as "the price that would exist in a restricted market where sellers of labor are banned from negotiating collectively" and assume that the fair price in a free market is the same as the price in a market which includes regulations that favor some individuals/businesses over others.
Actually, there is a big problem to calling labor a market. There is no real alternative to working other than homelessness, trust fund kid or the often fabled welfare queen. Most markets are ideally free entry and free exit and labor is neither. Minimum wage, unions and government independent regulatory bodies are to fight back against what has traditionally been an oppressive capitalist market. 100 years ago was horrific in terms of pay, benefits and safety for a large part of the population. Free markets drift towards such practices as it causes the greatest profits and the lowest costs. It baffles me that people shout at unions and minimum wage without considering the past. Humans haven't changed in the last 100 years, we just put on better looking suits.
Surtur wrote: Actually, there is a big problem to calling labor a market.
Fortunately I'm not in favor of having an unrestricted labor market. I'm just pointing out the double standard often endorsed by advocates of the free market where anything wealthy business owners do is automatically justified as long as it makes money, but unions (and anything else that might give other people an advantage) need to be banned so that they don't interfere with wealthy business owners making as much money as possible. Usually this is accompanied by lots of complaining about how a certain job is "worth" a specific amount of money and trying to get more is "unfair", as if such a concept could even exist in a truly free market. So what "free market" really tends to mean is "I should be able to make as much money as I can by whatever methods I want, but the government should intervene to ensure that I make lots of money and prevent anyone from doing anything that might reduce my profits".
Collective bargaining is actually a valuable time and money saving tool in many industries. If we look at teaching and academia, for example, there are many hundreds of thousands of people involved. It would take a huge amount of management time for them to negotiate their pay rises individually.
And don't make ridiculous blanket claims like that; my wife is a damn good teacher and a member of Loudoun Education Association (even though we live in a right-to-work state).
So getting defensive over imagined slights or just building straw men?
The case of your wife is anecdotal, and you haven't demonstrated how LEA membership is beneficial to her; something you need to do in order to prove your point.
Except I didn't build a straw man. Here is a summary of Cincy's posts:
Co'tor: "Unions can be bad if they go overboard, but are good when they focus on getting their members proper work conditions and help on negotiating contracts and alike."
Cincy: "Because so many college educated people are just completely unable to negotiate on their own, right? This isn't 1900s Chicago."
Me: "I didn't see where he made that claim."
Cincy: "I'm scoffing at the notion that educated people need unions to help them negotiate for their pay."
That's a pretty good example of a straw man: exaggerating, misrepresenting, or completely fabricating someone's argument as a way to discredit it.
If you want to know what the benefits of belonging to the LEA (which isn't a true union in reality, nor is it's parent organization, the Virginia Education Association) are, use your browser search bar to look up their website and take a few minutes to read it; I won't do it for you because it isn't that difficult. Also, my anecdotal case is no different than Cincy's anecdotal case and holds more weight than his extraordinarily broad claim that a union has no benefit to a "good teacher."
If you want to know what the benefits of belonging to the LEA (which isn't a true union in reality, nor is it's parent organization, the Virginia Education Association) are, use your browser search bar to look up their website and take a few minutes to read it; I won't do it for you because it isn't that difficult. Also, my anecdotal case is no different than Cincy's anecdotal case and holds more weight than his extraordinarily broad claim that a union has no benefit to a "good teacher."
If LEA is not a union your anecdote is irrelevant.
dogma wrote: No it isn't, though you're blatant misrepresentation of several posts is.
Ah, I see we can add logical fallacies to your already extensive areas of expertise now?
And which posts were that, exactly? Please, I'm eager to see where I used a straw man argument, blatantly no less, because I think your definition of it is a little off.
If LEA is not a union your anecdote is irrelevant.
I knew you semantics argument was coming!
The LEA, and by extension the VEA, are not "unions" in the way that they not members the AFL-CIO, but they effectively fulfill the same role as a union would and operate in the same manner (which, as I've previously stated, you can read all about on their websites).
I feel that is enough OT discussion for now though. If you would like to continue the conversation, hit the little "PM" button to do so.
I want to read it..because I'm sure there's lots of interesting discourse there....but man...I'm here for the pithy one liners and being told I berate particular fields of study.
Stormwall wrote: The only problem I have with this is that the average Mcdonalds worker now makes most than more Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, etc.
It's bad enough a Mcdonalds manager already made a close figure to a Sergeant... now the wages have been uped.
We'll just have to wait and see what happens in San fran.
$15 an hour would put them higher than lots of non-service professions, as well.
Many union and government contracts are tied to the minimum wage as well, which will force those salaries to rise. Other salaries will have to rise as well to keep up.
Surtur wrote: Actually, there is a big problem to calling labor a market.
Fortunately I'm not in favor of having an unrestricted labor market. I'm just pointing out the double standard often endorsed by advocates of the free market where anything wealthy business owners do is automatically justified as long as it makes money, but unions (and anything else that might give other people an advantage) need to be banned so that they don't interfere with wealthy business owners making as much money as possible. Usually this is accompanied by lots of complaining about how a certain job is "worth" a specific amount of money and trying to get more is "unfair", as if such a concept could even exist in a truly free market. So what "free market" really tends to mean is "I should be able to make as much money as I can by whatever methods I want, but the government should intervene to ensure that I make lots of money and prevent anyone from doing anything that might reduce my profits".
I agree. I was just quoting you to bounce my opinion off this little sub discussion. There are several problems with free markets that their advocates do to want to discuss like boom and bust cycles, monopolies and trusts, and problems like the one Americans have here with our healthcare costs. I'll let vlog bros handle that discussion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M Then you factor in pollution and inhumane acts and the argument that a free market is good starts wearing thin. Regulation is often the best way to prevent repeated abuse of a free market, but conservative interests have done all they can to interfere with that being effective.
I want to read it..because I'm sure there's lots of interesting discourse there....but man...I'm here for the pithy one liners and being told I berate particular fields of study.
I'm here for the booze and chicks myself.
Aha! I'm onto your tricks now. A higher minimum wage = money for nothing, you admit you want chicks for free, clearly your end game is getting us move appliances for you.
Kilkrazy wrote: Collective bargaining is actually a valuable time and money saving tool in many industries. If we look at teaching and academia, for example, there are many hundreds of thousands of people involved. It would take a huge amount of management time for them to negotiate their pay rises individually.
How is it more effective to have hundreds of thousands of people employed in different states and school districts, working under different conditions, in areas with different costs of living, different student body demographics and different levels of seniority and accredititation lump themselves together as one aggregate to negotiate labor contracts? The concerns of teachers in Buffalo aren't going to be the same as the concerns of teachers in the Bronx. The same as true for teachers in Manhattan Kansas and Manhattan NY. The greater the scope of the membership the harder it is to represent all of them equally and competently.
There's a reason private sector union membership has consistently decreased over time to an insignificant portion of the workforce, the big labor battles have already been fought and won. Congress isn't about to roll back EoE, OSHAA, child labor laws, FMLA, etc. It doesn't make a lot of sense to have dues deducted out of your paycheck to pay a union when all of the egregious abuses from the industrial revolution have already been made illegal.
The public sector has a much higher rate of unionization. Of course, public sector unions are able to spend a large chunk of the dues they collect on contributions to the campaigns of the same politicians that sit on the opposite side of the table during neogtiations.
The public sector has a much higher rate of unionization. Of course, public sector unions are able to spend a large chunk of the dues they collect on contributions to the campaigns of the same politicians that sit on the opposite side of the table during neogtiations.
Are you telling me the National Educators Association and the Ohio Educators Association dedicate entire issue of their publications to telling their members whom to vote for?
Kilkrazy wrote: Collective bargaining is actually a valuable time and money saving tool in many industries. If we look at teaching and academia, for example, there are many hundreds of thousands of people involved. It would take a huge amount of management time for them to negotiate their pay rises individually.
How is it more effective to have hundreds of thousands of people employed in different states and school districts, working under different conditions, in areas with different costs of living, different student body demographics and different levels of seniority and accredititation lump themselves together as one aggregate to negotiate labor contracts? The concerns of teachers in Buffalo aren't going to be the same as the concerns of teachers in the Bronx. The same as true for teachers in Manhattan Kansas and Manhattan NY. The greater the scope of the membership the harder it is to represent all of them equally and competently.
There's a reason private sector union membership has consistently decreased over time to an insignificant portion of the workforce, the big labor battles have already been fought and won. Congress isn't about to roll back EoE, OSHAA, child labor laws, FMLA, etc. It doesn't make a lot of sense to have dues deducted out of your paycheck to pay a union when all of the egregious abuses from the industrial revolution have already been made illegal.
The public sector has a much higher rate of unionization. Of course, public sector unions are able to spend a large chunk of the dues they collect on contributions to the campaigns of the same politicians that sit on the opposite side of the table during neogtiations.
I don't think Kilkrazy is saying that all teachers would together form one giant union to collectively bargain. I think he's saying, that as a whole there are hundreds of thousands of teachers/professors in the country, and if none of them had a local union it would take a long time to negotiate with each of them (as well as be a waster of resources) across the board.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I don't think Kilkrazy is saying that all teachers would together form one giant union to collectively bargain. I think he's saying, that as a whole there are hundreds of thousands of teachers/professors in the country, and if none of them had a local union it would take a long time to negotiate with each of them (as well as be a waster of resources) across the board.
Doesn't mean this is the "right" way to do it.
Hell, that's basically the justification for utilizing standardized test scores to determine such a large portion of a teacher's effectiveness, even though the right way to do it would be to have administrators meet with them consistently, observe them consistently in the classroom, work on development plans, get feedback from their customers, do peer reviews, etc.
Instead, because Standardized Testing is "easy," they use that as the primary metric in evaluating teachers in many areas.
Then there's the mysterious "value added" scores, which make about as much sense as Common Core math.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I don't think Kilkrazy is saying that all teachers would together form one giant union to collectively bargain. I think he's saying, that as a whole there are hundreds of thousands of teachers/professors in the country, and if none of them had a local union it would take a long time to negotiate with each of them (as well as be a waster of resources) across the board.
Doesn't mean this is the "right" way to do it.
Hell, that's basically the justification for utilizing standardized test scores to determine such a large portion of a teacher's effectiveness, even though the right way to do it would be to have administrators meet with them consistently, observe them consistently in the classroom, work on development plans, get feedback from their customers, do peer reviews, etc.
Instead, because Standardized Testing is "easy," they use that as the primary metric in evaluating teachers in many areas.
Then there's the mysterious "value added" scores, which make about as much sense as Common Core math.
I'm not arguing on whether or not it is right or wrong, I'm trying to clarify what Kilkrazy was saying.
Prestor seems to think that Kilkrazy is saying that every teaching professional (or any category of worker) would collectively bargain together, regardless of where they worked, which I don't believe that is what Kilkrazy was saying at all. I think what he was saying that if every single person in anyone one category of workers negotiated independently instead of in local associations/unions, it would be waste of resources (and he just used teachers as an example due to their numbers).
The majority of people in the workforce have switched jobs at least once. There are plenty of companies that offer moving stipends to entice qualified applicants to relocate to where the job is located. Within my circle of friends, family, coworkers and business contacts I know people that moved here from Az, Ind, NY, NJ, PA, and Tenn in addition to people that emmigrated from Mexico, Venezuela, Canada and Japan. They all managed to get here and none of them are rich. Before I had finished elementary school my family had moved 5 times and we did it on a middle class income during a recession. Losing your job doesn't mean you'll never get a decent job again.
We've already closed down the majority of our mining towns and textile towns a long time ago. There's currently half as many people living in Detroit as there was 50 years ago because the car factories closed. The 700,000+ people that have moved out over the past decades aren't just wandering the earth jobless and forlorn.
Yes, if a person is an weak job applicant that managed to get a minimum wage job and that job goes away that person is in dire straits. However, that person was already in dire straits because they already had the pre-existing condition of lacking useful marketable skills. Even when that person had a low paying job he/she needed to upgrade their marketability in order to get a good paying job.
There are federal and state assistance programs, as well as private charities, that offer help to the destitute but that's a topic that is beyond the scope of minimum wage.
Stop. Rewind.
My original statement was that there are no longer as many jobs in industry/agriculture as there once were, and that increasing mechanisation has diminished the total number of jobs available (relative to the population size). You rebutted that it didn't matter if jobs were lost, because 'Yes there are less jobs in some sectors but there are also more jobs in other sectors.
My counterpoint was that a job is not magically created every time one was lost, and even if it was, geographical issues, industry reliant areas, and non-transferable skillsets would mean that not every person who lost a job due to that mechanisation would necessarily be able to find another one. The implication/relevance being that they would end up working minimum wage/finding it hard to even get a job, through no fault of their own.
Responding that, 'Well, people move areas for jobs all the time' does not contradict me. It does not counterbalance my original point of the jobs pool being generally diminished overall. Yes, some people have the funds/contacts/skillsets to be able to switch. Many do not. It is them I am focusing on, and they who are relevant to this discussion.
People losing their jobs doesn't prevent the economy from creating more jobs. The economy does not have only X number of jobs and every time sombody loses a job the labor market shrinks irreparably. The market is constantly creating new jobs and new industries. The loss of jobs in one local area does not mean that there are fewer jobs overall just that there are fewer jobs in that area. We've always had unemployed people, I don't believe we've ever achieved full employment outside of war mobilizations and I don't think there are many, if any, respected economists that believe full employment is even attainable.
Again, I don't know how things are where you're at but here in the US sparsely populated areas have always struggled to create jobs and towns/cities built on the back of a single industry always see a population decrease and unemployment spike if those industries go under. That's been true for centuries, the economy has kept growing and the standard of living has stayed high. You can create hypothetical people trapped in the middle of nowhere with no job or money if you want to but historically we've always climbed out of recessions, grown the economy and had low unemployment so it doesn't seem to be the problem you think it is.
If parents want to artificially limit the aspirations of their children that's bad parenting in my book. If you want to teach little Johnny that there's only a few jobs worth having then that's a personal choice on your part and can't be blamed on a nebulous entity like the economy.
So far our children have, at various times, expressed an interest in growing up to be a construction worker, a fireman, a lineman for the electric company, a landscaper, a farmer, a nurse, a veterinarian, a pizzeria owner, a mechanic, an ice cream parlor owner, an archaeologist, a stablehand, a faerie and a zombie slayer. Among that list there are only 3 jobs that aren't currently held by people we know. As parents my wife and I would be happy if our kids grew up to be any of those things, well except for the last two that would be weird, or something completely different. There's a plethora of jobs that aren't "white collar" and provide a nice living. Most people we know aren't white collar and they're content.
Stop. Rewind.
My argument is that parents are driven to push their kids to white collar jobs because there are less available good jobs in the blue-collar sector compared to the previous few centuries due to mechanisation. That is an economics issue. Pushing your kids to the sectors where good work is most available (the white collar sector), is not bad parenting. It is attempting to give them better odds of increased wage/social status/employability. The motivation for them doing this however, originates with economics. Which is my point.
You may tell your children to be zombie slayers, but your motivation for that is undoubtedly less based on economics. If you equate the two together, it may explain why you have difficulty comprehending other people's parenting motivations.
Did you not read the part where I wrote that my wife and I don't want our kids to grow up to be fey or zombie slayers, cause it's there. It was in there for levity and full disclosure.
My point still stands that anecdotally, the vast majority of the people I, and my family, come into contact with are employed in blue collar jobs. We don't live in the city, although plenty of people commute to it (including myself). I dispute your claim that there aren't enough blue collar jobs to make aspiring to hold one a worthwhile endeavor. There are more than enough blue collar jobs, they're held by everybody that doesn't live in a major metropolitan area (and quite a few people who work in urban areas are blue collar too). Do you think there are a lot of white collar jobs in Nebraska or Wyoming or the Dakotas? Yes millions of people live there and have jobs and live happy lives.
Again, I didn't say that people shouldn't encourage children to aspire to white collar jobs I said that parents shouldn't exclude blue collar jobs because they can provide for happy productive lives.
Spoiler:
Obviously, I have no idea what the job market is like where you live but where I live in NC there are plenty of job opportunities that aren't white collar jobs. It may seem like there are already plenty of tradesmen out there but trust me, you start going through them and you'll realize that there's never enough good ones to go around. I realize that not everyone wants to go to vocational school or learn a trade (and we don't need everybody to) but we are nowhere near to exhausting the opportunities in those fields.
Ketara wrote:This is true. But not enough of them to accommodate every person who works in a minimum wage job or is unemployed. Hence the problem.
Again, I'm not claiming that we have full employment or that full employment is attainable. I'm stating that there are job opportunities available. that the economy continues to create new jobs even as some jobs are lost, that blue collar jobs are worth aspiring to and that the govt shouldn't artificially inflate labor costs. At no point did I claim that there is a better job out there for everyone who would like to transition to one right now.
Ketara wrote:
Spoiler:
PrestorJohn wrote:Not exactly. While it's unlikely that there are enough higher payer jobs to absorb all of the people working minimum wage jobs or are unemployed, would those people have the desire or qualifications to get those jobs even if there were enough openings? It would be interesting to see data on just how many apprenticeship programs and entry level openings there are in trades and similar jobs and gauge the interest in them among the people working minimum wage jobs. Trades like welders and pipe fitters struggle to find people and both pay good money.
So you concur that there are not enough of these jobs available for every person on minimum wage or unemployed? That's the sole point of contention here. If so, the logical follow up point is, 'Are there enough for every unemployed person, and every person trapped in a minimum wage job?'
Again, you seem to believe that it's full employment or nothing. Minimum wage jobs exist because somebody needs to do them even if there were other jobs available to everyone in a minimum wage job those jobs would still need to be filled. If there were that many jobs available the market would favor workers and the pay would increase since there would be more jobs than workers. If you really want to raise wages create more jobs don't make labor more expensive. If something is more expensive people will find ways to need less not more of it. Not everyone who is unemployed is employable. There are reasons other than "no fault of their own" that cause people to struggle to find work.
Ketara wrote:
Spoiler:
PrestonJohn wrote:Unfortunately for people who work minimum wage jobs those jobs often don't require the employees to learn a lot of marketable skills on the job. Putting in years of work in a minimum wage job and still not being able to transition to a better job is the key problem. Instead of being a stepping stone it traps you in a holding pattern. I know people who worked the floor, then became a shift supervisor, key holder, assistant manger, finally store manager or district manager but that's a long road, not easy and not common. Increasing the minimum wage doesn't help people transition to a better job it just makes it easier to live on a minimum wage job but people shouldn't be aspiring to work a minimum wage job for decades.
I agree with all of this except the bizare idea that people trapped in a minimum wage job 'aspire' to work there. And it all proves my point, namely, that people get stuck in minimum wage jobs and are not able to extricate themselves into a nice little blue collar job. They simply do not have the time, tools, or money to do anything except be trapped in that job.
If people don't hav e the time or tools to acquire skills to transition to a better job then they still wont if the minimum wage is increased. Unless you help the person become more employable they'll never move beyond a minimum wage job. Is the goal to help move people to a better job or is the goal to make the job people have better? We already have state and federal programs to assist struggling people, there's no reason for the state to force employers to give people more money just to make them more comfortable.
Ketara wrote:
Spoiler:
PrestorJohn wrote:
I have an Uncle Bryan who got a computing degree in the punch card days, true story I swear on my kids. The first company he worked for got bought out and instead of using his buyout money to go back to school or going to work for another company started by his coworkers he decided to use it for travelling money and take an extended vacation. Not a great decision on his part.
Not really. Did he then get unemployed for a sustained period of time, or trapped in a minimum wage job he couldn't extricate himself from? Because that's what happened to mine. His skills weren't transferable, and he didn't have the resources to extricate himself from it. He also didn't get the nice payoff to begin with.
Yes. He was unemployed for at least a few years, moved into his parents' house, was then given that house so he could have a place to live and now works some kind of job out west somewhere I believe. The family doesn't really keep tabs on him, he's pretty difficult to get along with.
Ketara wrote:
Spoiler:
PrestorJohn wrote:There are lots of jobs that require people to maintain licenses, certifications, etc. and pretty much every job is subject to changes and innovations over time. Some companies will cover some or all of the costs incurred by their employees to stay current, some companies don't. I know plenty of people who have either saved up, taken out a loan or gotten money from their employer to take classes to get degrees or certifications that would enhance their job security, get them a raise or help them get a better job.
We're going to keep making technological progress and it's going to continue to affect the job market. That is nothing new and people can handle it. Do you think the state has a greater responsibility for our uncles' job security than they do to themselves?
In the case of my uncle, he took out the business loan you're talking about to try and break free of his minimum wage trap. The small company he tried to start got strangled at birth due to market circumstances, and the additional financial pressure guaranteed he stayed minimum wage for the rest of his days. He was never paid enough to get additional skills or training, and his newly acquired debts prevented him from being able to even think about taking risks like moving area.
Had he possessed a living wage as opposed to an 'existing wage', he might have been able to extricate himself from it.
So state sponsored job training would have been much more advantageous than merely making an extra pound an hour? That seems like a better solution for everybody than leaving him in a minimum wage job that pays slightly more, takes up the same amount of his time, and doesn't include training that makes him more marketable. If the goal is to move people to better jobs there are more effective ways for the state to do it than increasing minimum wage.
[
Ketara wrote:spoiler]
PrestorJohn wrote:Wow. You mad bro? You must have some pretty sweet rock skipping skills to want to throw stones across the pond.
I have several friends and coworkers who have achieved the "American Dream." It exists and it is achievable.
[/spoiler]
Achievable for some. Which is my point.
Still achievable and not rubbish. The opportunity is still there for people, economic improvement is still possible. The state can't guarantee an outcome it can only ensure that opportunities are provided, that's the American Dream and it's a reality.
Ketara wrote:
Spoiler:
PrestorJohn wrote:What you consider luck isn't really luck. Yes, we don't get to choose our parents but our parents aren't good, stable, loving parents by cosmic benevolence. They make a conscious choice to the tough work of parenting and making their relationship work. I speak from experience on that but you can ask anyone on Dakka that's a parent. It has a lot of fun moments and is very rewarding but parenting is also hard work. We can't choose our genes either but healthy intelligent people will reproduce healthy intelligent children the majority of the time. Yes, children can be born with mental or physical issues even with healthy parents but good parents can also mitigate or overcome those issues.
That's absolutely wonderful, and completely and utterly irrelevant. The point I'm making here (to put it bluntly), is that not everyone is blessed with the specific combination of circumstances that allows them to pull themselves out of the gutter. My parents are foster carers, and Jesus, you should see some of the kids that pass through their hands. They have psychological issues and disadvantages that make your anecdotal examples and my own look like a walk in the park. They are not equipped in any way, shape or form, to be able to partake in 'the American Dream'.
Which is why it is rubbish. Yes, a good chunk of us working poor can climb the financial/social ladder, one fingernail at a time, through hard work and perseverance. But others try and fail despite working harder than us, and others still are incapable of trying for reasons not their own. Those people are often destined to spend their lives making an absolute pittance, trapped in dead end minimum wage jobs or unemployed. But they deserve a reasonable standard of living, or the opportunity to break out of that trap.
People with serious problems have serious problems. Whether the minimum wage is $10/hr or $15/hr doesn't change that one iota. There are people out there who, through no fault of their own, are incapable of ever holding any job. There are people I care about who have suffered horribly and are never going to recover enough to function normally in society and nothing the state does to the labor market is going to change that sad fact.
Ketara wrote:
Spoiler:
PrestorJohn wrote:The point is that while we are all unique individuals the families and societies into which we are born are not so rare as to not be replicated in a sustainable way because they are the product of choices and actions of others. I had good parents who valued educations, I can follow their example and be a good parent who values education, my children can grow up to be good parents who value educations etc. That's not random chance or luck.
That's exactly what it is. You were luck enough to be born with good parents. There are many who do not. You were lucky enough to be born into a society that values education. You were lucky enough to be born into a society that provides the means to access it. You were lucky in many, many ways.
Nope, not luck. There are a lot of foster parents out there, not all of them provide the level of care and stability that yours did/do. They are not good foster parents because of a flip of a coin, they choose to be good parents. They could care less, they could put in less effort, they choose not to, that's not luck.
Ketara wrote:
Spoiler:
PrestorJon wrote:I don't want to lower the level of discourse here so I'm just going to say that you shouldn't worry, I make sure to schedule the time I spend volunteering in my community to allow me enough time to polish my monocle and attend yacht christenings.
Then please explain to me how the wonderful American Dream allows somebody on the outskirts of Liverpool, who wasn't quite smart enough to go to University, who can only get a three days of zero hour contracted work per week (that barely pays higher than his dole money being minimum wage) to 'better himself'? He has no money, no ability to move around, and no educational opportunities. All the nice blue collar jobs you mention have about three hundred applicants, so he has no hope of getting those.
How does the 'American Dream' dictate he should proceed?
Step one would be move to America.
If step one isn't possible then that person needs to take the best available job that pays more than his dole money. Do that job to the best of his/her ability and live as meagerly as possible in order to save up as much money as possible. Then that person needs to use those savings to either pay for public transportation to a location where there are better jobs to interview for and hopefully get hired or use the money to take classes that will have a tangible effect on his/her employability. I don't know how things work in Liverpool but in the US you don't have to be a great HS student to get in to community college to take classes.
Ketara wrote:
Spoiler:
PrestorJohn wrote:Again, I don't consider it random chance that I was raised by parents who worked hard to make me take school seriously, want to better myself with higher education, and worked hard and sacrificed to provide me with the opportunity to attain a degree without piling up a crippling amount of debt. I am a product of my upbringing, not everyone had the same kind of childhood but since that's completely outside of my control and not my responsibility anyway I fail to see why I should feel guilty about it.
It is nothing but purest LUCK. Random chance dictated the circumstances of your birth, your parents, your society, your intelligence, your geographical location, and your access to resources.
Nobody is telling you to be ashamed. You should be proud of what you achieved with what you had. But not everybody gets even as good a start as did.
Nope. Not purest luck. People have free will, they make their own choices and control many aspects of their lives. Loving homes and successful careers don't fall out of the sky and land on people at random.
Ketara wrote:
Spoiler:
PrestorJohn wrote:Raising minimum wage doesn't do anything to fix bad schools or a flawed public education system. I don't understand your point about people who support relatives instead of going to college. If by supporting you mean working a job to earn money to support them financially then they already have a job that pays well enough to support at least 2 people so they're doing pretty good.
Yes. Pretty good. Working themselves to the bone six days a week pulling ten hour shifts just to meet subsistence level. What lucky people they are, and how well they are doing.
Clearly a slightly higher wage to enable them to try and develop themselves and strive for something better is a laughable notion. Waitaminute...
Again, if the goal of the state is to move people to better jobs there are easier and better ways to do it than inflating the cost of menial labor.
Ketara wrote:
Spoiler:
PrestorJohn wrote:Not every job needs a college degree and once you have a job it's easier to acquire more skills or transistion to a better job.
Unless of course, you happen to be trapped in one of those minimum wage, low skilled jobs....
Earning an income, even a small one, makes it easier to acquire skills and transistion to a better job. Minimum wage jobs aren't Chinese finger traps, people can move on from them, they do it every day.
Ketara wrote:
Spoiler:
PrestorJohn wrote:If you find yourself in a town that has full employment and excess people then I suggest you look for a job in a neighboring town. I personally drive a 45-60 minute commute of 36 miles each way to get to work in the next county over from our house. If you are physically trapped in a town with literally no jobs available and you can't afford public transportation and you don't own a car and you don't have any job skills then yeah, you're probably not going to find a job. There are govt assistance programs for people like that and if that person is properly motivated he/she can use those programs to find a job.
Ah, I see. Rather than having them paid a living wage, the Government should pick up the tab of the private businesses being able to employ people for peanuts, and either subsidise the trapped people, or pay for them to get the opportunities they might be able to seek for themselves if they earned a bit more.
Less government interference indeed.
How does raising the minimum wage create jobs in a town that has no job openings? If you want to use the hypothetical example of a town with literally no jobs available how does raising the minimum wage (to any amount you want to name) create new jobs? The best solution is to take inexpensive public transit to another locale that has jobs available. If people are truly utterly destitute we do have social programs that give them help. They're very flawed programs but I'm not going to deny their existence.
The govt always picks up the tab for the private sector, the private sector supplies all the funding for the govt.
Ketara wrote:
Spoiler:
PrestorJohn wrote:It's pretty weird (and ludicrous) that you chose to refute a claim I never made Did I say a higher minimum wage will require applicants to have a college degree?
You said that if minimum wage goes up, employers raise their standards on who they hire. Presumably, you mean academic standards. So where that burger flipping job would have required no qualifications, it now requires some, right?
No I meant standards in general not specific to academics. The bigger the investment an employer makes in an employee the more certainty they want in the benefit of that investment so the employer is going to give fewer opportunities to borderline or questionable applicants.
Ketara wrote:
Spoiler:
PrestorJohn wrote:Take the SanFran example, current minimum wage $10.77, annual salary for a full time employee $ 21,540 the increased minimum wage in 2018 $15/hr for an annual salary of $30,000. The higher salary is a bigger investment in the employee by the employer and makes the job more attractive to a wider pool of applicants. Take three applicants, a high school dropout, a high school graduate and a high school graduate who's currently a part time student at a local community college. Which ones are interested in earning $21k a year? Which ones are interested in earning $30k a year? Which one would you hire for $30k a year? See how the higher minimum wage makes it harder for the weakest applicants to get jobs?
Wait, so your argument is that if you bump up minimum wage, people with better qualifications will apply for the job?
That's.......absurd. Sorry, but it really is. It works on the premise that the burger flipping job will provide sufficient financial remuneration so as to be competitive enough to lure better qualified people out of other job fields into applying.
Yes, you are correct in the initial thought. If flipping burgers suddenly paid £100,000 a year, I'd be queueing outside for a job, along with most people. But seriously? Think it through. It's logically ridiculous. If minimum wage was suddenly raised to £100,000 per year, every other job would have to pay at least that as well. The result being that actually, I'd look for for jobs with more job satisfaction than burger flipping, that would be 100% cast iron guaranteed to pay me an equivalent amount or more.
Ten years ago I was a college graduate working for $10/hr for a big box retail store, that's less than minimum wage in SanFran today. I wasn't the only one working for that wage in the store that was a college graduate, I wasn't the youngest either and some of them made less than me. If that job had paid $15/hr it would have attracted more applicants and it would have been more difficult for me to get it because of the stronger competition from a larger pool. If you don't understand that the number of applicants for a job increases when the wages paid by the job increases I don't know how else to explain it to you.
Ketara wrote:
Spoiler:
Prestor Jon wrote:
I'm pretty sure that my explanation of how service sector employers don't have to raise wages because they have a large pool of applicants competing for job openings covers the concept that they don't want to pay more than they need to in order to get the jobs filled.
I'm not sure what it's like where you are but when I was working service sector jobs (I didn't earn more than $10/hr until I was in my late 20's) the majority of my coworkers were students and people who didn't plan on making working food service or retail a career. Most people I met viewed minimum wage jobs as either part time work or a stepping stone.
Sadly, not everyone has that luxury. Hence the aforementioned trapped people.
Live frugally, save money, improve yourself. Not a complicated formula, anybody can do it.
Ketara wrote:
Spoiler:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Again, I don't know how people behave in your neck of the woods but in the US we actually changed from a negative savings rate to actual having people saving money by the end of the recession that started in '08-09. Maybe people are also swimming in it like Scrooge McDuck, I doubt it since Duck Tales reruns don't get much airtime these days. My point still stands, people subsisting on minimum wage don't have enough money left over after their essential spending to buy enough luxury goods to guarantee economic growth and stability. Raising wages raises prices which reduces any increase in buying power achieved through wage increases and people making minimum wage would be better off saving money to help them acquire more marketable skills and to have in case of unexpected emergencies.
In terms of economic benefit, raising minimum wage vastly offsets any minor adjustments caused in the living essentials, assuming it is kept within sensible limits. If you quadrupled it, yes, costs would also skyrocket. But if you say, put it up by three or four dollars, and are clever about only generally applying it to companies that can afford it, the net result is less private profit, and more money ploughed back into the tax system and general economy.
A penny apiece from the masses doth far outweigh a pound a pound apiece from the few.
If the goal of increasing the minimum wage is to increase consumer spending why limit the wage growth to minimum wage earners? Why not have the govt force companies to pay everybody more money? That would surely lead to more spending than only increasing minimum wage. Why let companies set wages at all? Surely the govt would be able to determine the best wages for everybody and act as a central planning agency for running the whole economy.
Ketara wrote:
Spoiler:
PrestorJon wrote:Raising wages raises prices and people barely getting by should have other spending priorities than hedonism.
Technically, anything you buy that isn't essential is inherently hedonistic.
You also keep jumping back to this bugbear that 'prices will rise'. I agree, yes, they will do, if you institute a ridiculously huge minimum wage rise applied uniformly.
But no-one is suggesting that.
Lower the cost of manufacturing goods lowers their price for consumers and raising the cost of manufacturing goods raises their price for consumers. Why are flat screen tvs less expensive now than 10 years ago? They're all still made overseas by the same companies. Costs drop, prices drop. You raise the cost you raise prices. It doesn't have to be a dramatic rise in minimum wage to affect the cost of manufacturing. Labor costs a lot less overseas. You could increase labor costs there and they would still be less than in the US but you would certainly see a difference in the prices.
Ketara wrote:
Spoiler:
PrestorJon wrote:If you're working minimum wage and get a small pay increase it's not in your best interests to run out and spend it all. It's not going to give you much more buying power anyway.
What if I'm spending it on 'bettering myself'? Because y'know, that was the point earlier on. First you say that people should better themselves, but then you say that if they were given the financial means to do so, they should save it. Which is it? Do they try and better themselves, or do they put it away for a rainy day?
Ideally they do both. It would be best to save up more than you need so you don't spend it all when you pay for additional education. Obviously they should also closely examine any possible scholarships and other programs that help lower the cost. Even if you can't get into classes because you're a HS dropout you should still save money, get your GED and then spend some of the money on improving your skillset further.
Ketara wrote:
Spoiler:
PrestorJon wrote:Why are poor people poor?
Because they have no money. It's what you might call a defining attribute of being 'poor'.
Why don't they have any money?
Ketara wrote:
Spoiler:
PrestorJon wrote:How should people earning a low income prioritize their spending? If people are going to break out of a cycle of poverty they have to change the behaviors that keep them in a cycle of poverty. I fail to see why you want to encourage poor people to spend all their money, that'snot going to help their situation.
Keeping them locked in a cycle of poverty also does not help their situation. If you earn a bit more, you might be able to prioritise all that 'American Dream' stuff.
Should they spend their money on education or should they go out and spend money on luxury goods? Which do you want them to prioritize bettering themselves or having cool stuff?
Ketara wrote:
Spoiler:
PrestorJon wrote:The govt awards billions of dollars of student loans every year and colleges have a variety of financial aid options and course schedules. The majority of college graduates I know paid for school with loans. If they're fiscally responsible and employed they should be able to work their way into a better financial situation. That's the benefit of being fiscally responsible.
I see. So your logic is, 'If you have a minimum wage job, and are fiscally responsible, you should be able to earn enough to better yourself'. In other words, you believe the minimum wage is sufficient as it is, and it provides the means to pay for the essentials and offer opportunity? Please clarify if that is indeed your position.
My position is that each person should take the best job they can get, live within their means and strive to better themselves regardless of their income.
Ketara wrote:
Spoiler:
PrestorJon wrote:You seem to have a low opinion of the abilities of the working poor. They're working, they have opportunities to improve themselves and many of them take advantage of them and improve their job prospects and careers. You seem to believe that poor people can't help themselves and need the govt to save them. Govt dependency isn't going to help their job prospects either.
How is raising the minimum wage Government dependency? It's the exact opposite. It's making businesses who are capable of doing so bear the brunt of the costs to improve the lot of society as a whole. Beyond writing on a bit of paper, it doesn't cost the Government a penny. As things stand, maintaining the status quo is what costs the Government money, and requires vast state intervention, because people don't earn enough to survive or better themselves without it!
In other words, I'm anti-Government intervention! By raising the minimum wage, there is less burden on the taxpayer, less subsidies required, and less social schemes required!
Raising the minimum wage is govt dependency because it makes people dependent on govt action. If you can't earn the income you want you need to change yourself so that you can, the govt can't do it for you. If your problem is not enough money the solution isn't make the govt increase my pay, that doesn't make you any more valuable it just makes it easier for you to be happy with a minimum wage job.
Ketara wrote:
Spoiler:
PrestorJon wrote:People spending within their means is a good thing. Yes it leads to a contraction but it also avoids credit bubbles and debt. If you think the economy is in recession because rich people aren't spending money then you should try to encourage them to spend more. Having the state force employers to pay minimum wage employees an additional dollar an hour isn't going to offset rich people sitting on billions of dollars.
If it all the economy needs is people spending money then why did people spending credit they couldn't repay crash the economy in the first place?
Okay, to the basics....
If minimum wage is raised, people are by definition, spending within their means. It means they have cash to spend that isn't dependent on loans. It isn't debt. That's why it's good for the economy.
If people were taking out loans to spend, then you would be entirely correct. But nobody has ever, at any stage, advocated that. Ever.
If people are living on minimum wage and want to move on to a better job they need to prioritize their spending to enable them to do so. It is better to sacrifice in the present for a benefit in the future.
Ketara wrote:
Spoiler:
PrestorJon wrote:I'm not sure why you don't realize that a healthy company is providing goods and services to consumers. No company makes a profit simply by cutting labor costs, they need to actually move product or provide services. If companies have enough customers to fluorish then that means lots of people are buying goods and services which creates and secures jobs. That's good for the economy. Companies are in business to serve customers not to screw over their employees.
No. People do not create businesses to 'serve customers'. No business ever came into existence for the pure pleasure of distributing goods to mankind. The motivation of your average CEO to come into work isn't 'to serve customers'. They exist, to make money. You're deceiving yourself if you think otherwise.
There are organisations that do exist to help people, but they're called charities.
Every business that has ever existed has been created to provide goods and services to people. That's how businesses earn money, selling stuff to consumers. You have a very warped view of business, maybe it's a cultural thing. If a business doesn't sell products or services they have no income, if they have no income they cannot make a profit regardless of what they pay employees. If GW paid redshirts a farthing per fortnight they still wouldn't see an increase in profit if they didn't sell any models or books or paint or brushes. The only reason GW employs redshirts is to help facilitate the sale of their products. If nobody bought GW stuff GW would go out of business, they are in business solely to sell hobby stuff to hobbyists, that is the only way they make any money.
Ketara wrote:
Spoiler:
PrestorJon wrote:We both agree that businesses want to make money and that govt needs to provide a certain amount of regulation to ensure a fair market wherein everyone plays by a known set of rules. We're not going to agree on how much regulation is necessary for each given industry etc.
We don't appear to be disagreeing on regulation. I'm just nitpicking at some exceedingly illogical defences for what is currently turning into an exploitative system that is bad for the economy (aka, a minimum wage that is too low for purpose). There's a healthy balance between state, and industry. The pendulum has swung slightly too far one way, and it needs to be forcibly realigned for the good of all (even the businesses that bear the costs). And by signing a bit of paper, the government can do that.
If the problem is that the economy isn't producing the type of jobs we want people to hold then the solution isn't to try to force the jobs that do exist to pay like they're better jobs but to set policies that foster the growth of better jobs. If the only problem with the economy is the minimum wage, if those jobs would be great jobs if only they paid a few more dollars then yes raising the minimum wage fixes that problem. However, the minimum wage isn't a cause of the economic problems it's just a symptom and you can't get better if you only treat symptoms.
Ketara wrote:
Spoiler:
PrestorJon wrote:Are you raising the minimum wage to provide more resources to get a better job (there's better ways to do that) or are you increasing the minimum wage to allow more people to continue to work minimum wage jobs without having to make fiscal sacrifices? If people can live the life they want on a minimum wage job, why would they be determined to move on from on?
Both, to an extent. I'm not advocating raising it to ridiculous levels. It shouldn't be raised so high as to dent the economy, or smash small businesses. But by raising it by a proportionate amount, you can get two birds with one stone. It means people trapped there have a tolerable quality of life (not extremely comfortable, it is a no-skill job after all), and potentially, the financial tools to get out if they're prepared to exert themselves.
IMHO, the goal should be to create programs that ensure that people aren't trapped in minimum wage jobs unless they choose to be. I don't want anybody trapped in a minimum wage job. The state already taxes companies to fund unemployment benefits. The state already taxes companies' income to fund govt spending. Take some of the tax revenue and fund training programs so that people can learn the skills they need for better jobs. Our consumer economy creates an unheathy high percentage of minimum wage jobs and our education system provides an unheathy high percentage of people that aren't ready for better than minimum wage jobs. Neither of those problems gets fixed with higher minimum wage.
My argument is that parents are driven to push their kids to white collar jobs because there are less available good jobs in the blue-collar sector compared to the previous few centuries due to mechanisation.
That is laughably untrue. If it were really so true, why would Mike Rowe spend so much time and effort on championing the fairly vastly wide open "blue collar sectors" of employment?
I mean, if you type in "welding job shortage" into google you get a buffet's worth of articles from esteemed publications such as Bloomberg, Newsweek, and USA Today.
It's not really the parents that are driving kids to white collar jobs (though there certainly are many who do), but rather, it's the school's at the elementary and secondary education level. My own daughter's school has banners plastered everywhere about how "X Elementary students are college bound" All throughout my school years there were much the same kinds of posters, especially in high school. Districts and school boards regularly cut actually useful-to-trades classes first before narrowing the options for other requirements (as in, why should we be forcing, or even be giving students the option to attend college courses when they aren't even out of high school yet? Why do we have "Shakespearean Literature Analysis" as a HS course, when the typical Sophmore, Junior, Freshmen English will do?). Teachers are basically told (many of the ones I've kept in touch with have told me this) by the district/board to in essence, "push" college on students like a drug dealer. When you're basically told "the ONLY way to be successful is if you go to college" there's something seriously fething wrong with the system; ESPECIALLY in the school I attended where probably 70% of parents' had some form of Blue Collar type of job.
My argument is that parents are driven to push their kids to white collar jobs because there are less available good jobs in the blue-collar sector compared to the previous few centuries due to mechanisation.
That is laughably untrue. If it were really so true, why would Mike Rowe spend so much time and effort on championing the fairly vastly wide open "blue collar sectors" of employment?
I mean, if you type in "welding job shortage" into google you get a buffet's worth of articles from esteemed publications such as Bloomberg, Newsweek, and USA Today.
It's not really the parents that are driving kids to white collar jobs (though there certainly are many who do), but rather, it's the school's at the elementary and secondary education level. My own daughter's school has banners plastered everywhere about how "X Elementary students are college bound" All throughout my school years there were much the same kinds of posters, especially in high school. Districts and school boards regularly cut actually useful-to-trades classes first before narrowing the options for other requirements (as in, why should we be forcing, or even be giving students the option to attend college courses when they aren't even out of high school yet? Why do we have "Shakespearean Literature Analysis" as a HS course, when the typical Sophmore, Junior, Freshmen English will do?). Teachers are basically told (many of the ones I've kept in touch with have told me this) by the district/board to in essence, "push" college on students like a drug dealer. When you're basically told "the ONLY way to be successful is if you go to college" there's something seriously fething wrong with the system; ESPECIALLY in the school I attended where probably 70% of parents' had some form of Blue Collar type of job.
This.
So. Much. This.
I can tell you, as a member of "blue collar" workforce, there is a definite shortage of highly trained professionals in my trade (I'm a steamfitter by trade, and welding is one of the myriad of things we do) and others like it. I kept in contact with teachers I had in high school, I have friends that teach high school, and my wife is an elementary school teacher, so I can say that in my county and part of my state, college is pushed on kids all the way through school.
Because I was a teacher at my apprenticeship school, I was able to be part of an outreach program the county I live in started in order to get it through to kids in high school that there are plenty of good, well paying jobs outside of college in the building trades. It was started by one man that worked for the county and he had almost no help from the county proper, yet he was able to organize events for the high school he worked in that gave my local union, the plumbers union, the sheet metal workers union, the electricians union, and the largest nonunion electrical shop in the area to opportunity to talk to parents and students about alternatives to college. It was awesome to be able to talk about what I do and hopefully help kids who know they won't succeed in college, especially considering that it had been drilled into them for years that college is the only way to make something of yourself.
And that's the primary place our education system is broken, and why comparisons to many of the "socialized" European (especially the Scandinavian countries) are completely misleading (and that's not even counting the demographic differences).
Simply put, the American education system, and culture in general, frowns upon and condescends to the blue collar or trades, in large part because our government continues to push the "everyone should go to college" agenda. Of course, it couldn't possibly be because the gov'ment made student loans non-dischargable and then became the largest lender.....
But I digress. There are lots of GREAT trade jobs to be had; sadly, we treat our HS vocational schools as dumping sites for kids we (inappropriately) see as burnouts and wastes of space because the university path doesn't fit them. All of which is HIGHLY SKILLED LABOR. Something working at McDonald's is not.
cincydooley wrote: Of course, it couldn't possibly be because the gov'ment made student loans non-dischargable and then became the largest lender.....
Federal and state loans aren't the issue, as there are plenty of means to delay or modify payment. The issue is privately held loans which often have freakishly high interest rates, cannot be discharged, and have fewer options regarding payment.
But I digress. There are lots of GREAT trade jobs to be had; sadly, we treat our HS vocational schools as dumping sites for kids we (inappropriately) see as burnouts and wastes of space because the university path doesn't fit them. All of which is HIGHLY SKILLED LABOR. Something working at McDonald's is not.
Deriding McJobs is probably not the way you want to go if your goal is to elevate the regard for other positions.
cincydooley wrote: Of course, it couldn't possibly be because the gov'ment made student loans non-dischargable and then became the largest lender.....
Federal and state loans aren't the issue, as there are plenty of means to delay or modify payment. The issue is privately held loans which often have freakishly high interest rates, cannot be discharged, and have fewer options regarding payment.
I disagree... it's ALL loans derived from higher education.
There's this whole incestuous relationship between Colleges and the Government's trough that pales in comparison to other racketeering schemes.
My argument is that parents are driven to push their kids to white collar jobs because there are less available good jobs in the blue-collar sector compared to the previous few centuries due to mechanisation.
That is laughably untrue. If it were really so true, why would Mike Rowe spend so much time and effort on championing the fairly vastly wide open "blue collar sectors" of employment?
I mean, if you type in "welding job shortage" into google you get a buffet's worth of articles from esteemed publications such as Bloomberg, Newsweek, and USA Today.
It's not really the parents that are driving kids to white collar jobs (though there certainly are many who do), but rather, it's the school's at the elementary and secondary education level. My own daughter's school has banners plastered everywhere about how "X Elementary students are college bound" All throughout my school years there were much the same kinds of posters, especially in high school. Districts and school boards regularly cut actually useful-to-trades classes first before narrowing the options for other requirements (as in, why should we be forcing, or even be giving students the option to attend college courses when they aren't even out of high school yet? Why do we have "Shakespearean Literature Analysis" as a HS course, when the typical Sophmore, Junior, Freshmen English will do?). Teachers are basically told (many of the ones I've kept in touch with have told me this) by the district/board to in essence, "push" college on students like a drug dealer. When you're basically told "the ONLY way to be successful is if you go to college" there's something seriously fething wrong with the system; ESPECIALLY in the school I attended where probably 70% of parents' had some form of Blue Collar type of job.
Just for clarity's sake I wanted to point out that it's Ketara you're quoting not me. It's my bad for having the quote tunnel messed up. I went back and fixed it.
cincydooley wrote: Of course, it couldn't possibly be because the gov'ment made student loans non-dischargable and then became the largest lender.....
Federal and state loans aren't the issue, as there are plenty of means to delay or modify payment. The issue is privately held loans which often have freakishly high interest rates, cannot be discharged, and have fewer options regarding payment.
But I digress. There are lots of GREAT trade jobs to be had; sadly, we treat our HS vocational schools as dumping sites for kids we (inappropriately) see as burnouts and wastes of space because the university path doesn't fit them. All of which is HIGHLY SKILLED LABOR. Something working at McDonald's is not.
Deriding McJobs is probably not the way you want to go if your goal is to elevate the regard for other positions.
If neither the federal govt nor private banks offered student loans for high education then colleges and universities would have to either find a way to lower tuition back to affordable levels, like it was when my parents and grandparents attended or be left without enough students.
I don't think pointing out that working at McDonald's isn't highly skilled labor is deriding the people who work there. It's just a fact, some jobs require a bigger or more specific skillset. There are plenty of entry level and/or unskilled jobs out there that need to be done and there's nothing wrong with doing them but the reason they don't pay as much as other jobs is because they pull from a large pool of unskilled applicants.
If neither the federal govt nor private banks offered student loans for high education then colleges and universities would have to either find a way to lower tuition back to affordable levels, like it was when my parents and grandparents attended or be left without enough students.
Everyone I know in my parents' generation (~60) has only just recently paid off their student loans. Most of the people in my grandparents generation (~80) didn't attend at all, as student loans didn't exist; meaning that tertiary education was not affordable.
I don't think pointing out that working at McDonald's isn't highly skilled labor is deriding the people who work there. It's just a fact, some jobs require a bigger or more specific skillset. There are plenty of entry level and/or unskilled jobs out there that need to be done and there's nothing wrong with doing them but the reason they don't pay as much as other jobs is because they pull from a large pool of unskilled applicants.
Are the managers, maintenance men, and cooks that work at McDonald's not skilled?
If neither the federal govt nor private banks offered student loans for high education then colleges and universities would have to either find a way to lower tuition back to affordable levels, like it was when my parents and grandparents attended or be left without enough students.
Everyone I know in my parents' generation (~60) has only just recently paid off their student loans. Most of the people in my grandparents generation (~80) didn't attend at all, as student loans didn't exist; meaning that tertiary education was not affordable.
I don't think pointing out that working at McDonald's isn't highly skilled labor is deriding the people who work there. It's just a fact, some jobs require a bigger or more specific skillset. There are plenty of entry level and/or unskilled jobs out there that need to be done and there's nothing wrong with doing them but the reason they don't pay as much as other jobs is because they pull from a large pool of unskilled applicants.
Are the managers, maintenance men, and cooks that work at McDonald's not skilled?
None of your grandparents went to college on the GI Bill following WWII? All of mine did. All of my parents, aunts and uncles went to college and did so without acruing any significant debt and all of them were from blue collar families.
Some jobs at McDonalds probably can be classified as skilled but none of them pay minimum wage. Minimum wage jobs pay minimum wage because they are pulling applicants from the broadest labor pool which is unskilled workers.
None of your grandparents went to college on the GI Bill following WWII? All of mine did. All of my parents, aunts and uncles went to college and did so without acruing any significant debt and all of them were from blue collar families.
Probably due to the GI Bill, at least in the case of your grandparents.
Some jobs at McDonalds probably can be classified as skilled but none of them pay minimum wage. Minimum wage jobs pay minimum wage because they are pulling applicants from the broadest labor pool which is unskilled workers.
Cooks and maintenance men often earn minimum wage, and not just at McDonald's corollaries.
A cook at McDonalds isn't a skilled position. A cook at another restaurant might be(because there you'd actually be cooking and not just stacking hamburgers)
Grey Templar wrote: A cook at McDonalds isn't a skilled position. A cook at another restaurant might be(because there you'd actually be cooking and not just stacking hamburgers)
I don't see a material difference between a person who prepares food according to someone else's recipes, and someone who prepares food according to someone else's recipes.
Grey Templar wrote: Surely you can tell the difference between stacking a hamburger at McDonalds and making a medium rare T-bone steak and mashed potatoes at Cattlemans.
One requires some actual skill, the other doesn't.
Cooks at McDonald's do more than just stack hamburgers, you continue to deny them any credit. And yes, stacking hamburgers requires skill.
None of your grandparents went to college on the GI Bill following WWII? All of mine did. All of my parents, aunts and uncles went to college and did so without acruing any significant debt and all of them were from blue collar families.
Probably due to the GI Bill, at least in the case of your grandparents.
Some jobs at McDonalds probably can be classified as skilled but none of them pay minimum wage. Minimum wage jobs pay minimum wage because they are pulling applicants from the broadest labor pool which is unskilled workers.
Cooks and maintenance men often earn minimum wage, and not just at McDonald's corollaries.
They earned their undergraduate degrees without incurring debt. Some earned graduate degrees, mostly at night since they had jobs. I'm not sure if they paid their own way through grad school, some definitely got help from their employers and there might have also been a couple of loans not entirely sure so there may have been debt but nothing that they couldn't handle. This was during the mid-late 1970s so tuition + room and board was around $7k.
I'm sure there are positions in the kitchen that pay minimum wage and I know that there are also kitchen positions that pay much better than minimum wage. Depending on the job description of maintenance man there can be some skill required and that drives up the wage.
I'm sure there are positions in the kitchen that pay minimum wage and I know that there are also kitchen positions that pay much better than minimum wage. Depending on the job description of maintenance man there can be some skill required and that drives up the wage.
But not universally, which is why minimum wage exists.
Grey Templar wrote: Surely you can tell the difference between stacking a hamburger at McDonalds and making a medium rare T-bone steak and mashed potatoes at Cattlemans.
One requires some actual skill, the other doesn't.
Cooks at McDonald's do more than just stack hamburgers, you continue to deny them any credit. And yes, stacking hamburgers requires skill.
Right, they also watch a timer for the fries and push buttons on a touchscreen.
No, its not a skilled position.
A skilled position is a plumber, a cook/chef at a restaurant which actually makes real food, a welder, an auto-service technician, a forklift operator, etc...
Your claim that flipping burgers at McDonalds is a skilled position is incredibly insulting to anyone who has a real skilled position.
Right, they also watch a timer for the fries and push buttons on a touchscreen.
And sweep the floor, clean the bathroom, take orders, process orders, and handle difficult customers....etc. Often all in a single shift while also being treated poorly.
A skilled position is a plumber, a cook/chef at a restaurant which actually makes real food, a welder, an auto-service technician, a forklift operator, etc...
AS someone who is fairly familiar with commercial kitchens, there is not muc difference from a fast food line cook, and your standard chain restaraunt line cook.
You only see the difference when you go to really high end places, but there they are no longer line cooks, but various levels of chefs.
Grey Templar wrote: Surely you can tell the difference between stacking a hamburger at McDonalds and making a medium rare T-bone steak and mashed potatoes at Cattlemans.
One requires some actual skill, the other doesn't.
Cooks at McDonald's do more than just stack hamburgers, you continue to deny them any credit. And yes, stacking hamburgers requires skill.
Right, they also watch a timer for the fries and push buttons on a touchscreen.
No, its not a skilled position.
A skilled position is a plumber, a cook/chef at a restaurant which actually makes real food, a welder, an auto-service technician, a forklift operator, etc...
Your claim that flipping burgers at McDonalds is a skilled position is incredibly insulting to anyone who has a real skilled position.
In my local (Steamfitters Local 602), a mechanical helper makes $13.35 in the pocket and a $7.66 contractor contribution to medical (they get no other benefits like pension, annuity, etc.), plus they are entitled to paid overtime (both time-and-a-half or double time, depending on hours worked and day of the week), paid holidays, and shift differential.
They are nothing more than an unskilled laborer. They aren't required to have any of the skills that a journeyman mechanic or welder is supposed to have nor can they do anything directly related to the installation of piping systems or equipment; their job is to sweep up, organize tools/material, fill water jugs, unload supply trucks, dig ditches, and pretty much be a gofer.
If someone who does the things I described is worth at least $13 an hour (plus medical insurance), so is a fast food employee.
cincydooley wrote: I think it's fair to say those unskilled helpers are only getting that wage because of the union.
McDonald's workers are free to unionize.
No, it's fair to say that helpers make that wage because they earn it. I know, it's terrible that someone without "skill" can earn all that money, isn't it?
But $13 dollars an hour in the DC Metro area isn't much... it would be near impossible to live off of (let alone support a family) in town or in most of the suburbs in VA and MD.
The nonunion wage in the DC/Metro area is pretty close to ours, and on any government job it is the same as ours (or more, if you don't take the benefits).
Grey Templar wrote: Surely you can tell the difference between stacking a hamburger at McDonalds and making a medium rare T-bone steak and mashed potatoes at Cattlemans.
One requires some actual skill, the other doesn't.
Cooks at McDonald's do more than just stack hamburgers, you continue to deny them any credit. And yes, stacking hamburgers requires skill.
Right, they also watch a timer for the fries and push buttons on a touchscreen.
No, its not a skilled position.
A skilled position is a plumber, a cook/chef at a restaurant which actually makes real food, a welder, an auto-service technician, a forklift operator, etc...
Your claim that flipping burgers at McDonalds is a skilled position is incredibly insulting to anyone who has a real skilled position.
In my local (Steamfitters Local 602), a mechanical helper makes $13.35 in the pocket and a $7.66 contractor contribution to medical (they get no other benefits like pension, annuity, etc.), plus they are entitled to paid overtime (both time-and-a-half or double time, depending on hours worked and day of the week), paid holidays, and shift differential.
They are nothing more than an unskilled laborer. They aren't required to have any of the skills that a journeyman mechanic or welder is supposed to have nor can they do anything directly related to the installation of piping systems or equipment; their job is to sweep up, organize tools/material, fill water jugs, unload supply trucks, dig ditches, and pretty much be a gofer.
If someone who does the things I described is worth at least $13 an hour (plus medical insurance), so is a fast food employee.
I think it's fair to say that most people who work at McDonalds could also work as mechanical helpers, both jobs require able bodied people capable of learning and executing basic tasks. I think it's also fair to say that the steamfitter's union has more leverage to get the wage they want for their mechanical helpers than the workers at McDonalds. If a job requires steamfitters the General Contractor has to hire steamfitters and if the steamfitters submit the proposal that the work will require X number of steamfitters and Y number of helpers at given wages there's very little the GC can do to alter those terms (changing the scope of work or the schedule is all I can think of). Nobody is going to wreck their schedule because they think mechanical helpers should earn a couple dollars less an hour. McDonalds employees have no leverage to get higher pay as long as there are other applicants willing to work at McDonalds for minimum wage.
@ ScootyPuff: That makes sense. Hard work, whether skilled or not, ought to be rewarded decently. What current unskilled laborers get (at least I get the impression that that's the way of things in the US) amounts to nothing more than slave labor in all but name.
And while I do agree that unskilled labor shouldn't rate the same pay as someone who's worked hard to get up in the world (whether through sweat or brains makes no difference), that's no reason to treat and pay them like dirt, either. There should be an acceptable middle ground somewhere.
Bran Dawri wrote: @ ScootyPuff: That makes sense. Hard work, whether skilled or not, ought to be rewarded decently. What current unskilled laborers get (at least I get the impression that that's the way of things in the US) amounts to nothing more than slave labor in all but name.
And while I do agree that unskilled labor shouldn't rate the same pay as someone who's worked hard to get up in the world (whether through sweat or brains makes no difference), that's no reason to treat and pay them like dirt, either. There should be an acceptable middle ground somewhere.
Bran Dawri wrote: @ ScootyPuff: That makes sense. Hard work, whether skilled or not, ought to be rewarded decently. What current unskilled laborers get (at least I get the impression that that's the way of things in the US) amounts to nothing more than slave labor in all but name.
And while I do agree that unskilled labor shouldn't rate the same pay as someone who's worked hard to get up in the world (whether through sweat or brains makes no difference), that's no reason to treat and pay them like dirt, either. There should be an acceptable middle ground somewhere.
Are you seriously comparing people willingly entering into a contract for paid labor to slavery?
Bran Dawri wrote: @ ScootyPuff: That makes sense. Hard work, whether skilled or not, ought to be rewarded decently. What current unskilled laborers get (at least I get the impression that that's the way of things in the US) amounts to nothing more than slave labor in all but name.
And while I do agree that unskilled labor shouldn't rate the same pay as someone who's worked hard to get up in the world (whether through sweat or brains makes no difference), that's no reason to treat and pay them like dirt, either. There should be an acceptable middle ground somewhere.
Stop being reasonable! This is the INTERNET!
I think what the disconect is for most people is that they feel low earning jobs are "easy" by default, which is asinine. In a lot of ways, being a mechanical helper is harder than being a journeyman mechanic. All things considered, they make a pretty fair wage, but it is significantly than even an apprentice (a first year apprentice makes $17.21 in the pocket + full benefits).
I'm a big believer in a fair days work for a fair days pay, no matter what the job is.
Bran Dawri wrote: @ ScootyPuff: That makes sense. Hard work, whether skilled or not, ought to be rewarded decently. What current unskilled laborers get (at least I get the impression that that's the way of things in the US) amounts to nothing more than slave labor in all but name.
And while I do agree that unskilled labor shouldn't rate the same pay as someone who's worked hard to get up in the world (whether through sweat or brains makes no difference), that's no reason to treat and pay them like dirt, either. There should be an acceptable middle ground somewhere.
Stop being reasonable! This is the INTERNET!
I think what the disconect is for most people is that they feel low earning jobs are "easy" by default, which is asinine. In a lot of ways, being a mechanical helper is harder than being a journeyman mechanic. All things considered, they make a pretty fair wage, but it is significantly than even an apprentice (a first year apprentice makes $17.21 in the pocket + full benefits).
I'm a big believer in a fair days work for a fair days pay, no matter what the job is.
Agreed. There is nobility in doing a job well regardless of what it is and everyone is deserving of fair pay for a days work. Employers, unions and workers in general can negotiate whatever wages the market will bear. I hav e respect for everybody that works hard and acts professional regardless of their job.
Bran Dawri wrote: @ ScootyPuff: That makes sense. Hard work, whether skilled or not, ought to be rewarded decently. What current unskilled laborers get (at least I get the impression that that's the way of things in the US) amounts to nothing more than slave labor in all but name.
And while I do agree that unskilled labor shouldn't rate the same pay as someone who's worked hard to get up in the world (whether through sweat or brains makes no difference), that's no reason to treat and pay them like dirt, either. There should be an acceptable middle ground somewhere.
Are you seriously comparing people willingly entering into a contract for paid labor to slavery?
Bran Dawri wrote: @ ScootyPuff: That makes sense. Hard work, whether skilled or not, ought to be rewarded decently. What current unskilled laborers get (at least I get the impression that that's the way of things in the US) amounts to nothing more than slave labor in all but name.
And while I do agree that unskilled labor shouldn't rate the same pay as someone who's worked hard to get up in the world (whether through sweat or brains makes no difference), that's no reason to treat and pay them like dirt, either. There should be an acceptable middle ground somewhere.
Are you seriously comparing people willingly entering into a contract for paid labor to slavery?
Are you seriously denying that wage slaves exist?
I'm seriously arguing that it's wrong to call people that get paid for their labor slaves yes. I'm also seriously arguing that people that willingly choose to enter into a labor contract wherein they are paid for their labor slaves. I'm also seriously call the term "wage slave" an oxymoron.
Bran Dawri wrote: @ ScootyPuff: That makes sense. Hard work, whether skilled or not, ought to be rewarded decently. What current unskilled laborers get (at least I get the impression that that's the way of things in the US) amounts to nothing more than slave labor in all but name.
And while I do agree that unskilled labor shouldn't rate the same pay as someone who's worked hard to get up in the world (whether through sweat or brains makes no difference), that's no reason to treat and pay them like dirt, either. There should be an acceptable middle ground somewhere.
Are you seriously comparing people willingly entering into a contract for paid labor to slavery?
Are you seriously denying that wage slaves exist?
I'm seriously arguing that it's wrong to call people that get paid for their labor slaves yes. I'm also seriously arguing that people that willingly choose to enter into a labor contract wherein they are paid for their labor slaves. I'm also seriously call the term "wage slave" an oxymoron.
It's very possible. It's not chains of iron that bind them, but economic chains. They may make barley make enough to survive, but can't leave the job because there is nothing else.
Bran Dawri wrote: @ ScootyPuff: That makes sense. Hard work, whether skilled or not, ought to be rewarded decently. What current unskilled laborers get (at least I get the impression that that's the way of things in the US) amounts to nothing more than slave labor in all but name.
And while I do agree that unskilled labor shouldn't rate the same pay as someone who's worked hard to get up in the world (whether through sweat or brains makes no difference), that's no reason to treat and pay them like dirt, either. There should be an acceptable middle ground somewhere.
Are you seriously comparing people willingly entering into a contract for paid labor to slavery?
Are you seriously denying that wage slaves exist?
I'm seriously arguing that it's wrong to call people that get paid for their labor slaves yes. I'm also seriously arguing that people that willingly choose to enter into a labor contract wherein they are paid for their labor slaves. I'm also seriously call the term "wage slave" an oxymoron.
It's very possible. It's not chains of iron that bind them, but economic chains. They may make barley make enough to survive, but can't leave the job because there is nothing else.
So free people who are entitled to all the rights and protections of US citizens, who are gainfully employed but earn less than X amount of dollars annually are in the same situation as slaves with no rights who are treated as livestock? Do companies get to sell their minimum wage employees to other companies against the will of the employee? Do companies get to beat and abuse their minimum wage employees? Do companies get to claim ownership of the children of their minimum wage employees? Do minimum wage employees not count as US citizens? Are minimum wage employees banned by law from having any private property rights? If a minimum wage employee takes a job with another company does their new employee have a legal responsibility to send the employee back to the previous employer? Please tell me how both situations are the same.
Bran Dawri wrote: @ ScootyPuff: That makes sense. Hard work, whether skilled or not, ought to be rewarded decently. What current unskilled laborers get (at least I get the impression that that's the way of things in the US) amounts to nothing more than slave labor in all but name.
And while I do agree that unskilled labor shouldn't rate the same pay as someone who's worked hard to get up in the world (whether through sweat or brains makes no difference), that's no reason to treat and pay them like dirt, either. There should be an acceptable middle ground somewhere.
Are you seriously comparing people willingly entering into a contract for paid labor to slavery?
Are you seriously denying that wage slaves exist?
I'm seriously arguing that it's wrong to call people that get paid for their labor slaves yes. I'm also seriously arguing that people that willingly choose to enter into a labor contract wherein they are paid for their labor slaves. I'm also seriously call the term "wage slave" an oxymoron.
It's very possible. It's not chains of iron that bind them, but economic chains. They may make barley make enough to survive, but can't leave the job because there is nothing else.
So free people who are entitled to all the rights and protections of US citizens, who are gainfully employed but earn less than X amount of dollars annually are in the same situation as slaves with no rights who are treated as livestock? Do companies get to sell their minimum wage employees to other companies against the will of the employee? Do companies get to beat and abuse their minimum wage employees? Do companies get to claim ownership of the children of their minimum wage employees? Do minimum wage employees not count as US citizens? Are minimum wage employees banned by law from having any private property rights? If a minimum wage employee takes a job with another company does their new employee have a legal responsibility to send the employee back to the previous employer? Please tell me how both situations are the same.
It's not actual slavery. You are taking the expression way too literally.
No, they are treated worse than some slaves historically.
I'm (obviously) not talking about black people in Viriginia pre-Civil War here, but slaves in ancient Rome and Greece were treated far better, and often even respected than someone working at McD's. Most importantly they were even paid wages sometimes and could save up to buy their own freedom. They actually had some way to get ahead, to get out of the situation they found themselves in. That's more than a wage slave of Walmart's or McD's can say.
This was 2000 years ago in a culture which by many of today's standards was barbaric.
You are trivializing a harsh reality that many people live in even today. Just stop.
It's really not. It's just like complaining that something is "like prison" or that you feel "like prisoners" or indeed,
"like slaves."
Dude, just stop.
Those things aren't anything close to equivalent. Slavery is a dehumanizing process whereby a person is reduced to the level of property, a thing.
Prison or a bad employment situations do NOT compare.
The problem is, as it's been discussed in this thread, there are certain employers who pay such a ridiculous low wage that people working those jobs literally have 2 options: work at that job, or live under a bridge. Either option, they're on government "assistance". So in many ways, yes, they are slaves to that job.
We do agree on that one. It's absolutely despicable that a company like Walmart can pay its employees such crap wages that they (walmart employees) account for roughly 4 Billion Dollars of Welfare assistance in the US.
We do agree on that one. It's absolutely despicable that a company like Walmart can pay its employees such crap wages that they (walmart employees) account for roughly 4 Billion Dollars of Welfare assistance in the US.
And, going back to the idea of a $20 burger - right now we have $20 burgers, but the people eating the burgers are paying $4 and the US taxpayer is paying the other $16 in food stamps, housing assistance, welfare to the people making them.
Prestor Jon wrote: Minimum wage jobs pay minimum wage because they are pulling applicants from the broadest labor pool which is unskilled workers.
People still present arguments like this? Srsly?
As we speak, I'm making $16.50/hour to sit on my ass in this lobby, wearing a suit and beating people up on Dakka Dakka. The janitor who I periodically see coming and going through the lobby busts his ass 8 hours a day cleaning a 34 story office building- he makes $9/hour. Most of the time, the only variable that influences how much a company pays its workers is the extent to which an employer can exploit his employees.
Prestor Jon wrote: Minimum wage jobs pay minimum wage because they are pulling applicants from the broadest labor pool which is unskilled workers.
People still present arguments like this? Srsly?
As we speak, I'm making $16.50/hour to sit on my ass in this lobby, wearing a suit and beating people up on Dakka Dakka. The janitor who I periodically see coming and going through the lobby busts his ass 8 hours a day cleaning a 34 story office building- he makes $9/hour. Most of the time, the only variable that influences how much a company pays its workers is the extent to which an employer can exploit his employees.
Does the minimum wage really have to be a living wage? Now, I agree that full-time employees ought to be able to make enough to live off of. But what about the multitude of high schoolers and college students who are looking for part time work? Some jobs lend themselves well to part-time, supplemental income, and even among those, many of them already pay higher than minimum wage (including many restaurants and retail establishments). Even so, the last time my home state saw a significant minimum wage increase, I saw a number of minimum wage jobs disappear. I always thought of minimum wage jobs to be primarily geared towards part-time, entry level work. Will there still be a place for that if we require the minimum wage to be a living wage? I can't imagine many business would hire high school students for that much, and if they are required to pay that much I'd guess a lot of older adults would be more likely to apply for minimum wage jobs anyway.
Bran Dawri wrote: No, they are treated worse than some slaves historically.
I'm (obviously) not talking about black people in Viriginia pre-Civil War here, but slaves in ancient Rome and Greece were treated far better, and often even respected than someone working at McD's. Most importantly they were even paid wages sometimes and could save up to buy their own freedom. They actually had some way to get ahead, to get out of the situation they found themselves in. That's more than a wage slave of Walmart's or McD's can say.
This was 2000 years ago in a culture which by many of today's standards was barbaric.
Wait what? I must have missed where McDonalds routinely killed employees who didn't work properly, or perhaps threw them in match pairs in front of the serving counter for the amusement of patrons. Dude read a book.
On the other hand, gladitorial games while eating sausage biscuits might get me to go to one.
BlaxicanX wrote: It's almost as if people don't know what a metaphor is ITT.
Its almost as people don't understand that comparing a horrible, dehumanizing condition that reduces actual human beings to property with people that just make less money from their otherwise comfortable jobs, just mocks and belittles the actual suffering that the first ones had (and continue to have since there are still honest to god slaves in some parts of the planet).
BlaxicanX wrote: It's almost as if people don't know what a metaphor is ITT.
Its almost as people don't understand that comparing a horrible, dehumanizing condition that reduces actual human beings to property with people that just make less money from their otherwise comfortable jobs, just mocks and belittles the actual suffering that the first ones had (and continue to have since there are still honest to god slaves in some parts of the planet).
You just don't get it don't you. The point of the comparison is to show how it is a bad thing. Read up a little.
Bran Dawri wrote: No, they are treated worse than some slaves historically.
I'm (obviously) not talking about black people in Viriginia pre-Civil War here, but slaves in ancient Rome and Greece were treated far better, and often even respected than someone working at McD's. Most importantly they were even paid wages sometimes and could save up to buy their own freedom. They actually had some way to get ahead, to get out of the situation they found themselves in. That's more than a wage slave of Walmart's or McD's can say.
This was 2000 years ago in a culture which by many of today's standards was barbaric.
This is absurd. People at Walmart or McDonald's don't have to "buy their freedom" because they're already free to pursue alternate routes of income.
MI's minimum wage is $8.15 / hr. Assuming you work 40 hours a week, and take off two weeks a year, that's $16,300 / year. It's not all that great, but you aren't exactly starving either. And that's assuming you work on 40 hours per week without pursuing any overtime.
I'm a little short on sympathy for these "woe is me" arguments. I'm an ABD PhD student paid a (rather small) stipend. In addition to my doctoral research, I (1) teach 2 undergraduate classes. Not TA. TEACH. I design the syllabus, select the text book, lecture, assign homework, grade, and give exams. (2) Work remotely for an applied research company up to 40 hours per week, though the time investment varies wildy. And (3) am a part-time consultant and freelance programmer.
If I was depending on one source of income to get me by, just saying "I'll put in my 40 hours per week!" I'd be broke as a joke. Maybe it's time for Goofy Mcburgerflipper to get off his ass and get a second job. If all he has are minimum wage skills, then he should work harder if he wants more than minimum wage pay. Here's an idea - take a part time apprenticeship on the weekends learning a trade - he's only working 40 hours per week remember? That leaves a ton of free time. Learn for free by helping out a building contractor, then when you learn enough to do it yourself, look for work as a more skilled laborer. That all sounds like a lot of effort though...it's a lot easier just to bitch about the minimum wage.
Don't forget that most minimum wage earners are NOT working 40 hours a week at a single job anyways, as nearly all of them have cut part-time employees to around 30 so they don't have to comply with the ACA.
I've worked extra jobs for extra money. So has my wife. Both while we were employed at good full time positions. Hell, If I wasn't coaching I'd consider working over the holidays at FedEx or Amazon for seasonal work.
cincydooley wrote: The point is that many of us think it's a horrible and inappropriate comparison.
We understand plenty what metaphors are.
It's actully a very apt comparison if you look at what wage slavery actually is. It's not just working at fast food. Again, read up a tad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery
And I'm sure that for some of you this is not about the term, but a disbelief in the idea it self.
It's actully a very apt comparison if you look at what wage slavery actually is. It's not just working at fast food. Again, read up a tad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery .
No.
It isn't.
You have to WILLINGLY IGNORE the fact that the phrase was used to describe late 19th and early 20th century workers.
Comparing them to today's fast food worker is woefully ignorant.
It's actully a very apt comparison if you look at what wage slavery actually is. It's not just working at fast food. Again, read up a tad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery .
It's actully a very apt comparison if you look at what wage slavery actually is. It's not just working at fast food. Again, read up a tad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery .
It's actully a very apt comparison if you look at what wage slavery actually is. It's not just working at fast food. Again, read up a tad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery .
No.
It isn't.
Why not?
Because your employer can't kill you.
What? It's not saying it's the same, it's using the word slavery (i.e. forced service) to explain an economic problem. It's not slavery to the employer, but to the economy and your own circumstances. You are forced to keep working an unwanted, possibly even unsafe, job because if you don't you will starve, or lose your residence. And you keep working tht job because there are none available other than tht one.
It's actully a very apt comparison if you look at what wage slavery actually is. It's not just working at fast food. Again, read up a tad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery .
No.
It isn't.
Why not?
Because your employer can't kill you.
What? It's not saying it's the same, it's using the word slavery (i.e. forced service) to explain an economic problem. It's not slavery to the employer, but to the economy and your own circumstances. You are forced to keep working an unwanted, possibly even unsafe, job because if you don't you will starve, or lose your residence. And you keep working tht job because there are none available other than tht one.
Have you even ever worked a minimum wage job in the US? I worked minimum wage jobs from when I was 16 up until I was 27. The pay at those jobs never exceeded $12.50/hr and was as low as $8.50. At no point in time did my life ever remotely resemble that of an slave. Everyone working a minimum wage job in the US has the full rights and protections of a US citizen, every company employing minimum wage earners must comply with EoE hiring practices, child labor laws, OSHAA safety standards, local fire and health codes, state wage minimums, and all other state and federal labor laws.
Employers are not responsible in any way, shape or form for the fact that an applicant has a weak resume, lacks marketable skills and has poor job prospects. The employers didn't create the labor pool of minimum wage job applicants, they're simply offering the wages required to get workers to do the jobs that they need to get done.
People move on from minimum wage jobs all the time and plenty of people voluntarily take minimum wage jobs as part time jobs or seasonal jobs to increase their earnings. Everyone needs to take personal responsibility for their own lives and careers. If you want to work a job that pays better than minimum wage then you actually have to take steps to make yourself qualified to do so during the first few decades of your life.
Thats just stupid. Unless you're independently wealthy everyone has to work.
Let me Mansplain it to you. BY using the term "Slavery" its just hyperventilating a topic and making the arguer look like an ass. Now go check your privilege you nongyno gifted person!
It's actully a very apt comparison if you look at what wage slavery actually is. It's not just working at fast food. Again, read up a tad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery .
No.
It isn't.
Why not?
Because your employer can't kill you.
What? It's not saying it's the same, it's using the word slavery (i.e. forced service) to explain an economic problem. It's not slavery to the employer, but to the economy and your own circumstances. You are forced to keep working an unwanted, possibly even unsafe, job because if you don't you will starve, or lose your residence. And you keep working tht job because there are none available other than tht one.
Have you even ever worked a minimum wage job in the US? I worked minimum wage jobs from when I was 16 up until I was 27. The pay at those jobs never exceeded $12.50/hr and was as low as $8.50. At no point in time did my life ever remotely resemble that of an slave. Everyone working a minimum wage job in the US has the full rights and protections of a US citizen, every company employing minimum wage earners must comply with EoE hiring practices, child labor laws, OSHAA safety standards, local fire and health codes, state wage minimums, and all other state and federal labor laws.
Employers are not responsible in any way, shape or form for the fact that an applicant has a weak resume, lacks marketable skills and has poor job prospects. The employers didn't create the labor pool of minimum wage job applicants, they're simply offering the wages required to get workers to do the jobs that they need to get done.
People move on from minimum wage jobs all the time and plenty of people voluntarily take minimum wage jobs as part time jobs or seasonal jobs to increase their earnings. Everyone needs to take personal responsibility for their own lives and careers. If you want to work a job that pays better than minimum wage then you actually have to take steps to make yourself qualified to do so during the first few decades of your life.
Nothing you have written had anything to do with economic slavery. Please, read up on what it is.
Not to mention your "wage slavery" article is pretty explicitly in reference to a very particular time frame following the end of the industrial revolution.
Nearly everything in that article has been resolved and remedied, nearly completely, but the numerous worker's rights legislations like FLSA, OSH, FMLA, and the various workers comp acts.
Co'tor Shas wrote: You are forced to keep working an unwanted, possibly even unsafe, job because if you don't you will starve, or lose your residence. And you keep working tht job because there are none available other than tht one.
So...working in general, unless you're independently wealthy?
cincydooley wrote: Not to mention your "wage slavery" article is pretty explicitly in reference to a very particular time frame following the end of the industrial revolution.
Nearly everything in that article has been resolved and remedied, nearly completely, but the numerous worker's rights legislations like FLSA, OSH, FMLA, and the various workers comp acts.
Umm, that's not what I'm arguing. I agree that it is not really a problem, very few people are trapped in a cycle of poverty, usualy being their own fault such as education, sometimes not. I just think that it is an apt term for what it is discribing.
Umm, that's not what I'm arguing. I agree that it is not really a problem, very few people are trapped in a cycle of poverty, usualy being their own fault such as education, sometimes not. I just think that it is an apt term for what it is discribing.
Yes, it is an apt term to describe the working conditions in place right after the industrial revolution where large numbers of workers would die due to extreme and unsafe working environments.
It is not, however, an apt term to describe minimum wage workers in a modern western society.
It's actully a very apt comparison if you look at what wage slavery actually is. It's not just working at fast food. Again, read up a tad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery .
No.
It isn't.
Why not?
Because your employer can't kill you.
What? It's not saying it's the same, it's using the word slavery (i.e. forced service) to explain an economic problem. It's not slavery to the employer, but to the economy and your own circumstances. You are forced to keep working an unwanted, possibly even unsafe, job because if you don't you will starve, or lose your residence. And you keep working tht job because there are none available other than tht one.
Have you even ever worked a minimum wage job in the US? I worked minimum wage jobs from when I was 16 up until I was 27. The pay at those jobs never exceeded $12.50/hr and was as low as $8.50. At no point in time did my life ever remotely resemble that of an slave. Everyone working a minimum wage job in the US has the full rights and protections of a US citizen, every company employing minimum wage earners must comply with EoE hiring practices, child labor laws, OSHAA safety standards, local fire and health codes, state wage minimums, and all other state and federal labor laws.
Employers are not responsible in any way, shape or form for the fact that an applicant has a weak resume, lacks marketable skills and has poor job prospects. The employers didn't create the labor pool of minimum wage job applicants, they're simply offering the wages required to get workers to do the jobs that they need to get done.
People move on from minimum wage jobs all the time and plenty of people voluntarily take minimum wage jobs as part time jobs or seasonal jobs to increase their earnings. Everyone needs to take personal responsibility for their own lives and careers. If you want to work a job that pays better than minimum wage then you actually have to take steps to make yourself qualified to do so during the first few decades of your life.
Nothing you have written had anything to do with economic slavery. Please, read up on what it is.
I've read the entirety of the wiki link you keep posting and it's nothing but made up gak that uses false equivalences to absolve people of personal responsibilities, declare people victims and castigate commerce and capitalism.
Wage slavery refers to a situation where a worker's livelihood depends on wages, especially when the dependence is total and immediate.[1][2] It is a pejorative term used to draw an analogy between slavery and wage labor by focusing on similarities between owning and renting a person. The term wage slavery has been used to criticize economic exploitation and social stratification, with the former seen primarily as unequal bargaining power between labor and capital (particularly when workers are paid comparatively low wages, e.g. in sweatshops),[3] and the latter as a lack of workers' self-management, fulfilling job choices and leisure in an economy.[4][5][6] The criticism of social stratification covers a wider range of employment choices bound by the pressures of a hierarchical society to perform otherwise unfulfilling work that deprives humans of their "species character"[7] not only under threat of starvation or poverty, but also of social stigma and status diminution.[8][9][10]
Every single working person is dependent on wages and that dependency is almost always immediate. Only people who are already independently wealthy don't need their paychecks to pay their bills on time. The fact that everyone needs money and therefore needs a job to earn money does not make you a "slave" to your job. You know who can't survive without a job? Virtually everyone in the US, yet we're not slaves, in any way. Earning an income doesn't limit your options it increases them.
We could eliminate money altogether and go back to a barter system and people would still be "forced" to work in order to produce something with which to barter.
The whole concept of "wage slavery" is just empty semantics being used to push a political agenda. Please, mainsplain to me the reasoning behind referring to employment as "renting people." Employers don't "rent people" they offer labor contracts in which employees agree to provide labor to accomplish specified task in exchange for monetary recompense. One simply cannot rent a person today in the US, you can rent objects but you can't rent people.
To the extent that workers are exploited, it is a result of market conditions that are pre-existing at the time the parties agree to a labor contract. Why can employers readily find people willing to take minimum eage jobs? Why is there a large pool of applicants that aren't qualified to get higher paying jobs? If you want to actually solve problem you need to address root causes not waste time trying to change the meanings of words and throw money at problems in a counter productive manner that is overtly designed to achieve political gains.
Umm, that's not what I'm arguing. I agree that it is not really a problem, very few people are trapped in a cycle of poverty, usualy being their own fault such as education, sometimes not. I just think that it is an apt term for what it is discribing.
Yes, it is an apt term to describe the working conditions in place right after the industrial revolution where large numbers of workers would die due to extreme and unsafe working environments.
It is not, however, an apt term to describe minimum wage workers in a modern western society.
I agree, it isn't. The only real examples that are actually at all commonplace would be some jobs illegal immigrants do.
All I was doing was arguing that the term makes sense for what it is.
feth that.
I mean, truth be told, I probably get paid close to minimum wage at my good job when you count all the extra hours I work at home and at night to DO MY JOB WELL. Should I be up in arms about it?
* - Okay, so no, after doing the math, that's not the case, nor is is that close. Apologies for my hyperbole.
Or maybe I should be up in arms about the fact that with coaching, my pay ends up being around $1.70 an hour.
All I was doing was arguing that the term makes sense for what it is.
feth that.
I mean, truth be told, I probably get paid close to minimum wage at my good job when you count all the extra hours I work at home and at night to DO MY JOB WELL. Should I be up in arms about it?
Or maybe I should be up in arms about the fact that with coaching, my pay ends up being around $1.70 an hour.
The oppression. The slavery. Uproar!
Huh? I thought I just agreed with you that it is about stuff like during the industrial revolution, not anything modern (and legal).
Co'tor Shas wrote: You are forced to keep working an unwanted, possibly even unsafe, job because if you don't you will starve, or lose your residence. And you keep working tht job because there are none available other than tht one.
So...working in general, unless you're independently wealthy?
I'd say, "working in a situation where you cannot afford time away to interview or look for a new/better paying job because you make only just enough to have a roof over your head, the clothes you need to work in, and ramen to eat." would fit the arguments being made that "wage slavery" as a term, is a real thing, even in modern day Western Society.
Co'tor Shas wrote: You are forced to keep working an unwanted, possibly even unsafe, job because if you don't you will starve, or lose your residence. And you keep working tht job because there are none available other than tht one.
So...working in general, unless you're independently wealthy?
I'd say, "working in a situation where you cannot afford time away to interview or look for a new/better paying job because you make only just enough to have a roof over your head, the clothes you need to work in, and ramen to eat." would fit the arguments being made that "wage slavery" as a term, is a real thing, even in modern day Western Society.
How are they unable to afford time away? If you're working a full time minimum wage job, you're only working 40 hours per week. You have a ton of free time to pursue other sources of income. If you're working 2 jobs part time, say 60 hours per week, you're making almost $25,000 / year, which is not poverty-level.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: comparing low wages, on voluntary work, to actual slavery,
is like asking people to wear poppies for you because you died once in call of duty,
it reeks of entitlement, and its demeaning to the people actually have had to deal with ACTUAL slavery or war.
I'd say, "working in a situation where you cannot afford time away to interview or look for a new/better paying job because you make only just enough to have a roof over your head, the clothes you need to work in, and ramen to eat." would fit the arguments being made that "wage slavery" as a term, is a real thing, even in modern day Western Society.
So how do we define that roof?
Are you entitled to live on your own?
I need my job to pay my mortgage and my bills. Because I live in a nicer house and have more/different bills does that mean my job isn't "wage slavery" by this horrible, horrible definition?
I think it's nonsense that we're even discussing the notion that this is a "real thing" in modern Western Society. It isn't. Not even remotely.
How are they unable to afford time away? If you're working a full time minimum wage job, you're only working 40 hours per week. You have a ton of free time to pursue other sources of income. If you're working 2 jobs part time, say 60 hours per week, you're making almost $25,000 / year, which is not poverty-level.
How many times have you, in the process of trying to get a job, had an interview that was outside the "normal business hours" of 9-5? If you're working a full time job at say, McD's, chances are you are at work during that 9-5 block. Based on that, if you're living check to check, working from 9-5, but take public transport that could significantly add to your "work day", depending on its' efficiency, and where your stop is in relation to work.
Anecdotally, the town I grew up in, if I rode the city bus to the library it took me 1 1/2-2 hours to get there one way. If I rode my bike it took me 30 minutes, tops. and by car it was 15-30 minutes depending on traffic (there were many bike accessible "short cuts" that a car couldn't use).
Now, if I were living literally check to check, 9-5 in that same city, there's no way I could make an interview during the 9-5 time period, and with the reliability of public transport, it'd doubtful anyone would hire, based on the probability that I'd be late to an "after hours" interview.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Anecdotally, the town I grew up in, if I rode the city bus to the library it took me 1 1/2-2 hours to get there one way.
This was the biggest problem with public transportation - it just wastes so much time. It wasn't so bad when I liked in NYC but when I lived in Yonkers for a year, it was super bad. They essentially had 2 parallel bus lines running up each side of the city, so if you wanted to get across town you'd have to ride 30 minutes up to White Plains (or to the Bronx) and then back up or down again, so an hour of riding and however long of waiting for what was a 10 minute drive by car.
How are they unable to afford time away? If you're working a full time minimum wage job, you're only working 40 hours per week. You have a ton of free time to pursue other sources of income. If you're working 2 jobs part time, say 60 hours per week, you're making almost $25,000 / year, which is not poverty-level.
How many times have you, in the process of trying to get a job, had an interview that was outside the "normal business hours" of 9-5? If you're working a full time job at say, McD's, chances are you are at work during that 9-5 block. Based on that, if you're living check to check, working from 9-5, but take public transport that could significantly add to your "work day", depending on its' efficiency, and where your stop is in relation to work.
Anecdotally, the town I grew up in, if I rode the city bus to the library it took me 1 1/2-2 hours to get there one way. If I rode my bike it took me 30 minutes, tops. and by car it was 15-30 minutes depending on traffic (there were many bike accessible "short cuts" that a car couldn't use).
Now, if I were living literally check to check, 9-5 in that same city, there's no way I could make an interview during the 9-5 time period, and with the reliability of public transport, it'd doubtful anyone would hire, based on the probability that I'd be late to an "after hours" interview.
If you're working a full time job, regardless of your wage you're allowed time off. Whether it's paid or unpaid, sick time or vacation time or a catch all personal time. People call out sick from jobs all the time you could schedule a job interview and call out "sick" that day and your job wouldn't be at risk.
While certainly not all, a lot of minimum wage jobs, food service, retail, construction have weekend hours making it possible to work on weekends and have time off during the week to do things like schedule job interviews.
It's not easy to schedule job interviews around existing work hours but it's not impossible.
Getting evening hours at fast food and day hours at Starbucks is not difficult. Tough is working all those hours at minimum wage. It is good that not many wind up in that position. Having a roommate is mandatory if you do.
How are they unable to afford time away? If you're working a full time minimum wage job, you're only working 40 hours per week. You have a ton of free time to pursue other sources of income. If you're working 2 jobs part time, say 60 hours per week, you're making almost $25,000 / year, which is not poverty-level.
How many times have you, in the process of trying to get a job, had an interview that was outside the "normal business hours" of 9-5? If you're working a full time job at say, McD's, chances are you are at work during that 9-5 block. Based on that, if you're living check to check, working from 9-5, but take public transport that could significantly add to your "work day", depending on its' efficiency, and where your stop is in relation to work.
Anecdotally, the town I grew up in, if I rode the city bus to the library it took me 1 1/2-2 hours to get there one way. If I rode my bike it took me 30 minutes, tops. and by car it was 15-30 minutes depending on traffic (there were many bike accessible "short cuts" that a car couldn't use).
Now, if I were living literally check to check, 9-5 in that same city, there's no way I could make an interview during the 9-5 time period, and with the reliability of public transport, it'd doubtful anyone would hire, based on the probability that I'd be late to an "after hours" interview.
McDonalds is open past 9-5. If getting job interviews outside of normal working hours is an issue, the employee can swap shifts with one of the many people who you claim is stuck working at McDonald's - clearly they won't mind.
Likewise, McDonald's is open on weekends. You could easily swap to a weekend shift to free up a week day, then do a bunch of job interviews during that week day.
There are a thousand ways around the situation you propose.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: [
McDonalds is open past 9-5. If getting job interviews outside of normal working hours is an issue, the employee can swap shifts with one of the many people who you claim is stuck working at McDonald's - clearly they won't mind.
Likewise, McDonald's is open on weekends. You could easily swap to a weekend shift to free up a week day, then do a bunch of job interviews during that week day.
There are a thousand ways around the situation you propose.
I know we keep using the Evil Arches as an example, but there ARE other business who fall into the "minimum wage" job category that aren't open on nights or weekends.
For instance, I personally know about a dozen people who work in a Bike Shop (bicycle, not motorized), where the pay is extremely crap. And bike shops are not known for having "good" hours. most of them are closed by 6 in the winter (though they are open later in the summer months), as well as being closed on most Sundays. Now, this isn't the best example, because each any every single one of those guys wouldn't trade their crap paying job for another, because they absolutely LOVE working with bikes and generally, the people who ride them, but the point is, not everyone is a McD's and is open 24-7 where an employee can "easily" swap shifts with someone else.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: [
McDonalds is open past 9-5. If getting job interviews outside of normal working hours is an issue, the employee can swap shifts with one of the many people who you claim is stuck working at McDonald's - clearly they won't mind.
Likewise, McDonald's is open on weekends. You could easily swap to a weekend shift to free up a week day, then do a bunch of job interviews during that week day.
There are a thousand ways around the situation you propose.
I know we keep using the Evil Arches as an example, but there ARE other business who fall into the "minimum wage" job category that aren't open on nights or weekends.
For instance, I personally know about a dozen people who work in a Bike Shop (bicycle, not motorized), where the pay is extremely crap. And bike shops are not known for having "good" hours. most of them are closed by 6 in the winter (though they are open later in the summer months), as well as being closed on most Sundays. Now, this isn't the best example, because each any every single one of those guys wouldn't trade their crap paying job for another, because they absolutely LOVE working with bikes and generally, the people who ride them, but the point is, not everyone is a McD's and is open 24-7 where an employee can "easily" swap shifts with someone else.
I'm sure that you can invent a situation where someone will have trouble finding time to get a job interview, but you would have to do some real mental gymnastics to come to the conclusion that there is literally no way for someone working any job to schedule a job interview with some type of employer.
If you can't get around working a 9-5, and you want a new job, maybe it's time to look for places that can do an interview after hours, or on weekends. And if Bike Guy loves what he does so much, then what's the problem? He's hardly a slave. If I could get paid a billion dollars a year to play 40k, work out, and shoot deer all day, believe me I'd be doing it. But this is real life - Bike Guy can do the job he loves, which has little value to society, or he can do a job that he doesn't necessarily love, but has a greater value. In both cases, he will be paid according to his worth to the employer. Life is about tradeoffs - I'm not really too sorry that Bike Guy can't become a billionaire selling bikes to people.
OK, had to take some time off for a personal emergency.
Primo, I began by stating that I had the impression that people in US minimum wage jobs were or were close to, being wage slaves. Later I got a bit carried and actually called them such for the sake of the argument. That was indeed poor judgement - American minimum wage workers have it worse than pretty much anywhere else in the developed world, but they're not quite wage slaves yet.
Whether or not these people in particular are though, isn't really relevant. And my actual point was that hard work regardless of type, should be rewarded with being able to pay your bills.
Secundo. Wage slavery does exist. I have had personal experience with it. No, I wasn't the wage slave, but I worked with them. And American companies (although mostly indirectly AFAIK) use it when they can get away with it. That alone means that having a livable minimum wage is a good idea, because without it, I have no doubt that there will be actual wage slaves in the Western world as well.
A couple of years ago, I went to Saudi to work on a pipeline. The pipeline was being constructed for an American company by an Italian subcontractor. Literally all of the unskilled laborers were Nepalese who had been "hired" by an agent. "Hired" means they agreed to come to work in Saudi for no less than 2 years for a total amount of money X (actually very little money). Prior to actually being hired though, they (or their familes) had to pay the agency half that amount in order to actually get the job (or work the first year without seeing any money). They got room (containera were divided into four sections, each section contained beds for up to 6 people - more wouldn't physicially fit) and food - although I hesitate to call what they were given actual food.
If they wanted anything else, they had to pay for it themselves. Working boots or coveralls worn down? Use 'em anyway, because if you want a new pair, it comes out of your wages. Break a tool? It comes out your wages. Finish your break 5 minutes late (even if you worked 10 minutes into the start of your break)? Docked an hour's pay.
If they complained about anything like living/working conditions, working hours or food quality too much they could be (and were!) docked pay or -if too much of a rabble-rouser- fired on the spot. Say goodbye to whatever money they had laid into it on the assumption that after a year they would start earning money. If they got injured, they wouldn't have to pay the loan if they took it, but again were out on the street. Well, flown back to Nepal, then out on the street.
So don't come on here on your high horse and claim that I need to stop downgrading slavery and read a book because they entered that contract willingly. They didn't have a choice; it was that (or a similar contract/"job" elsewhere) or watch their families starve.
One cannot afford to take an hour or two off during business hours, that is far too much of a crippling financial blow to my otherwise well planned budget.
but one's hourly is also so small as to be basically inconsequential?
and there is zero chance of your employer letting you work one hour later/earlier on another day?
Bran Dawri wrote: OK, had to take some time off for a personal emergency.
Primo, I began by stating that I had the impression that people in US minimum wage jobs were or were close to, being wage slaves. Later I got a bit carried and actually called them such for the sake of the argument. That was indeed poor judgement - American minimum wage workers have it worse than pretty much anywhere else in the developed world, but they're not quite wage slaves yet.
Whether or not these people in particular are though, isn't really relevant. And my actual point was that hard work regardless of type, should be rewarded with being able to pay your bills.
Secundo. Wage slavery does exist. I have had personal experience with it. No, I wasn't the wage slave, but I worked with them. And American companies (although mostly indirectly AFAIK) use it when they can get away with it. That alone means that having a livable minimum wage is a good idea, because without it, I have no doubt that there will be actual wage slaves in the Western world as well.
A couple of years ago, I went to Saudi to work on a pipeline. The pipeline was being constructed for an American company by an Italian subcontractor. Literally all of the unskilled laborers were Nepalese who had been "hired" by an agent. "Hired" means they agreed to come to work in Saudi for no less than 2 years for a total amount of money X (actually very little money). Prior to actually being hired though, they (or their familes) had to pay the agency half that amount in order to actually get the job (or work the first year without seeing any money). They got room (containera were divided into four sections, each section contained beds for up to 6 people - more wouldn't physicially fit) and food - although I hesitate to call what they were given actual food.
If they wanted anything else, they had to pay for it themselves. Working boots or coveralls worn down? Use 'em anyway, because if you want a new pair, it comes out of your wages. Break a tool? It comes out your wages. Finish your break 5 minutes late (even if you worked 10 minutes into the start of your break)? Docked an hour's pay.
If they complained about anything like living/working conditions, working hours or food quality too much they could be (and were!) docked pay or -if too much of a rabble-rouser- fired on the spot. Say goodbye to whatever money they had laid into it on the assumption that after a year they would start earning money. If they got injured, they wouldn't have to pay the loan if they took it, but again were out on the street. Well, flown back to Nepal, then out on the street.
So don't come on here on your high horse and claim that I need to stop downgrading slavery and read a book because they entered that contract willingly. They didn't have a choice; it was that (or a similar contract/"job" elsewhere) or watch their families starve.
Its still not slavery because, as you admit, they have the option of not accepting.
Its certainly abusive and despicable. But its not slavery.
Its still not slavery because, as you admit, they have the option of not accepting.
Of course the option is to accept and barely survive or not accept and starve/be homeless. Is that really an option? Why should we consider "gak or death" as a reasonable option? Are the people in China that have to be forced to keep from committing suicide as an escape from a gakky job really in a good situation because in theory they could just not do the job? Seems problematic.
Grey Templar wrote: Its certainly abusive and despicable. But its not slavery.
That is a very narrow definition of slavery that ignores any other; if you ignore all options it is correct, but then you have to ignore all the other possible forms to get there.
Its still not slavery because, as you admit, they have the option of not accepting.
Its certainly abusive and despicable. But its not slavery.
Yeah, right on I guess.
Let's drop the self-righteousness though. Is comparing being trapped in a minimum wage job in the States hyperbolic? Sure, I guess so. But so is this "it's demeaning to actual slavery" bit that a few people have been carrying on with.
I just hope none of you have ever called someone a grammar Nazi for pointing out that time you used a semicolon instead of a colon, or talked about how your local sportsball team "slaughtered" their oppenants in the most recent match, or how that girls' dance moves were so hot they were burning the club down, because all of those metaphors are ignorant to the actual victims of the Nazis, or the actual victims of a real slaughter, or the people that died at a Great White concert... and how dare you, right?
People weren't being hyperbolic though. They were claiming that low wages were a form of slavery, which is totally untrue and is in fact insulting to people who know what slavery actually is.
Grey Templar wrote: People weren't being hyperbolic though. They were claiming that low wages were a form of slavery, which is totally untrue and is in fact insulting to people who know what slavery actually is.
No, the expression is "economic slavery" or "wage slavery" . It's an actual economic idea. It's not actually slavery, but it is the expression used to describe it. AFAIK, nobody claimed is was actually slavery.
Grey Templar wrote: People weren't being hyperbolic though. They were claiming that low wages were a form of slavery, which is totally untrue and is in fact insulting to people who know what slavery actually is.
No, the expression is "economic slavery" or "wage slavery" . It's an actual economic idea. It's not actually slavery, but it is the expression used to describe it. AFAIK, nobody claimed is was actually slavery.
Then they shouldn't use the term Slavery because its not a factual descriptor.
"Abusive wages", "under paid", etc...
There are tons of possible terms that could be used without creating a false impression that the idea is actually akin to slavery, which it isn't even close.
Grey Templar wrote: People weren't being hyperbolic though. They were claiming that low wages were a form of slavery, which is totally untrue and is in fact insulting to people who know what slavery actually is.
No, the expression is "economic slavery" or "wage slavery" . It's an actual economic idea. It's not actually slavery, but it is the expression used to describe it. AFAIK, nobody claimed is was actually slavery.
Then they shouldn't use the term Slavery because its not a factual descriptor.
"Abusive wages", "under paid", etc...
There are tons of possible terms that could be used without creating a false impression that the idea is actually akin to slavery, which it isn't even close.
It's an actual tern. It's not like I just decided to use slavery to describe it. It doesn't marginalize or offend. It's just the term they decided to use many years ago to describe it.
BlaxicanX wrote: I'm not sure how exactly your post ties into mine. I didn't mention anything about a living wage (and $15/hour is not a living wage in San Francisco).
It didn't really have anything to do with your post directly, it was just your post that got me thinking about it. Didn't mean to imply you in particular mentioned anything about a living wage.
Its still not slavery because, as you admit, they have the option of not accepting.
Its certainly abusive and despicable. But its not slavery.
That is an absolutely despicable attitude. Starving with your family is an option? Then nobody in the entire history of mankind was ever enslaved, because they always had the option of just refusing to do what their overseers told them. Hey, they'd be whipped, tortured and probably killed, but that was their choice, right?
Talk about being insensitive to other people's plights...
Its still not slavery because, as you admit, they have the option of not accepting.
Its certainly abusive and despicable. But its not slavery.
That is an absolutely despicable attitude. Starving with your family is an option? Then nobody in the entire history of mankind was ever enslaved, because they always had the option of just refusing to do what their overseers told them. Hey, they'd be whipped, tortured and probably killed, but that was their choice, right?
Talk about being insensitive to other people's plights...
Don't be over dramatic and quit making strawman arguments, they don't help your position one bit.
Grey Templar wrote: People weren't being hyperbolic though. They were claiming that low wages were a form of slavery, which is totally untrue and is in fact insulting to people who know what slavery actually is.
No, the expression is "economic slavery" or "wage slavery" . It's an actual economic idea. It's not actually slavery, but it is the expression used to describe it. AFAIK, nobody claimed is was actually slavery.
Then they shouldn't use the term Slavery because its not a factual descriptor.
"Abusive wages", "under paid", etc...
There are tons of possible terms that could be used without creating a false impression that the idea is actually akin to slavery, which it isn't even close.
It's an actual tern. It's not like I just decided to use slavery to describe it. It doesn't marginalize or offend. It's just the term they decided to use many years ago to describe it.
It's a made up term that has far more to do with politics than economics.
The term "wage slave" which deliberately obfuscates the meanings of both words in order to miseducate the public in order to better drum up support for specific political policies.
The actual concept you are trying to define and is supported by the example of Nepalese workers in KSA is indentured servitude.
It was a practise used in western societies including the US for a long term following the industrial revolution all the way up into the mid 20th century with practices like share cropping still being prevalent. It is vastly different from accepting a minimum wage job from an employer in present conditions in the western world.
In addition to my doctoral research, I (1) teach 2 undergraduate classes. Not TA. TEACH. I design the syllabus, select the text book, lecture, assign homework, grade, and give exams.
That's what nearly all TAs do. The only things I didn't do as a TA were freely design the syllabus, and freely select the textbooks underpinning the syllabus. And I'm going to guess you didn't do those things either ; given that textbook selection is necessarily limited by that which is available to the institution, the department, and the professor.
cincydooley wrote: With all that being said, I'd be willing to enter into some sort of indentured servitude if someone wanted to pay off my student loans
Any takers?
How old are you that you still have student loans? Unless you went to medical school that gak should be paid off within 5 years. It does explain your some of your negative views on college though.
How old are you that you still have student loans? Unless you went to medical school that gak should be paid off within 5 years. It does explain your some of your negative views on college though.
Or law school, or several forms of graduates school, or industries requiring an industry switch.
cincydooley wrote: With all that being said, I'd be willing to enter into some sort of indentured servitude if someone wanted to pay off my student loans
Any takers?
How old are you that you still have student loans? Unless you went to medical school that gak should be paid off within 5 years. It does explain your some of your negative views on college though.
Average time to pay of student loans is 10 years, so if you are a 100% traditional student you will probably graudate college when you are 23 and pay off your student loans when you are 33.
Unless you went to graduate school.
Or you went back to school later.
Or you didn't go to school right after high school and didn't get your loans until you were 33 to start with.
There are so many variables in student loans, how many breaks in repayment you had or how old you were when you first went to school or went back to school, that having loans really tells me nothing about how old someone is.
, cheap fillings that only had a life of 5-10 years. Healthcare is usually on a "Here is a straw Corporal. Why's that? So you can suck it the 
Sorry for the wall of text you guys.
Okay, so now I'm confused.
