Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Harvesting produce for one.

Grey Templar wrote:The sad fact is, we need people to flip burgers and stuff taco shells.

Skill is honestly a secondary reason for the pay rate for a particular job. Behind how much the job is needed and how many people there are competing for the job.

There are plenty of jobs that don't require any particular skill but still pay well because people either don't want to do that job or its a necessary job.

Kilkrazy wrote:Like what?

Grey Templar wrote:Harvesting produce for one.

Huh? Are you seriously trying to say that strawberry picking is a high-paying job?

No, its a well paying job. that =/= high paying. I never claimed it was a high paying job.

@ sebster - thank you for double checking my math. I thought it was wrong at the time, and did it twice, but since I was tired, I did it twice wrong.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Like what?

Garbage men.
Trim Carpenters, Framers, Security, Hooking.

djones520 wrote:
I can't understand how flipping a burger or shoving taco meat into a shell is worth $12 an hour. Not every job should pay a "livible" wage. And by livible I mean a single 20 year old should be able to afford his own apartment because he's a burger flipper. Having a roomate should be a fact of life if your skill set doesn't offer anything beyond the ability to do basic tasks.

This has to be the worst post i've ever seen on dakka, and that's saying a lot.

Real wage, IE wage adjusted for inflation, have been decreasing in the US since the 1960s, and have decreased massively in proportion to how much our businesses make.

The current minimum wage in the US is simply not enough to support oneself in many places, even if one is working full time, and the situation is even bleaker if you have a family.

What's more, the places that pay minimum wage, like Walmart and McDonald's, make huge profits. Their workers, when you take into account their wages compared to how much revenue they generate for the company, are extremely underpaid. Business lobbiyists love to shout that raising the wage will raise prices, but the fact is that these companies could swallow the cost without raising anything if they so chose, and it has already been demonstrated in this thread how little minimum wage payouts affect a company's bottom line. If that's not enough, they often exploit their employees in frightening ways. It's par the course for fast food restaurants to hold employees overtime without paying overtime wages, for example.

Raise minimum wage to the point that a single person working a full-time job can expect to support themselves without fear, and punish companies that exploit their workers, then we can talk about how lazy our poor are or are not.

It's not a hidden secret that unskilled migrants are driving down the cost at the lower end of the wage market. Why bother paying above minimum wage when there is an infinite number of people who'll work for any pay and no conditions.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:The sad fact is, we need people to flip burgers and stuff taco shells.

Skill is honestly a secondary reason for the pay rate for a particular job. Behind how much the job is needed and how many people there are competing for the job.

There are plenty of jobs that don't require any particular skill but still pay well because people either don't want to do that job or its a necessary job.

Kilkrazy wrote:Like what?

Grey Templar wrote:Harvesting produce for one.

Huh? Are you seriously trying to say that strawberry picking is a high-paying job?

Surprisingly, yes. Most harvesters make about $15 to $20 an hour.

 Testify wrote:
It's not a hidden secret that unskilled migrants are driving down the cost at the lower end of the wage market. Why bother paying above minimum wage when there is an infinite number of people who'll work for any pay and no conditions.

You mean illegals?

Bring serious sanctions against the employers. The illegals would come here if there aren't any jobs to work under the table.

However, we must consider that a significant portion of our agricultural products are harvested by migrant workers, both legal and illegal.

If we make it harder for companies to hire illegals, we must face the consequence of potentially harming our food supply. Specifically vegetables and fruits from CA.

Oddly enough there is currently a labor shortage for these kind of positions. http://www.cnbc.com/id/48725145/California_Farm_Labor_Shortage_Worst_It_s_Been_Ever

The other thing is that there are enough unemployed people already living in the country to fill the positions.

However there is a stigma associated with these sort of jobs. Most people in the US would never accept such a position, dispite it paying a pretty good rate and requiring almost no skill that can't be given with 10 minutes of instruction.

Our society is so lazy we have to import our manuel labor, not a good position to be in. Especially with such a important industry.



And any pressure on Illegals will also put some pressure on people who are here legally as well.

So any measures to cut down on illegal immigration will also need to be accompanied by increased avaliability for Legal entry.

 whembly wrote:

 Testify wrote:
It's not a hidden secret that unskilled migrants are driving down the cost at the lower end of the wage market. Why bother paying above minimum wage when there is an infinite number of people who'll work for any pay and no conditions.

You mean illegals?

Bring serious sanctions against the employers. The illegals would come here if there aren't any jobs to work under the table.

No I don't mean illegals. They're a red herring. All immigrants drive down the pay and conditions of unskilled work.

I think I remember seeing stories of fruits and vegetables rotting in the fields in Georgia after their immigration crack down?

 d-usa wrote:
I think I remember seeing stories of fruits and vegetables rotting in the fields in Georgia after their immigration crack down?

I'm sure the market has the nessesary flexibility to support higher wages for agricultural workers. Bare in mind that a huge amount of wealth generated over the past 20 to 30 years has flowed straight into the higher income brackets. If they have to pay more for their goods, so what? We'll experience problems when we run our of available labour, but we're no where near that.

The issue is that americans arn't willing to work as laborers harvesting tomatos, not wages for picking them.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The issue is that americans arn't willing to work as laborers harvesting tomatos, not wages for picking them.

No...

If there's not enough workers, then the employer would raise the pay. That's how it works. I'm sure I have a hourly rate to pick tomatos!

 Grey Templar wrote:
Our society is so lazy we have to import our manuel labor, not a good position to be in.

It isn't laziness, it is the stigma of it being below them. All sorts of Americans do manual labor and physically intense jobs, such as construction and serving in the military.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The issue is that americans arn't willing to work as laborers harvesting tomatos, not wages for picking them.

Not true. Anyone would pick tomatoes for $1,000 an hour. If there is sufficient demand for a product (which there is) then the market will support viable wages. As I said, there is sufficient purchasing power in economy to sustain a modest pay increase for most low-paid jobs. Some people are just ideologically opposed to wealth distribution.

Then why were the vegetables left to rot in the field, instead of raising wages to pick them?

 d-usa wrote:
Then why were the vegetables left to rot in the field, instead of raising wages to pick them?

Uh... you have citations?

It's probably because it's mismanagement... but that's a W.A.G. (Wild Assed Guess)

 d-usa wrote:
Then why were the vegetables left to rot in the field, instead of raising wages to pick them?

Probably a publicity stunt.

Or possibly because since the rest of the country still had all those immigrants, buyers could simply buy vegetables for cheaper in other states rather than raise prices. But that's federalism for you.

Yes, there is a salary where anyone will do anything.

At the moment, the average american will not pick vegetables in a field for $15-20/hour.

The reason is probably a combination of it being below their percieved station, the work is hard*, and its not quite enough money to counter the previous two reasons.

*by hard, I don't mean its somehow too labor intensive. Its monotonous work done in the hot sun, a job in construction is probably just a wee bit more mentally stimulating.

I'd take the job paying $20/hour. I'd probably find it boring as heck and it would kill my back, but hey, $20/hour is pretty damn good money.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Our society is so lazy we have to import our manuel labor, not a good position to be in.

It isn't laziness, it is the stigma of it being below them. All sorts of Americans do manual labor and physically intense jobs, such as construction and serving in the military.

Should have thrown that in there too.

Shoot... if I was out of work, hell ya I'd pick veggies for $15/hr! Especially if its under the table .

So, I don't by the whole "American won't do those jobs".

That works out at £9.30.

Atm I get paid £6.20 (ish) to work in a warehouse stacking crates if I'm lucky, or scooping sauce onto pizzas for 8 hours if I'm not.

So yes. I'd happily work for those wages.

It is truth in most areas. Americans as a whole won't stoop to a job they think the Mexicans should be doing. Especially if the person in question has a degree in something and is qualified for skilled labor jobs that were paying six figures or reasonably close to it.

Someone would rather work at Macy's for slightly above minimum wage then work in the fields, even though it would be almost double their current salary.


Fortunately I have no pride

 Grey Templar wrote:
It is truth in most areas. Americans as a whole won't stoop to a job they think the Mexicans should be doing. Especially if the person in question has a degree in something and is qualified for skilled labor jobs that were paying six figures or reasonably close to it.

Someone would rather work at Macy's for slightly above minimum wage then work in the fields, even though it would be almost double their current salary.


Fortunately I have no pride

That may be true... but I don't really buy that...

I've been out of work before and I'd clean up animal poo if the pay was good.

But, then again... I always wanted to be Mike Rowe on Dirty Jobs.

Welcome to the "I have no Dignity Club"

 Grey Templar wrote:
Most people in the US would never accept such a position, dispite it paying a pretty good rate and requiring almost no skill that can't be given with 10 minutes of instruction.

Harvesting is actually a very skill-intensive job where product quality and speed are concerned. It also, unfortunately, isn't a position which involves the acquisition of skills which transfer to other industries.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Our society is so lazy we have to import our manuel labor, not a good position to be in. Especially with such a important industry.

Freudian slip?

 Grey Templar wrote:

Someone would rather work at Macy's for slightly above minimum wage then work in the fields, even though it would be almost double their current salary.

A job at Macy's is indoors, air-conditioned, and doesn't involve (physically) bending over for the entirety of the day. Also, retail experience transfers well into a number of corporate positions; most notably marketing, sales, and human resources.

djones520 wrote:
No my idea is that employers shouldn't be forced to pay large salaries for basic labor that requires no job skills to do.

$12 is a large salary?!

If a person doesn't want to live in poverty then they should work to better themselves. Sure you've got an example of a person with a bad lot in life here or there, but a large majority of folks who end up in that portion of the labor pool did so by the choices they made in life. I could still be sitting at Taco Bell making minimum wage today, but I chose to move onto better things. I went from a kid who grew up in poverty in the poorest county in Michigan to someone who will be retiring from their first career at 37 with a high paying job skill, and 3 seperate college degrees. It is all because of the choices I made for myself. And for most out there, it's the exact same thing.

None of that changes when the minimum wage is $12 an hour. It's still a basic wage that anyone with some get up and go will look to go beyond.

Over here the minimum wage is $15.59, and it still marks you as the bottom of the rung, enough to get by with a very basic living standard, sharing a rented house with a couple of other people, buying cheap food and sticking to cheap entertainment.

Only time I ever earned anything close to minimum wage was when I was at uni, and had a part time job for some spending money. At no point did I see that whopping $11 or so an hour that minimum wage was at that time and think 'well that's enough'. Instead I went through uni, went on to get my professional qualification and work my up the ladder. Because at no point did I look at that minimum wage and say 'that'll do nicely' when I could do better.

But a lot of folk really can't do better. Some are lazy, but plenty really are folk that just aren't going to claw ahead in any kind of skilled position. Insisting they should be forced to live on $7.75 an hour just ain't right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
@ sebster - thank you for double checking my math. I thought it was wrong at the time, and did it twice, but since I was tired, I did it twice wrong.

Not a problem. Thanks for telling me about contracts being linked to minimum wage, that's an odd little system I hadn't heard of.

 sebster wrote:

djones520 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
@ sebster - thank you for double checking my math. I thought it was wrong at the time, and did it twice, but since I was tired, I did it twice wrong.

Not a problem. Thanks for telling me about contracts being linked to minimum wage, that's an odd little system I hadn't heard of.

That right there is a killer. That's why whenever this debate pops up, you'll see all the Union folks clamoring for it... which at first glance, seems odd since Union pay are usually decent to good.

As to state workers, some states have laws that takes an average of industry pay (ie, MO). That seems to work better.