Obama believes that controversial Amazon warehouse work is "good, middle class jobs"

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.

**daedalus**

http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/30/4571926/president-obama-amazon-speech

President Obama will deliver a speech on rebuilding middle-class American jobs today from an Amazon warehouse in Tennessee, but a look at the facts about employment at the giant internet retailer may work against the White House's intended symbolism. Amazon may be creating jobs — just yesterday it announced 5,000 new warehouse positions — but they're not likely to be the coveted middle class jobs that Obama will call for in his speech today.

The positions range from about $11 to $13 an hour, and while Amazon compares them to retail jobs, they're really warehouse jobs. Employees at Amazon's fulfillment centers retrieve, package, and send out orders to Amazon's online customers.

"THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO HIGHLIGHT AMAZON AS AN EXAMPLE OF A COMPANY SPURRING JOB GROWTH."

"The Amazon facility in Chattanooga is a perfect example of the company that is investing in American workers and creating good, high-wage jobs," deputy White House press secretary Amy Brundage told Fortune. "What the president wants to do is to highlight Amazon and the Chattanooga facility as an example of a company that is spurring job growth and keeping our country competitive." Unfortunately, that message doesn't quite mesh with a company that, as Fortune notes, pays just a little above the federal poverty line for a family of four. That doesn't quite match up with the president's call for "a better bargain for the middle class."

Of course, pay isn't everything — but Amazon hasn't received high marks on workplace conditions, either. Several reports have documented the rough working life for Amazon's "fulfillment center" employees, which depict an unsustainable work pace, job insecurity, and in some cases dangerous overheating due to lack of air conditioning. (The heat issue was so bad in some warehouses that Amazon arranged to have ambulances at the ready for employees suffering from heat stress.) For some living in depressed towns, Amazon warehouse jobs may be the best bet. As one Amazon worker told The Financial Times, "I very much want [Amazon] to stay, but equally I would like some of the worst employment practices to end."

In his speech, Obama outlines the areas he believes the country needs to focus on "if we want to create good jobs that pay good wages in durable industries." Among these priorities, listed in order of mention, are: manufacturing and high-tech jobs, infrastructure jobs, and clean energy jobs. So which priority does a job at one of Amazon's warehouses fulfill?

It's worth noting that these jobs aren't actually Amazon. They're carefully distanced through a staffing company, Integrity Staffing. Looks like employees MAY be eligible for health insurance too!

...I have no words.

**Grundz**

The announced jobs and the quoted jobs are not the same obs

Also 11-13$ an hour is "middle class" as most of the jobs gained during the recovery have been minimum wage.

**SoloFalcon1138**

I would love a job with $11-13 an hour. And their benefits begin within the first week.

**daedalus**

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I would love a job with $11-13 an hour. And their benefits begin within the first week.

Where do you see that?

As an employee of Integrity Staffing you may also be eligible for medical and dental benefits.

Source: http://jobs.integritystaffing.com/job/Chattanooga-IMMEDIATE-PLACEMENT!-Warehoue-Associate-Weekend-Jobs-Chattanooga-&-Cleveland%2C-TN-TN-37421/1442839/

**Grundz**

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I would love a job with $11-13 an hour. And their benefits begin within the first week.

Amazon self-employs most of their same-day shipping facilities, its the other facilities that are outsourced. (which is what is quoted)
as same-day, they put a lot of emphasis on hard work, showing up on time, you know, stuff you would be expected to do at a real job (most warehouse jobs are pretty willy nilly) Its a pretty kick ass job for menial labor where just straight up hard work can give great rewards though, go for it if you have the opportunity.

**daedalus**

Grundz wrote:
The announced jobs and the quoted jobs are not the same obs

Also 11-13$ an hour is "middle class" as most of the jobs gained during the recovery have been minimum wage.

Middle class is defined as greater than mimimum wage then? I MUST be the 1% if $22,880 salary is middle class.

**Grundz**

daedalus wrote:
Grundz wrote:
The announced jobs and the quoted jobs are not the same obs

Also 11-13$ an hour is "middle class" as most of the jobs gained during the recovery have been minimum wage.

Middle class is defined as greater than mimimum wage then? I MUST be the 1% if $22,880 salary is middle class.

I know you just want to get into a long drawn out income gap argument to pad your post count, but i'll entertain. If you define middle class as near the median (not average) income, it is below a living wage. If you define it by population, same deal, if you define it by average (and let the top few percent or so skew it) then yeah, you're way below and should be sad.

**Rented Tritium**

$13/hr is what, 30k/year about? That's middle class by just about anyone's definition.

**TheDraconicLord**

Wait, 11-13$ an hour is bad?! I know €s still have a higher rate than $, but if we do 12$ x 8 daily hours x 22 working days a month (IF, they have 2 days-off each week) = 2112$ which is more or less 1590,84€.

This value kicks the crap outta a lot of ours... our minimum wage is around 500€, ffs.

**Alfndrate**

Rented Tritium wrote:
$13/hr is what, 30k/year about? That's middle class by just about anyone's definition.

Depends on debt to income ratio. I make just slightly more than 13 an hour, and I can't live on my own, and would basically be homeless.

**djones520**

Alfndrate wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
$13/hr is what, 30k/year about? That's middle class by just about anyone's definition.

Depends on debt to income ratio. I make just slightly more than 13 an hour, and I can't live on my own, and would basically be homeless.

Well, debt is your own issue though. There is no reason a person shouldn't be able to survive on 30k a year, especially single.

**grayshadow87**

Alfndrate wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
$13/hr is what, 30k/year about? That's middle class by just about anyone's definition.

Depends on debt to income ratio. I make just slightly more than 13 an hour, and I can't live on my own, and would basically be homeless.

Wow. Where I'm living, that would likely be enough to live on alone, assuming that you were careful with your spending and lived within your means. I know the difference is likely just due to differences in cost of living, but it still strikes me whenever I hear things like what you said. I guess I've gotten too used to living in small towns.

**daedalus**

Grundz wrote:

I know you just want to get into a long drawn out income gap argument to pad your post count, but i'll entertain.

That's awful judgmental. I mean, generally when I'm just padding my post count, it's with more inane stuff than this.

If you define middle class as near the median (not average) income, it is below a living wage. If you define it by population, same deal, if you define it by average (and let the top few percent or so skew it) then yeah, you're way below and should be sad.

What if I don't define Middle Class by either of those, and I go with any of the myriad of traditional definitions, rather than a moving goalpost one that I can't find any traditional record of:

Most definitions of the middle class I've been able to find, supported by the the various ones on Wikipedia, seem to indicate that the middle class is between the working class and the upper class, is usually comprised of professional jobs, has access to healthcare, and generally possesses discresonary income.

The things you call middle class seem to fall closer to what I see defined as the "working class", which an interesting redefinition in and of itself.

As a thought exercise, if that's your definition of middle class, what could you characterize as being below middle class? What are the defining elements of that body of people?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rented Tritium wrote:
$13/hr is what, 30k/year about? That's middle class by just about anyone's definition.

27,040, before tax (if you even pay tax at that point).

For a family of four, poverty line is 23,500.

**djones520**

I got $27,040 based on a 40 hour work week Daed.

Edit: I see you caught that.

I was living on my own making 17,304 a year (before tax). With that I was paying a new car loan, insurance on it, rent on a apartment, utilities to include cable, and food. This was without the AF stipends for housing and food allowance, because I was supposed to be living on base in dorms and eating at the chow hall.

So if I was able to make it work at 17k, I don't see how people can't do it at 27k.

**Rented Tritium**

I made 27 for 5 years and I couldn't do anything really extravagant, but I could afford a pretty nice apartment in a good part of town, eat out whenever I felt like, had expensive hobbies and a bit of savings. It felt pretty middle class to me.

I couldn't have raised any kids, though.

**djones520**

Rented Tritium wrote:
I made 27 for 5 years and I couldn't do anything really extravagant, but I could afford a pretty nice apartment in a good part of town, eat out whenever I felt like, had expensive hobbies and a bit of savings. It felt pretty middle class to me.

I couldn't have raised any kids, though.

Sure you could have, you just needed to cut corners. Like the expensive hobby, and eating out.

The problem with a lot of society is the unwillingness to do things like that.

**Alfndrate**

djones520 wrote:
Alfndrate wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
$13/hr is what, 30k/year about? That's middle class by just about anyone's definition.

Depends on debt to income ratio. I make just slightly more than 13 an hour, and I can't live on my own, and would basically be homeless.

Well, debt is your own issue though. There is no reason a person shouldn't be able to survive on 30k a year, especially single.

Oh of course, but it's something that most people need to look at. If I make 35k a year and I have to live in crap project housing because the level of debt I have forces me to live in such conditions, I wouldn't consider myself middle class, even though my income might say otherwise. I've said it here on dakka before, I have an 85% debt to income ratio due to the insane amount of loans I have (student and car), and as such I have to change my means of living until it's a smaller beast. I live at home with parents, I pay rent in chores, manual labor (fixing things around the house), and cooking. I have reduced my hobby money to almost nothing, and earn my MAN DOLLIES through earning store credit by volunteering my time, and by volunteering for game companies. I would "barely" consider myself middle class, but with that level of debt, I can't survive on my own (or with a roommate)

grayshadow87 wrote:
Alfndrate wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
$13/hr is what, 30k/year about? That's middle class by just about anyone's definition.

Depends on debt to income ratio. I make just slightly more than 13 an hour, and I can't live on my own, and would basically be homeless.

Wow. Where I'm living, that would likely be enough to live on alone, assuming that you were careful with your spending and lived within your means. I know the difference is likely just due to differences in cost of living, but it still strikes me whenever I hear things like what you said. I guess I've gotten too used to living in small towns.

It is enough, but debt to income feths me hardcore.

**azazel the cat**

djones520 wrote:
Alfndrate wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
$13/hr is what, 30k/year about? That's middle class by just about anyone's definition.

Depends on debt to income ratio. I make just slightly more than 13 an hour, and I can't live on my own, and would basically be homeless.

Well, debt is your own issue though. There is no reason a person shouldn't be able to survive on 30k a year, especially single.

And therein lies the crux of the article's argument: apparently, 30k a year isn't enough to raise a family of 4, to absolutely nobody's surprise.

I would definitely call 30k middle class (albeit the low-end of that range)

**Grundz**

Alfndrate wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
$13/hr is what, 30k/year about? That's middle class by just about anyone's definition.

Depends on debt to income ratio. I make just slightly more than 13 an hour, and I can't live on my own, and would basically be homeless.

Depends more on where you live, "well, move" isn't really an option for some and if you're stuck in/near an expensive/major population center, you're in trouble

**PhantomViper**

azazel the cat wrote:

And therein lies the crux of the article's argument: apparently, 30k a year isn't enough to raise a family of 4, to absolutely nobody's surprise.

I would definitely call 30k middle class (albeit the low-end of that range)

But since when does "middle class" implies that a family of 4 only has a single income source?

Surely if you are translating those wages to a family of 4, then you have to take into account both parents incomes, making it 54k $ a year.

A family of 4 making 54k a year in the USA isn't middle class? You guys must be all be loaded or you pay through the roof for everything.

**Grundz**

PhantomViper wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:

And therein lies the crux of the article's argument: apparently, 30k a year isn't enough to raise a family of 4, to absolutely nobody's surprise.

I would definitely call 30k middle class (albeit the low-end of that range)

But since when does "middle class" implies that a family of 4 only has a single income source?

Surely if you are translating those wages to a family of 4, then you have to take into account both parents incomes, making it 54k $ a year.

A family of 4 making 54k a year in the USA isn't middle class? You guys must be all be loaded or you pay through the roof for everything.

Median wealth (not per year, total value) for a person in the US is around $40k.
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/07/01-1
I believe the official "middle class" starts at around $25k/year

**daedalus**

PhantomViper wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:

And therein lies the crux of the article's argument: apparently, 30k a year isn't enough to raise a family of 4, to absolutely nobody's surprise.

I would definitely call 30k middle class (albeit the low-end of that range)

But since when does "middle class" implies that a family of 4 only has a single income source?

Surely if you are translating those wages to a family of 4, then you have to take into account both parents incomes, making it 54k $ a year.

A family of 4 making 54k a year in the USA isn't middle class? You guys must be all be loaded or you pay through the roof for everything.

That's how it was when I was young. There were very few dual income families, and it seemed like it was just really catching on. Most kids' moms I knew took care of the house, while their fathers were out working a job. The ones that I knew that had dual income families were either in such dire straits that they had to, or they were buying $10k TVs and expensive cars for their kids.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grundz wrote:
I believe the official "middle class" starts at around $25k/year

That's the thing, I can't seem to find any official definition of middle class anywhere. I've seen economic models for classification described by numerous people, but I'm concerned that everyone (myself included) is going off of their own yardstick for determining where middle class lies.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay, new question:

So, for everyone who would call this job a middle class job, what would you call a job that paid $70k?

**Grundz**

daedalus wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grundz wrote:
I believe the official "middle class" starts at around $25k/year

That's the thing, I can't seem to find any official definition of middle class anywhere. I've seen economic models for classification described by numerous people, but I'm concerned that everyone (myself included) is going off of their own yardstick for determining where middle class lies.

I think thats because traditional measurement of the middle class has stopped applying, pretty much all "middle class" families are just families that are still just scraping by but live in areas with a higher cost of living, the days of only one parent working are gone which I think is why so many kids these days are little bastards. Even the ones that have done OK in the past like myself and DJ on a whole lot less, knew that while we were doing it we were one good car crash, sickness, trip down a flight of stairs, ect. basically one bad luck event from being in crippling debt+poverty forever.

Sure, plenty make bad decisions and end up there themselves, but the economy of this country is designed to keep you on the low end spending everything so you are willing to work more for less per unit of work to try and get ahead.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus wrote:

So, for everyone who would call this job a middle class job, what would you call a job that paid $70k?

I make a bit more than that, and when I made the leap, I just dont know what to do with all of it to be honest, I get by on a little more than I used to spend, with a little more luxury, if I want something I go get it, thats pretty much it, I save and invest a lot and try to spend some time helping others.
It just boggles my mind that someone making ten or a hundred times that still wants more, or even could possibly spend that much money.

**daedalus**

Grundz wrote:
daedalus wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grundz wrote:
I believe the official "middle class" starts at around $25k/year

That's the thing, I can't seem to find any official definition of middle class anywhere. I've seen economic models for classification described by numerous people, but I'm concerned that everyone (myself included) is going off of their own yardstick for determining where middle class lies.

I think thats because traditional measurement of the middle class has stopped applying, pretty much all "middle class" families are just families that are still just scraping by but live in areas with a higher cost of living, the days of only one parent working are gone which I think is why so many kids these days are little bastards. Even the ones that have done OK in the past like myself and DJ on a whole lot less, knew that while we were doing it we were one good car crash, sickness, trip down a flight of stairs, ect. basically one bad luck event from being in crippling debt+poverty forever.

Sure, plenty make bad decisions and end up there themselves, but the economy of this country is designed to keep you on the low end spending everything so you are willing to work more for less per unit of work to try and get ahead.

I could agree with all of that, and I've been there before. I worked a crappy $10/hour job, and I was literally in the worst part of one of the lowest income towns in the St Louis area. I was living right next to the Section 8 housing. I went to work, I came home, and I didn't do much else other than try to figure out how to get myself out of that situation. I didn't have kids or anything though, so it was just me.

I just still can't reconcile calling that middle class.

**Grundz**

daedalus wrote:
Grundz wrote:
daedalus wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grundz wrote:
I believe the official "middle class" starts at around $25k/year

That's the thing, I can't seem to find any official definition of middle class anywhere. I've seen economic models for classification described by numerous people, but I'm concerned that everyone (myself included) is going off of their own yardstick for determining where middle class lies.

I think thats because traditional measurement of the middle class has stopped applying, pretty much all "middle class" families are just families that are still just scraping by but live in areas with a higher cost of living, the days of only one parent working are gone which I think is why so many kids these days are little bastards. Even the ones that have done OK in the past like myself and DJ on a whole lot less, knew that while we were doing it we were one good car crash, sickness, trip down a flight of stairs, ect. basically one bad luck event from being in crippling debt+poverty forever.

Sure, plenty make bad decisions and end up there themselves, but the economy of this country is designed to keep you on the low end spending everything so you are willing to work more for less per unit of work to try and get ahead.

I could agree with all of that, and I've been there before. I worked a crappy $10/hour job, and I was literally in the worst part of one of the lowest income towns in the St Louis area. I was living right next to the Section 8 housing. I went to work, I came home, and I didn't do much else other than try to figure out how to get myself out of that situation. I didn't have kids or anything though, so it was just me.

I just still can't reconcile calling that middle class.

This is 11-13$ jobs though, think of what you could have done with the extra 20-50 bucks per week after taxes! You could go out to eat at dennys once a month! ;P

No but really, its the article that is wrong, they are listing wages at amazons warehouses not their same day locations, which are what the new jobs are opening at.

**chaos0xomega**

$11-13 an hour can only be seen as middle class in some parts of the country. In the urban northeast, thats nothing but low-income. We've had this discussion before people, "middle class" varies widely region to region, my 40k/year salary might seem like im middle class or upper class wage earner to some people in podunk, but in the NY metropolitan area thats almost living hand to mouth. It depends on the cost of living in any given area.

**whembly**

chaos0xomega wrote:
$11-13 an hour can only be seen as middle class in some parts of the country. In the urban northeast, thats nothing but low-income. We've had this discussion before people, "middle class" varies widely region to region, my 40k/year salary might seem like im middle class or upper class wage earner to some people in podunk, but in the NY metropolitan area thats almost living hand to mouth. It depends on the cost of living in any given area.

Yeah... word.

I do think there's a place to have an honest discussion if the current minimum wage jobs need to be adjusted.

We just had a protest last weekend that the Fast Food workers + the SIEU union* we're wanting a $15 min wage. I'd argue that's too high for the St. Louis area... maybe $10-12 / hr wouldn't hurt the economy that much.

*Note, the unions like this because usually their collective bargained wages are tied to the state's min wage... they'd get an automatic raise.

**djones520**

Which is exactly why SIEU is involved, even though they aren't officially tied to any of it.

**whembly**

djones520 wrote:
Which is exactly why SIEU is involved, even though they aren't officially tied to any of it.

Yup... question everything.

If on surface, it appears they're helping for "altruistic" reasons... look deeper.

**Aerethan**

Grundz wrote:
The announced jobs and the quoted jobs are not the same obs

Also 11-13$ an hour is "middle class" as most of the jobs gained during the recovery have been minimum wage.

$13/hr is good for TN, but nationally that is not "middle class" money. $26k per year is not sustainable income for a family. If you are single and rent a room out your whole life, then sure.