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.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

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.

Thats a real problem. been there

I've taken time off for business hours interviews.

 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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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.

so the problem is:

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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

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.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 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:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Then they shouldn't use the term Slavery because its not a factual descriptor.

Except it isn't, it just seems you are having trouble understanding that there are different ways of enslaving people.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Then they shouldn't use the term Slavery because its not a factual descriptor.

Except it isn't, it just seems you are having trouble understanding that there are different ways of enslaving people.

This particular situation isn't one of them.

 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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

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...

Bran Dawri wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

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.

Everyone has the choice to stop living right. Therefore everythign that happens to you is your choice.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant

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.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

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.

DutchWinsAll wrote:

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.

Sallie Mae and several other sites that took ten seconds to google say the average student loan takes ten years to pay off, not five.

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 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.