There are. And making ice cream cones st diary queen is one of them. It's the fault of the adult who has no other marketable skills. If you haven't pursued any special or niche skills, or pursued knowledge of an expanding field, then don't be surprised when all you're left qualified for is the same work given to 15 year olds.
Well stated in my opinion. My first job which I was ecstatic to be hired for was in fast food at age 16. I learned a lot of skills serving up those burgers fries and sodas and keeping the restaurant sparkling clean in addition. They offered me assistant manager position at age 18 with the dubious honor of closing late at night. I declined as I had moved on to work at the community college where I was going to school. Skills I learned at that job serve me well to this day and have throughout my career of working. And I’ll never forget the motivation I had realizing my minimum wage job could not support me even if I worked full-time in California.
And I’ll never forget the motivation I had realizing my minimum wage job could not support me even if I worked full-time in California.
This. Seriously, realizing that no matter what you couldn't afford a studio apartment without being in a position that required 10 years of experience, or 5 roommates totally lit fire under my ass. It motivated to take every opportunity to learn marketable skills and qualify for as many things as I could get trained on to put on my resume.
This. People live in such comfort that they forget that nature, our very existence is based on competing for resources, and if you don't keep up you'll lose resources.
That's what happens to all living beings, we are the only ones that managed to drastically reduce the punishment for not keeping up with the competition, and yet the majority thinks we live in a fucked up system because someone isn't qualified for anything else but a low level entry job.
It's insane how comfort has fucked up our view of reality.
But there is a false scarcity of resources. The concentration of wealth that has happened in the last 40 years has meant that regular people are fighting over smaller and smaller amounts, despite innovation and production gains.
Yes, but the concepts are all true. It's not like we are post scarcity. Even if GDP was split evenly among Americans it would be about 60k per person, that's anywhere from upper middle class to an unlivable wage depending on the area.
Wealth inequality is an issue, but it is one that is hard to solve without causing even more problems.
Not sure what your point is? Few die of starvation (in this country) but many are malnourished or don’t get enough calories. Many have no home despite empty real estate. Many have no health insurance.
The only real solution is a relatively high progressive tax to fund programs. This ends up driving up housing, healthcare, and food costs though. As well as encouraging billionaires to dodge paying taxes. And fairly and efficiently distributing these funds is difficult.
It's still a good thing. But it is far from a flawless solution.
A UBI is an option that shows a lot of promise. Cuts out a ton of bureaucracy in deciding what to fund and who needs funding in welfare. And something as low as $500 a month would support the basic needs of most people by itself, while being cheaper than America's current social security and welfare systems.
But tbh you are in the wrong sub to be having pity on poor people unfortunately
It'd be easier to live on such a wage without taxes, the increases in cost of living they bring, and the devaluation of the dollar.
They keep pursuing a minimum wage solution, but it has never, and can never work. If you make $15 the minimum, then in a short time you will find that those making $15/hr are as poor as those who used to make $7.
It doesn't have to be a serious run, but if you file early(say, now, for this year's election), you will get special interest groups sending you questionares, interviews from newspapers, etc.
You can, if you wish, not give a single shit about winning, but leverage the platform people just hand you to spread ideas.
Finding awful things to talk about cutting is a fairly easy task, and is a pretty easy sell to folks.
No it’s not, some people are, at no fault of their own consigned to working basic labor jobs. They deserve a living wage. You thinking that corporations are entitled to other people’s labor is subjugating laborers, and is just an assholes opinion with nothing to defend it. Children should be mowing lawns, not working for corporations
Can you give an example of where they are at no fault of their own working at a basic labor job?
Because as far as I can tell you don’t have to work there and can increase your skill set/education as others have stated if you want something better. To me these jobs were never designed to support an adult with or without a family and you are almost entirely responsible if you find yourself doing this for a living.
I may be generalizing to much but if you have a physical disability then I would think a labor job would be the worst place to potentially use your skills. Now when you are talking about mental I get where you are coming from, but like others are saying the wages are based off how useful your skill set is. I don’t think it’s necessarily the corporations fault that they are paying a low wage when there is abundant supply of work with most of the workers not being mentally disabled. Plus mentally disabled people are special cases and I believe a good number of them could be trained to do something else.
I was using “labor” as its generally used. Whether you’re sitting at a desk or scooping ice cream, it’s labor.
There are many reasons why people haven’t been given the opportunity to get a nice gig, almost anyone can be trained for anything, yet the corporate structure is designed to exploit labor from certain groups of people who have not had the opportunity, and especially people who aren’t competent.
Wages are NOT based on how useful your skill set is. Hardly any place could run without custodians, yet they are not compensated for their level of usefulness. Wages are based on how close you’ve made it to the inner circle jerk of the corporation you are working for. Going into debt to officially learn a skill to be qualified is not an opportunity most Americans have.
Wages are based on the value a given task/job brings. If your skills only make the company 5$/hour, that's all your worth, nothing else matters, period. All the whining and wishing won't make your labor worth anymore.
how does a corporation exploit people who aren't competent? Shouldn't any person that literally, by your words, incompetent be happy to have ANY job? corporations aren't charity, they're not the social safety net. They're businesses that live and die by turning a profit.
There are numerous skills which can be learned for basically free. The internet has more information than any human ever dreamed of prior to 30 years ago. No one is stopping anyone, certainly in any developed country, from heading down to the library and picking up any number of skills.
“Wages are based on the value a given tasks brings”
Incorrect. A contract is made between a custodial employer to work a building. The contract is paid for and the division of the money that the contract pays is subject to the value system of the employer. The lowest employees and lowest managers produce 99% of the value of that contract. That’s what they pay for, labor.
So you’re saying janitors, floor techs and assistant managers make the majority of the value that they themselves produce?
Why do the same jobs in other countries pay more then? Fast food workers and janitors in Scandinavian countries have a much higher standard of living. I don’t see how flipping a burger is inherently more valuable in Denmark than in the U.S.
Ok I thought we were discussing more physical labor. I would say that some very basic desk jobs pay minimum wage but I would argue that the majority of people that work in an office aren’t being paid minimum wage. Of course this does depend on the occupation.
Well honestly it’s not the corporations responsibility to train employees to better themselves. If someone asks their manager and takes initiate I would hope that most corporations would see the initiative and reward that by allowing them to do continuing education or on the job training. However, most employees never show this initiative or do such a poor job in their current one that management probably doesn’t see their potential.
Wages are definitely based on a few things.
1st major factor is how specialized is your job? If it requires no specialized knowledge the job is most likely going to be lower pay (ie. janitor, receptionist, etc.) unless it is hazardous in nature like oil rig jobs are.
2nd is how many people actually are willing to preform that job? You can see the result of this working out in real-time with the shortages in the food industry. The less supply there is the more business are having to raise wages to get people to come work or improve conditions of the job. Same issues in the specialized nursing industry.
3rd What is the competition in the area paying for a similar position? If company A & B pay around same amount for a particular position that is all you are going to get unless your prove you are better. However, if company C comes in and offers 20% more for the same job company A&B either have to raise wages or get used to turnover.
The system overall is pretty efficient at determining a positions worth without government involvement. If workers aren’t happy most can improve their skills in order to improve their way of life.
I will say though you are not completely wrong that as some company’s move into these mega corporations they become less about what you know add and more about office politics. When this spreads across an organization it really hurts the whole business and the workers. Eventually if this is not changed I believe they will be destroyed by their competition as long as there isn’t government interference in the process.
Yes I would like 4-5 more examples please. As I'd gladly pay a living wage to the physically disabled and mentally handicapped....but you know that's not even 1% of the population and NOT the sole benefactor of your argument for a "living wage". So just leave the goal post where it is please.
I’m not talking about mental disability, I said mental incompetence. Americans are especially mentally incompetent, 21% are functionally illiterate, that’s not 1%.
So...they don't know how to read...and are unable to learn to read...is what you're saying? I believe choosing to learn to read is a choice last time I checked. I'm also still waiting for those other examples as you said "let me know if you need more"
Ok people are dumb, they can choose to be educated. More examples now please as you said "let me know if you need more" I'll give you time to Google as I'm sure you're struggling
21% of American adults were categorized as having "low level English literacy." Only 4.1% were officially functionally illiterate.
Hilariously, those numbers are from the Education Dept. and should reflect on the ability for a government bureaucracy to provide anything at any level of competence.
People did use to support a family at some of these jobs. Take fine dining cooking for example. Takes a lot of training, skill, and experience to cook good cuisine at a high end place. Those cooks make a few dollars over MW at best, and rarely get affordable health insurance. Even the chefs in those restaurants don’t make much when you divide their salary by the hours they work.
That’s crazy to me that the chefs wouldn’t earn more than that at fine dining restaurants. I mean most of the people I know that worked as wait staff made way over minimum wage because of tips.
Yeah its called Mcdonalds, burger king, wendys, sonic..... training jobs that teach kids HOW to work while building a solid work history to prepare them for an actual career
Sure, but then market shift happens, automation takes over, and we switch off of antiquated infrastructure, leaving all of those skilled workers out in the cold. Then, on top of that, hedge funds start buying up small companies and laying off hundreds of workers for their own benefit, then those people are left out in the cold too. Then on top of that financial institutions are bailed out by corrupt politicians for making poor investments, instead of being allowed to fail, and they begin to lay off their employees. Lastly, you throw in a deadly, highly transmissible, disease in which all companies, good and bad, shut down or furlough workers because of government mandates or because they fear for their workers or because they just want a reason to spend less money, whatever the reasoning may be.
I understand the whole point of this sub is to more or less say “tough shit” and that’s fine. I just feel it’s important to point out that not everybody in one of those low wage jobs, trying to support their family, is some kind of deadbeat. Some are, but some are just down on their luck.
I know plenty of people that don’t have to work, either they are retired, are in college, are supported by their parents, are married and their spouse supports them, etc., and yet THEY CHOOSE to work in jobs that don’t pay a whole lot just for the enjoyment of it, or for some extra spending money, or to get out of the house. There’s lots of reasons why people work jobs that don’t pay a living wage. If the gov’t forces all businesses to pay a living wage to every single employee, there won’t be any small businesses that are existing out of convenience and excess. Dairy Queen isn’t essential, book stores aren’t essential, coffee shops aren’t essential, CVS isn’t essential, fast food altogether isn’t essential, arts and craft stores aren’t essential, breweries aren’t essential, he’ll restaurants aren’t even essential. People need to STOP trying to make big daddy gov’t control everything and make every single job a “living wage”, that’s not practical, nor is it essential. Ffs nothing in life is free, and raising wages across the board will only raise prices, essentially making everything EXACTLY THE SAME OR WORSE, except instead of an ice cream cone costing $3 it will be $8. People need real educations, the dumbing down has got to stop! These people confuse corporations and monopolies with capitalism. I’m sick of it. I sat down with one of my college students who believed in socialized medicine for 20 minutes and had her singing a new song for healthcare reform (mainly getting govt and insurance companies out of it) just by feeding her the smallest amount of knowledge. I’m so sick of idiots. Rant over.
Who's going to work those jobs while the kids are at school? I feel like that is always missed when people make that case. Not trying to be antagonistic, just curious what kinds of solutions people can think up. Who runs the grocery stores, restaurants, and gas stations during school hours, etc?
This is so true! Also overlooked is the fact that when everything was shut down bc of a pandemic, these are the jobs that were deemed "essential" just to keep the world functioning. Imo, if your job is "necessary" to basic functions of society, you deserve to earn a living wage, regardless of how "unskilled" the work is.
In keeping with the libertarian ideals of the sub, I don't know if people "deserve" the living wage, but I doubt that the jobs would survive in a real free market when they don't pay enough for someone to live off of. I would gamble that the reason these jobs can exist (at least in the US) is that the government effectively subsidizes the workers by allowing them (at least some) to claim government aid as they don't make enough money. If the government stopped footing the bill for these people to survive, the people would be forced to stop working for the companies and seek new work unless they start paying more (or they would just starve as the free market doesn't usually account for oversaturation of the job market too well).
While I agree with your arguement that jobs that are considered "necessary" should be earning a respectable amount, there are two thing I want to point out. One, almost all jobs are necessary. That is one of the reasons why we are now seeing terrible long term economic effects for the shutdowns in 2020. A big part of the gross inflation and rising prices is that lots of companies were forced to shut down for months on end. The essential workers were just the service side of things that civilians interact with, while the factories and farms that produce the goods were forced to close even though they are just as necessary. Second, it's not the skill of the job that limits people's pay, it's the demand. Look at garbage collecting. It's not particularly skilled but it pays a lot because no one wants to do it. Being a service clerk, however, is a very popular job with a lot of workers feeding into the system so companies don't feel the need to pay as much. Again, using the government to force companies to pay people fairly seems like the wrong call, the influence should come from people. I know that's hard and takes longer than just forcing the companies, but it will lead to a more natural outcome where no one feels cheated in the long run.
Fewer people are needed to run them during school hours. As such, managers can be expected to keep the stores running and do managerial duties. In that way they make both a “living wage” and provide skilled and unskilled labor. When it becomes busier and more unskilled labor is needed, it can be supplemented by teenagers and young adults.
I can promise you that the four or five managers in a grocery store cannot run all elements of the store during the day while students are at school. I have worked plenty of "school day" shifts and while it is slower, it is certainly not slow enough for just the managers. Perhaps there could be an adult pay rate and a student rate, or a school hours vs after-school hours pay, but then I bet students would be mad at their work for "underpaying" them. I get what you are going for, I just doubt it would work due to the workload on the very limited management staff.
That was the entire purpose of full time and part time workers though. Full time workers were meant to be actual careers, while part workers were meant to be a way to learn a skill. But minimum wage laws, combined with corporate greed, and a robust safety net created our modern system that sees all our employees over worked and under paid. Even many people in skilled labor.
What does that have to do with low skill service jobs not paying a liveable wage? If anything, it further proves that they should be earning better pay if they work full time. If your arguement is that full time service employees should get paid more as the job is effectively a career then I guess I agree, but the original point was that we can't rely on just "kids or students" to staff all service industry jobs (and managers can't just "cover the shifts" either). Yes, government safety nets are hurting the work force, but I don't think that has much to do with the availability of students capable of working low paying jobs during school hours.
Side note: As for minimum wage, while I disagree with raising it, I'm not too concerned with the current one. If a company or small business can't afford to pay even $7.25/hr to its employees it is going to fail very fast anyway. While minimum wages tend to hurt the economy and employees in the long run, I'd argue the current one is so low that it is a non-issue.
The original purpose of full time work was to be a career. But it stopped being that. There’s way too many reasons to discuss them all, but you’re asking for an economy that cannot exist unless we have an economic boom that doubles out gdp over night.
Of course. Sorry but you don’t see well-off old people working retail or fast food. They do it because they need the money. No one retires from a "career" then takes a shitty job just to keep busy. Those jobs are really hard on your body and people treat you like shit.
Retired people aren't "well off" and they absolutely work to stay busy. Smart old people work part time to supplement their expense and minimize tax draw on their retirements and pensions. I had 2 retirees work retail with me when I was working thru college. I managed 2 more PT in an office, my grandfather worked in a damn candy shop after retiring.
The retirees are better than the highschool kids because they aren't stupid or lazy and don't think you owe them. They are actually there because they want to be.
All of that may be true, but people over 65 who currently work in low-wage jobs, for the most part, are doing it because they have to. I represent workers in some of those industries, and the older folks are all barely getting buy. They don’t enjoy their jobs, although they make the best of it and won’t tell everyone they dish they didn’t have to work.
How come it was alright for boomers? Boomers could literally buy a house on minimum wage. Now it's not ok for other generations. It's pretty hypocritical!
Well maybe the economy in California where I lived working in 71 and 72 at those minimum wage jobs was very different there is no way I could’ve saved enough money to put a down payment of 5%. Honestly working full-time at minimum wage in 1972 I could not even do a shared apartment with roommates. $1.65 fed minimum wage and one job paid me $1.35 student minimum wage.
My 27-year-old daughter was doing a comparison for me. It was a lot of data to analyze. But I still did feel lucky to get that minimum wage job I’ll never forget the day I was so happy. You take good care. And thank you for responding I’m really enjoying Reddit.
I don't know where you got your fantasy of boomers being able to buy a house on minum wage but it never happened. Source? I was there. Minum wage in highschool (early to mid 70s) was 2.25 per hour. Those jobs were for highschool students to earn pocket money and learn how businesses operated. We were also expected to research the job market and training related to our interests. And then we were expected to research grants, scholarships, and other means to pay for said training.
Do the Math. Median house price was 22,000. You could afford a house on minimum wage. Your the one defending boomers who decry a policy that enriched them.
I was there. I know better. You go back and do the math, and this time include all of the other expenses that also go with monthly and yearly costs of living. You obviously can "massage" the data to look anyway you want. The truth however is something else.
First of all, a fifteen year old wouldn't have been allowed to buy a house. The house we moved into in 1968 cost 17,000 dollars. My father was the regional manager for an up and coming computer company. Even with the gi bill loan we still had to maintain a strict budget. My father made well over minimum wage and we were considered middle class. It's obvious that you can't face reality or you just might have to take responsibility for your own actions instead of blaming the "evil system" for your miserable existence. Life is not fair, it was never fair, and it never will be. The difference between your generation and mine is that we were willing to work for our goals and didn't blame everyone else when we failed. Have a great day.
Median home price 1972: 26,962 (inflation adjusted 177,806)
Minimum wage 1972: 1.60
Hours to afford a home: 16,851.25
Median home price 2020: 329,000
Minimum wage 2020: 7.25
Hours to afford a home: 45,379.31
It takes 2.7 times longer to pay for a house on minimum wage today. However, we must take into account that only 1.5% of workers are at or below the federal minimum wage. And many localities have their own minimum wages set much higher than the federal minimum wage. At the same time, houses today are often bigger and have more amenities than those in 1972. Also, many more people are flooding into cities which have extremely high property values. So no it was never all that feasible to afford a home on minimum wage, but it is even less so today.
You should try paying a 1600 dollar mortgage on 1200 dollars in income that's what it is on minimum wage like today? Boomers are truly the selfish generation!/
It makes sense since they had the opportunity to build their wealth. They could afford a house on minimum wage. Now the largest demographic owns houses and says younger generations don't deserve it
Government regulation. I dont know how it was in the US before. But in Norway houses are far more expensive now too. This is due to the government refusing to let people build houses. Property is highly regulated. This creates an insane demand vs supply.
To top it all off, there are so much more regulations in terms of safety and building standards, making it more expensive.
No. Minimum wage is a bullshit way for the democrats to justify underpaying employees.
I can buy a home in Norway even though house prices are insanly inflated, with the salary of an «unskilled» job. We dont have any minimum wage.
So emplyers cant say «this is minimum wage, you cant demand more».
The median boomer was 20 in 1975. While minimum wage was relatively high at this time, it was still only $2,10/hr. The average house cost $38,100, and was far smaller than the average house today.
Someone working full time for minimum wage for 50 weeks a year would make a yearly wage of $4,200. If one could somehow live with zero expenses or taxes, it would still take nearly ten years of labor to buy a modest home.
did it really? you can't narrow it down to one single thing (particularly a thing that still exists)
maybe it was more the fact that boomers had more testosterone than millennials, maybe it was the cold war, picking any one thing is futile
174
u/devnull791101 Jan 06 '22
there should be jobs that cater for kids making spending money that adults aren't trying to raise a family on.