Why don't people want these jobs?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Lucky and blessed are you (and myself) who have the luxury of making that choice.

 

I really don't care about regs. Fine by me.

 

But I don't have any problem with people not accessing those sources in an effort to do more for their families. I certainly don't think they are automatically bad parents or care givers for it.

 

Did I say they were? No.

 

I do think it is reasonable that we set rules as a society to try and make sure that all children are cared for in a safe, healthy environment.

[twoforjoy]

Lucky and blessed are you (and myself) who have the luxury of making that choice.

 

I really don't care about regs. Fine by me.

 

But I don't have any problem with people not accessing those sources in an effort to do more for their families. I certainly don't think they are automatically bad parents or care givers for it.

 

I agree they aren't automatically bad parents or caregivers.

 

I think the point was that, if somebody took one of these jobs and left their child in the care of an undocumented, unlicensed childcare worker, and something happened to that child, the very same people who are now saying, "Why are they too lazy to take these jobs?!" would be saying "Why were they too stupid to find better childcare?!"

[Impish]

Did I say they were? No.

 

I do think it is reasonable that we set rules as a society to try and make sure that all children are cared for in a safe, healthy environment.

Absolutely, but licensing is no guarantee. Nor is being unlicensed.

 

I've read articles where kids have been locked in after hours, wandered away from licensed providers. There's simply no guarantee that a piece of paper makes someone a more responsible caregiver.

 

I made sure that *I* was licensed when I ran a dayhome. Partly for parent's peace of mind, partly b/c that way parents who needed subsidies could get them without it killing me, but frankly, if it hadn't been for the fact that it meant the agency paid me, rather than having to chase parents for payment, I don't know that I would have spent the extra $$ to license. Its not free to do.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Absolutely, but licensing is no guarantee. Nor is being unlicensed.

 

I've read articles where kids have been locked in after hours, wandered away from licensed providers. There's simply no guarantee that a piece of paper makes someone a more responsible caregiver.

 

I made sure that *I* was licensed when I ran a dayhome. Partly for parent's peace of mind, partly b/c that way parents who needed subsidies could get them without it killing me, but frankly, if it hadn't been for the fact that it meant the agency paid me, rather than having to chase parents for payment, I don't know that I would have spent the extra $$ to license. Its not free to do.

 

 

I never said it was a guarantee, and nothing is ever perfect. That doesn't mean we shouldn't at least *try* to make it better. A piece of paper doesn't make someone a better care provider, but it can help eliminate some very poor ones.

[Murphy101]

I agree they aren't automatically bad parents or caregivers.

 

I think the point was that, if somebody took one of these jobs and left their child in the care of an undocumented, unlicensed childcare worker, and something happened to that child, the very same people who are now saying, "Why are they too lazy to take these jobs?!" would be saying "Why were they too stupid to find better childcare?!"

 

:iagree:

 

People bad off enough to take these jobs are often in a no win situation.

 

They are doing the least harm for their families option bc there is not a no harm option.

[asta]

It isn't a matter of historical accuracy or inaccuracy. Someone right here on the board already said they worked the farms (and was then lambasted for childcare!).

 

The discussion was jobs. The jobs are there. How badly do people want a job? Apparently, not badly enough. A job is not "health care". A job is not "benefits". A job is a certain task done in exchange for wages. That's it. And somewhere along the line, people decided that there were jobs that would. not. be. done. by particular classes of people.

 

Well, welcome to the brave, brave new world. The one with a quarter of the workforce un or underemployed. The one that has had a structural paradigm shift -- and where new jobs may well indeed be very different than what people are accustomed to.

 

For the US to survive as a nation and compete in the global marketplace, it will have to buck up and learn how to work. The populace will also have to learn how to differentiate between "need" and "want" because, if the rioting throughout the world's Socialist Democracies are any indication, there will be a structural realignment in what US citizens refer to as "welfare" (or "the social safety net") as well. Governments are discovering that such systems are not sustainable in general, and that things go even more poorly in pockets of society that are unable to discern that food and shelter take priority over other things.

 

I believe people will see the US re-establishing itself in manufacturing, which is, guess what - work that is hard and often hot. US firms won't be able to remain profitable with the long lists of benefits that were previously in place from the unions, so things will be very different this time. The "we're going to take over by being the basis for the information age" idea failed (everyone simply stole our ideas). The "everyone goes to college" movement is more than likely a thing of the past as well.

 

Finally, the most impoverished person in the US is richer than 68% of anyone else in the entire world. The entire world. THAT is why people from other nations are willing to pick onions. Why aren't US citizens? I'm not buying most of the arguments I read here.

 

 

asta

Edited October 18, 2011 by asta
grammar

[amy g.]

Asta, I think I love you.

[peachskittles]

The discussion was jobs. The jobs are there. How badly do people want a job? Apparently, not badly enough. A job is not "health care". A job is not "benefits". A job is a certain task done in exchange for wages. That's it. And somewhere along the line, people decided that there were jobs that would. not. be. done. by particular classes of people.

 

asta

 

:iagree: with it all but with this part the most.

 

Benefits and health care? If that's what all jobs are supposed to offer, we are so screwed. While my SO is completely happy he found a factory job that is union and offers benefits and healthcare, this is the first job he has ever held that has benefits and healthcare options. He did the jobs no one else wanted to do (like changing tires or moving people or cleaning stores).

 

I have to say on the flip side, even the union presence at my SO's plant, the benefits and health care, we can't keep people there. It isn't the greatest pay (my SO made roughly $30k gross his first full year) but it's a job. Out of a group of 20-30 people that were in my SO's hiring group, after 2 1/2 years FOUR people remain. It isn't about benefits or healthcare, it's people want an easy job that pays a lot (I don't know what a lot is though :tongue_smilie:). When people find out they have to actually work and put out effort, they quit.

[twoforjoy]

The discussion was jobs. The jobs are there. How badly do people want a job? Apparently, not badly enough. A job is not "health care". A job is not "benefits". A job is a certain task done in exchange for wages. That's it. And somewhere along the line, people decided that there were jobs that would. not. be. done. by particular classes of people.

 

Low-paying, dangerous, temporary jobs are there.

 

I'll throw out a hypothetical. My DH has a doctorate. But, academic jobs are pretty scarce. He is in good health but has always had some back issues. Let's say he loses his current job as a research associate and can't find other work. Would it be wise for him to take a job as a temporary farm laborer rather than collecting unemployment or government assistance? He'd be working 10-12 hour days, for minimum wage or maybe a bit more, so we'd still need assistance making ends meet (a full-time minimum wage job pays $15K/year). He would likely not have the time or energy to work on his CV, look for jobs, write up cover letters, and do the other things he'd need to do to find a permanent job. He could very easily injure his back seriously enough doing this work. Why on earth would he decide to take that job when he could collect unemployment or other forms of assistance while he was job searching, and then take a job that, even if it wasn't exactly what he wanted, at least was long-term, provided benefits, and wouldn't cause him injury?

 

Would it really be a wise choice, professionally, economically, or personally, for him to take a job doing temporary farm labor?

 

And "along the line" people decided that these jobs wouldn't be done by certain classes of people? You mean like "along the line" when we captured and bought slaves to do them for us?

 

For the US to survive as a nation and compete in the global marketplace, it will have to buck up and learn how to work.

 

You think that Americans taking jobs as migrant farm laborers when they are qualified to do other things is the answer to us surviving as a nation and competing globally? Seriously? You think, for example, that the OWS protesters who are saying that, even though they have graduate degrees, they can't find a job, should just take jobs doing temporary farm labor and THAT would turn our economy around? I'm truly baffled. How would that work?

 

To imagine that the problem with our economy is that people aren't willing to take low-paying, temporary jobs rather than that there aren't enough better-paying, stable jobs is to take a position so far afield of everything I understand about economics that I'm not sure how to respond.

Edited October 18, 2011 by twoforjoy

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Low-paying, dangerous, temporary jobs are there.

 

I'll throw out a hypothetical. My DH has a doctorate. But, academic jobs are pretty scarce. He is in good health but has always had some back issues. Let's say he loses his current job as a research associate and can't find other work. Would it be wise for him to take a job as a temporary farm laborer rather than collecting unemployment or government assistance? He'd be working 10-12 hour days, for minimum wage or maybe a bit more, so we'd still need assistance making ends meet (a full-time minimum wage job pays $15K/year). He would likely not have the time or energy to work on his CV, look for jobs, write up cover letters, and do the other things he'd need to do to find a permanent job. He could very easily injure his back seriously enough doing this work. Why on earth would he decide to take that job when he could collect unemployment or other forms of assistance while he was job searching, and then take a job that, even if it wasn't exactly what he wanted, at least was long-term, provided benefits, and wouldn't cause him injury?

 

Would it really be a wise choice, professionally, economically, or personally, for him to take a job doing temporary farm labor?

 

And "along the line" people decided that these jobs wouldn't be done by certain classes of people? You mean like "along the line" when we captured and bought slaves to do them for us?

 

 

 

You think that Americans taking jobs as migrant farm laborers when they are qualified to do other things is the answer to us surviving as a nation and competing globally? Seriously? You think, for example, that the OWS protesters who are saying that, even though they have graduate degrees, they can't find a job, should just take jobs doing temporary farm labor and THAT would turn our economy around? I'm truly baffled. How would that work?

 

To imagine that the problem with our economy is that people aren't willing to take low-paying, temporary jobs rather than that there aren't enough better-paying, stable jobs is to take a position so far afield of everything I understand about economics that I'm not sure how to respond.

 

:iagree:

[twoforjoy]

Benefits and health care? If that's what all jobs are supposed to offer, we are so screwed.

 

I'd say we're screwed if they don't offer them, unless we're willing to have public, universal coverage. Do you have any idea how many families go into massive debt and end up bankrupt because of medical expenses? Taking a job without health insurance is a huge, risky gamble that I wouldn't fault anybody for not taking.

 

I have to say on the flip side, even the union presence at my SO's plant, the benefits and health care, we can't keep people there. It isn't the greatest pay (my SO made roughly $30k gross his first full year) but it's a job.

 

Okay, we obviously live in different realities. :lol: A few years ago, I had finished my master's degree, and my husband had finished his master's and was working on his doctorate. We needed jobs. I took a part-time job making $7/hour doing retail, and he took a research position that required a master's degree and paid $24K/year. When he got a raise to $32K/year, we thought we were doing fabulously. And, we know LOTS of people who had educations similar to ours and who were in much worse situations financially and would have loved to have been in our position.

 

So this idea that people want to not work and make tons of money just doesn't line up with the reality I see around me. I have lots of friends who have doctorates, loads of student debt, and are taking $18-20K/year postdoc positions because they cannot find anything else. I applied for $18K/year admin assistant positions requiring a college degree and 5 years experience and was told that 300 people had applied.

 

The people I know and the people I see are willing to work hard, and they aren't asking for a whole lot. But they want their hard work to reap something, and putting in a month or two as a farm laborer, in most cases, is simply not going to be worth the potential risks.

[Murphy101]

:iagree: with it all but with this part the most.

 

Benefits and health care? If that's what all jobs are supposed to offer, we are so screwed.

 

I have to say on the flip side, even the union presence at my SO's plant, the benefits and health care, we can't keep people there. It isn't about benefits or healthcare, it's people want an easy job that pays a lot (I don't know what a lot is though :tongue_smilie:). When people find out they have to actually work and put out effort, they quit.

 

I agree. And a job that means I might, at best, break even with the cost of just getting to work isn't much of return for my work. The argument that people aren't taking the job bc of lack of benefits I am not buying. The majority of my adult life we have had private insurance throughh work. The cost coming out of our paycheck meant we rarely had the funds to pay copays, deductibles, and meds anyways. However, the job usually didn't risk permanent physical injury either.

 

Low-paying, dangerous, temporary jobs are there.

 

I'll throw out a hypothetical. My DH has a doctorate. But, academic jobs are pretty scarce. He is in good health but has always had some back issues. Let's say he loses his current job as a research associate and can't find other work. Would it be wise for him to take a job as a temporary farm laborer rather than collecting unemployment or government assistance? He'd be working 10-12 hour days, for minimum wage or maybe a bit more, so we'd still need assistance making ends meet (a full-time minimum wage job pays $15K/year). He would likely not have the time or energy to work on his CV, look for jobs, write up cover letters, and do the other things he'd need to do to find a permanent job. He could very easily injure his back seriously enough doing this work. Why on earth would he decide to take that job when he could collect unemployment or other forms of assistance while he was job searching, and then take a job that, even if it wasn't exactly what he wanted, at least was long-term, provided benefits, and wouldn't cause him injury?

 

Would it really be a wise choice, professionally, economically, or personally, for him to take a job doing temporary farm labor?

 

And "along the line" people decided that these jobs wouldn't be done by certain classes of people? You mean like "along the line" when we captured and bought slaves to do them for us?

 

You think that Americans taking jobs as migrant farm laborers when they are qualified to do other things is the answer to us surviving as a nation and competing globally? Seriously? You think, for example, that the OWS protesters who are saying that, even though they have graduate degrees, they can't find a job, should just take jobs doing temporary farm labor and THAT would turn our economy around? I'm truly baffled. How would that work?

 

To imagine that the problem with our economy is that people aren't willing to take low-paying, temporary jobs rather than that there aren't enough better-paying, stable jobs is to take a position so far afield of everything I understand about economics that I'm not sure how to respond.

 

 

Yes. Asta and I usually see fairly eye to eye. So I'm stumped here.

 

Asta, you contradicted yourself. You said you would do "anything" for your kids, but then you say that does not include govt assistance.

 

So choosing not to sweat in the heat and dirt for ridiculous wages and risk to health = lazy and prideful.

 

Choosing not to avail oneself of the govt services they have paid into for years = just prideful?:confused:

 

I'm not being snarky. I'm sincerely not understanding that attitude.

 

If dh and I weren't going to have food on the table if we didn't hitch a ride out to the country and ditch our kids with whoever happened to be willing to watch them for 10-12 hours 6 days a week and break our backs for just enough wages to maybe buy some peanut butter for the week - then yes, by golly we would do it.

 

Thank God we are not that bad off! And yes, I'm not too prideful to take assistance if it would keep my kids from having to live like that. Yes, 68% of the world lives worse off than most poor Americans. That is why they come to America!

Edited October 18, 2011 by Martha

[Haiku]

A job is a certain task done in exchange for wages.

 

You're right. And when the exchange renders you unable to adequately care for your children, financially and otherwise, and also puts your health at risk, it's not ridiculous to decide that the exchange is not worth it.

 

Tara

[Audrey]

Low-paying, dangerous, temporary jobs are there.

 

I'll throw out a hypothetical. My DH has a doctorate. But, academic jobs are pretty scarce. He is in good health but has always had some back issues. Let's say he loses his current job as a research associate and can't find other work. Would it be wise for him to take a job as a temporary farm laborer rather than collecting unemployment or government assistance? He'd be working 10-12 hour days, for minimum wage or maybe a bit more, so we'd still need assistance making ends meet (a full-time minimum wage job pays $15K/year). He would likely not have the time or energy to work on his CV, look for jobs, write up cover letters, and do the other things he'd need to do to find a permanent job. He could very easily injure his back seriously enough doing this work. Why on earth would he decide to take that job when he could collect unemployment or other forms of assistance while he was job searching, and then take a job that, even if it wasn't exactly what he wanted, at least was long-term, provided benefits, and wouldn't cause him injury?

 

Would it really be a wise choice, professionally, economically, or personally, for him to take a job doing temporary farm labor?

 

And "along the line" people decided that these jobs wouldn't be done by certain classes of people? You mean like "along the line" when we captured and bought slaves to do them for us?

 

 

 

You think that Americans taking jobs as migrant farm laborers when they are qualified to do other things is the answer to us surviving as a nation and competing globally? Seriously? You think, for example, that the OWS protesters who are saying that, even though they have graduate degrees, they can't find a job, should just take jobs doing temporary farm labor and THAT would turn our economy around? I'm truly baffled. How would that work?

 

To imagine that the problem with our economy is that people aren't willing to take low-paying, temporary jobs rather than that there aren't enough better-paying, stable jobs is to take a position so far afield of everything I understand about economics that I'm not sure how to respond.

 

 

The argument "I have a XYZ degree" is hogwash. Lori, *I* have a Ph.D and *I* spend hours every summer hand planting 1000 strawberry plants in rotations, then harvesting them because it brings in over $20K for my family. My kid also gets out there and does this work.

 

To put yourself above certain work when it WOULD be the bread that feeds your family just because you hold a certain piece of paper is an elitism that doesn't belong in a failing society.

 

I do not think that degreed people taking farm labour jobs is going to turn any nation's economy around, but it can make the burden easier for the individual families, thus relieving the social system more than choosing to remain unemployed would.

 

I am probably the biggest Marxist on this board, but even Marx said people who could work must work. From each according to his ability to each according to his need does NOT mean that able bodied workers can choose not to work simply because the work offered does not meet their expectations for satisfaction. It means if you can work, you work! If all you can find is farm work, or other physical labour, then do it.

 

There is no shame in hard work of any kind.

[Murphy101]

The argument "I have a XYZ degree" is hogwash. Lori, *I* have a Ph.D and *I* spend hours every summer hand planting 1000 strawberry plants in rotations, then harvesting them because it brings in over $20K for my family. My kid also gets out there and does this work.

 

To put yourself above certain work when it WOULD be the bread that feeds your family just because you hold a certain piece of paper is an elitism that doesn't belong in a failing society.

 

I do not think that degreed people taking farm labour jobs is going to turn any nation's economy around, but it can make the burden easier for the individual families, thus relieving the social system more than choosing to remain unemployed would.

 

I am probably the biggest Marxist on this board, but even Marx said people who could work must work. From each according to his ability to each according to his need does NOT mean that able bodied workers can choose not to work simply because the work offered does not meet their expectations for satisfaction. It means if you can work, you work! If all you can find is farm work, or other physical labour, then do it.

 

There is no shame in hard work of any kind.

 

:iagree: 100%!

[emzhengjiu]

Finally, the most impoverished person in the US is richer than 68% of anyone else in the entire world. The entire world. THAT is why people from other nations are willing to pick onions. Why aren't US citizens? I'm not buying most of the arguments I read here.

 

Asta

 

I keep reading here and on other sites how thankful the poor in this country should be since we are rich compared to the rest of the world. As a mom, if I cannot earn enough money to feed, provide shelter, and health care for my children, it doesn't matter how "rich" I may seem to be compared to people in other countries. My children still won't have enough food to eat without help. We ALL should be grateful to live in a country that is still relatively prosperous but I don't see the purpose of the comparison. Do we as a nation, a community really want that extreme of poverty here in the U.S.? Don't we subsidize low income people to prevent the starvation, disease, possible or even probable increase in crime that stems from extreme poverty. Poverty as found in some countries doesn't affect just the poor. Disease doesn't know its not suppose to cross the invisible wall we erect between the rich and the poor.

 

Not everybody can pick onions, especially if picking onions will still not provide enough money to provide the basics for your family.

 

Ann

Edited October 18, 2011 by emzhengjiu

[katilac]

For the US to survive as a nation and compete in the global marketplace, it will have to buck up and learn how to work. <big snip>

 

Finally, the most impoverished person in the US is richer than 68% of anyone else in the entire world. The entire world. THAT is why people from other nations are willing to pick onions. Why aren't US citizens? I'm not buying most of the arguments I read here.

asta

 

Mark me down as another person who doesn't think that American workers turning to farm labor in great numbers is going to make us competitive in the global market.

 

The argument "I have a XYZ degree" is hogwash. Lori, *I* have a Ph.D and *I* spend hours every summer hand planting 1000 strawberry plants in rotations, then harvesting them because it brings in over $20K for my family. My kid also gets out there and does this work. <snip>

 

There is no shame in hard work of any kind.

 

I don't think anyone is saying there is shame in hard work of any kind. Also, your personal example really isn't doing it for me, for several reasons:

 

*$20k for the summer is a boatload of money that most farm workers will never, ever see. It is, in fact, twice as much as a person would make if they worked 6 days a week for 12 weeks for the 'up to' $150 day in the OP.

 

*Strawberry farming may be hard work, but it is not DANGEROUS work the way much farm labor is. That removes a huge variable. You let your child work alongside you, so clearly you agree that it is not dangerous. You don't need to worry much about crippling injuries (and possibly have health insurance in case they do occur?)

 

*You don't need a babysitter (altho' $20k would make that feasible).

 

*You are not the primary wage earner, correct? And not seeking full-time, year-round employment? That removes another gigantic disadvantage or two. You don't need to decide between working in the fields or looking for a permanent job.

 

Are you Canadian? I think it's often very hard for our Canadian friends to understand how an injury or illness can utterly devastate an American family long-term. My cousin's toddler was diagnosed with leukemia barely more than a week ago. The entire family has already started fundraising efforts for them, pretty much a requirement for making it through long-term treatment.

 

At any rate, I just don't think that a secondary wage-earner working hard at a very safe, very well-paying farm job can be compared to primary wage earners deciding not to take dangerous jobs that are poorly paid, and that derail long-term job hunting.

 

Finally, the most impoverished person in the US is richer than 68% of anyone else in the entire world. The entire world. THAT is why people from other nations are willing to pick onions. Why aren't US citizens? I'm not buying most of the arguments I read here. Asta

I keep reading here and on other sites how thankful the poor in this country should be since we are rich compared to the rest of the world. <snip> We ALL should be grateful to live in a country that is still relatively prosperous but I don't see the purpose of the comparison. Do we as a nation, a community really want that extreme of poverty here in the U.S.? <and snip> Not everybody can pick onions, especially if picking onions will still not provide enough money to provide the basics for your family. Ann[/QUOTE]

 

Agreed. Is being "rich" compared to the abject poverty of third world countries really where we want to set the bar? That's like Louisiana being proud when we are 47th or 48th in the educational rankings by state, instead of 50th. "Sure, our schools suck, but hey, just be grateful we're better than Alabama and Mississippi!"

Edited October 18, 2011 by katilac
marking a quote

[Audrey]

Mark me down as another person who doesn't think that American workers turning to farm labor in great numbers is going to make us competitive in the global market.

 

 

 

I don't think anyone is saying there is shame in hard work of any kind. Also, your personal example really isn't doing it for me, for several reasons:

 

*$20k for the summer is a boatload of money that most farm workers will never, ever see. It is, in fact, twice as much as a person would make if they worked 6 days a week for 12 weeks for the 'up to' $150 day in the OP.

 

*Strawberry farming may be hard work, but it is not DANGEROUS work the way much farm labor is. That removes a huge variable. You let your child work alongside you, so clearly you agree that it is not dangerous. You don't need to worry much about crippling injuries (and possibly have health insurance in case they do occur?)

 

I'll give you that. We also own the farm, so all the profit is ours. So is all the work.

 

*You don't need a babysitter (altho' $20k would make that feasible).

 

*You are not the primary wage earner, correct? And not seeking full-time, year-round employment? That removes another gigantic disadvantage or two. You don't need to decide between working in the fields or looking for a permanent job.

 

Actually, I am the primary wage earner, as I also have off-farm work of 30 hours a week that makes more than the farm does.

 

Are you Canadian? I think it's often very hard for our Canadian friends to understand how an injury or illness can utterly devastate an American family long-term. My cousin's toddler was diagnosed with leukemia barely more than a week ago. The entire family has already started fundraising efforts for them, pretty much a requirement for making it through long-term treatment.

 

I am Canadian now, but I was an American the first 32 years of my life. I know very well how illness and injury can wipe out a family in an instant. I have first-hand experience of that.

 

At any rate, I just don't think that a secondary wage-earner working hard at a very safe, very well-paying farm job can be compared to primary wage earners deciding not to take dangerous jobs that are poorly paid, and that derail long-term job hunting.

 

It doesn't derail me from working another 30 hours off-farm every week. I don't think it needs to derail anyone else from seeking other work, or even having other work. It does, however, bring in some income, no matter how modest, while there is no other work to be had.

 

 

 

 

 

I am not unsympathetic to those who have a difficult time finding work, nor those who struggle with several part-time jobs to make ends meet. I juggle several jobs just to cobble together a living, too. It isn't easy. A lot of the time, it isn't even pleasant, but I strongly feel that if you are able to work, you should work, and if you are truly not able, a compassionate government should meet your basic needs.

[happyhomemaker25]

The money is not as good as everyone is claiming it is. $50 a day when gas is over $3 a gallon is not going to work.

[Ohdanigirl]

Where do you live? Dh has been out of work for about 2 months, and was out of work for 2 years before his last job. He would be happy to do one of these jobs.

 

i think many people are just spoiled.

 

Danielle

[cathmom]

Don't talk to me about licensing! My son's preschool has been trying to get licensed in our state and it's a totally ridiculous process that would have required them to change everything I actually like about the school! They are now trying to get accredited instead.

 

I'm a well-educated, intelligent parent. Shouldn't it be up to me how many hours I want to leave my child in their care?

[Murphy101]

Don't talk to me about licensing! My son's preschool has been trying to get licensed in our state and it's a totally ridiculous process that would have required them to change everything I actually like about the school! They are now trying to get accredited instead.

 

I'm a well-educated, intelligent parent. Shouldn't it be up to me how many hours I want to leave my child in their care?

 

Some of the hoops and expenses they put people through could be another entire thread. :tongue_smilie:

[WishboneDawn]

I think the whole polarized aspect of this disucssion where it's people-are-spoiled vs the-jobs-aren't-worth-it is false.

 

Some people have very good reasons for not taking these jobs. Other have good reasons for taking them. Some have bad reasons for taking them and others have bad reasons for not taking them.

 

Big flippin' deal. I don't think it's any great indicator of a nation's character if people are or aren't willing to go pick fruit.

[twoforjoy]

The argument "I have a XYZ degree" is hogwash. Lori, *I* have a Ph.D and *I* spend hours every summer hand planting 1000 strawberry plants in rotations, then harvesting them because it brings in over $20K for my family. My kid also gets out there and does this work.

 

Wow, I have NEVER heard of a migrant farm worker making $20K/season. Are you doing the kind of labor being described here, on the kind of farm being described here? Because, as I said, farming has always been something people have done, enjoyed, and taken pride in. The kind of work we're talking about here, though, has never been.

 

Would it be a wise move, if you were the primary wage earner for your family AND the job didn't provide benefits AND it had a high risk of injury for you to do that job, rather than taking on other work?

 

And, on another level, if there were safe farming jobs that paid $20K for a summer's work--which is NOT the kind of work we're talking about here--would it really be cool for people with advanced degrees to go around snatching them up? I mean, do we want a doctorate to be the requirement for farm work? ;)

 

I mean that in a serious way. Is it good for society or our economy when people take jobs that are way overqualified for? Who is helped? All that does is make it harder for people who have no other options to get those jobs.

 

To put yourself above certain work when it WOULD be the bread that feeds your family just because you hold a certain piece of paper is an elitism that doesn't belong in a failing society.

 

You are missing the point. These jobs have ALWAYS been reserved for the desperate or forced. Again, why did we need slaves if these jobs are the kind of work that educated, employable people were happy to take?

 

I do not think that degreed people taking farm labour jobs is going to turn any nation's economy around, but it can make the burden easier for the individual families, thus relieving the social system more than choosing to remain unemployed would.

 

But the problem is that it won't. Most of these jobs pay minimum wage, last for just a few months, have a high risk of injury, and do not provide health insurance. That *isn't* going to be taking a burden off of families.

 

I am probably the biggest Marxist on this board, but even Marx said people who could work must work. From each according to his ability to each according to his need does NOT mean that able bodied workers can choose not to work simply because the work offered does not meet their expectations for satisfaction. It means if you can work, you work! If all you can find is farm work, or other physical labour, then do it.

 

I'm not sure that's a good idea, economically.

 

We don't want people who have the potential to make higher wages taking jobs that are far below their pay scale. That's not elitism; it's capitalism. And, like it or not, we're not going to become a Marxist society any time soon.

 

Plus, there are like 10 million people looking for work in the United States. I'm pretty sure there aren't 10 million jobs doing migrant labor. So even if that was a reasonable economic option, there's not enough positions to go around.

 

But there's a reason why we have unemployment, and it's not because we just want to reward laziness. It's because we do not want people taking, out of desperation, huge pay cuts. That hurts the economy. It is better, economically, for somebody to stay on unemployment for a few months while they find a job with a salary somewhat commiserate to what they were making before than to decide to take on a new career as a cashier at Wal-Mart. Because if they downsize their lifestyle and take on a new career as a cashier at Wal-Mart, while everybody here might applaud them for their strong work ethic and their resolve not to rely on unemployment, they are hurting the economy. They are going to be spending less, and there will be less money, overall, circulating now. That is not what we want.

 

I dislike capitalism as much as the next person ;), but that's what we've got. And college-educated people taking minimum-wage jobs as migrant farm workers is NOT how you keep a capitalist economy going. It's how you destroy one.

 

There is no shame in hard work of any kind.

 

Of course not. But, there's also no shame is using the safety net as a temporary help when needed. And, many times that will be a better option, practically, than taking certain jobs that will fail to provide your family with the basics, will only be temporary, and could lead to permanent injury.

 

It's not about shame, but practicality. If my husband told me he was going to take a job as a seasonal farm worker, I'd tell him he sure the heck would not be! Not because he's somehow "above" it, but because it would be a stupid, stupid move. He could injure his back leaving him unable to work at all. He would not be making enough to support us. He would not be gaining any useful experience, he would be too exhausted to apply for jobs that would be permanent, and we need health insurance. It would be, quite frankly, idiotic, given our situation, for him to take that kind of job as a means of supporting our family, instead of us relying on unemployment of assistance for a time. Again, it's not about "shame" or "elitism" but economic reality. The idea that everything would be better if unemployed people just started picking onions seasonally for minimum wage is a fantasy.

 

My husband sometimes fantasizes about having a job as a dishwasher. He did it in high school, and he liked it. When he gets stressed out at work, it seems like a nice alternative. I do not support him in this fantasy. It has nothing to do with his being "above" dishwashing work, but with the fact that it would be irresponsible and impractical for him to start working as a dishwasher. And it would most certainly not help the economy if he did that.

Edited October 19, 2011 by twoforjoy

[twoforjoy]

And, FWIW, my husband and I are both currently employed. He's had, as I mentioned, jobs washing dishes. I've had jobs picking up garbage at a local pool, working at a day care center, and working the register at a bargain bookstore. I'm not "above" low-paying, menial, or hard work.

 

However, I'm also not going to assume that it's only laziness that would stop somebody from taking a temporary job picking onions or oranges at minimum wage. I'm not going to fault somebody for holding out for a job that is more commiserate with their experience, education, and needs. It's a better decision economically.

 

I'm certainly not going to assume that people with college degrees and/or years of experience working who currently cannot find employment taking these jobs is some sort of panacea for our economic woes. In fact, I really don't see how doing so wouldn't make things worse, because according to everything I understand about economics, that's exactly what would happen.

 

I would really love to know how exactly people think that laid-off union factory workers and unemployed college grads taking these kinds of risky, minimum-wage, temporary jobs would benefit our economy in any way.

 

I was talking about this with my husband, and he's not a particularly traditionalist person, but his response was that what kind of a society has no problem telling women to go work 10-12 hour days doing back-breaking work in a field while leaving their children with somebody they barely know, just so the family can eat? Shouldn't we want better than that? Is wanting better than that for our neighbors really a sign of "entitlement" or "laziness"? Because I have a hard time seeing it that way.

Edited October 19, 2011 by twoforjoy

[cindergretta]

Great thread. I never really thought about any of this and the POVs are very eye-opening and the points being made really have me putting on my thinking cap.

 

Theoretically, if my dh lost his job tomorrow (heaven forbid!) he would make more collecting unemployment than he would doing seasonal farm work. Also, our dc would qualify for medicaid. So would it really make more sense or be more beneficial for him to chuck the unemployment and the medical coverage for his kids for less money? :confused: I guess I don't understand that mindset, especially as he has worked a regular job since he was 14 and "paid into the system." My dh has *never* been unemployed. When he got laid off from Matsu****a in his late 20s, he was given *4* months of pay and benefits. Did he sit at home and enjoy a 2 or 3 month vacation? Nope. He went out and found a job within a week and kept on working. It is what he does. But in this current job market, the idea that he could find other work as quickly and easily as he did back then is fallacy. I would fully expect him to collect the unemployment and take care of his children that way over chucking all benefits and getting a temp job for next to no money.

 

Are there people who think they are "too good" for this or that job? Sure there are. There are people who think they are too good to work, period. But they (IME) are the minority. One of my closest friends is a single mother. She earned her master's degree this year. She is a barista. That's the only work she could find. Now she is working on a second master's in HR so she can get a decent job. No fault there. She is working hard 25 hours a day. The downside? He dd(15) is into all kinds of trouble. All the time. And it breaks her heart and makes her question everything all the time. (He ex died so there is no father in the picture.) It is a constant struggle and delicate balance right now for people to survive, much less get ahead. And someone from the outside looking in to her life probaby has all kinds of ideas about what she should or could do, but they aren't living her reality and trying to survive in her life. So who gives a rip what they think? She truly is doing the very best she can.

 

(One of her friends accused her of living on "academic welfare" when she made the choice to get the 2nd master's. :001_huh: She accruing educational debt hand over fist with the hope that she will get ahead. How on earth is that academic welfare???)

 

It is only so easy to judge what others are doing and how and why when we aren't walking a mile in their shoes. :(

[Rosie_0801]

I mean that in a serious way. Is it good for society or our economy when people take jobs that are way overqualified for? Who is helped? All that does is make it harder for people who have no other options to get those jobs.

 

An unemployed person with a degree is just the same as an unemployed person with no degree. The former might have more potential opportunities, but when it comes down to it, right now they are both unemployed. You seem to be saying a person without qualifications is more deserving. Unemployed with a degree person can't pay his/her bills with the warm fuzzies gained from not taking a job so someone else without qualifications could have it.

 

Because if they downsize their lifestyle and take on a new career as a cashier at Wal-Mart, while everybody here might applaud them for their strong work ethic and their resolve not to rely on unemployment, they are hurting the economy. They are going to be spending less, and there will be less money, overall, circulating now. That is not what we want.

 

Mr or Ms Qualification will be out of that low paying, crappy job as soon as they can find something better. In the meantime, is it improving the economy to refuse to hire overqualified people? And I don't understand your point about them hurting the economy by spending less if they are earning less. While they are unemployed, they will be spending less too, because they aren't earning anything.

 

Now I hear a lot about employers refusing to hire qualified people if they've been out of the industry a while doing filler jobs. Why is that? If they have candidates that haven't been, that makes sense, but it seems to me there are jobs that need to be done and employers will hang out waiting for a great candidate instead of hiring the perfectly suitable person who is on their doorstep. Perhaps my perceptions are incorrect?

 

Rosie

[asta]

I noticed no one touched on / attacked the bit in my post about how the welfare state / social safety net is crumbling world wide.

 

Of course I'm not going to rely on that; it shows no signs of sustainability.

 

Further, call me "prideful" or whatever, but there are millions of people just like me in the world who wouldn't touch governmental "family" aid with a ten foot pole. Why? Because there ARE ways to provide for one's family if one is creative. Sometimes one must be incredibly creative, but it exists nonetheless. Want some tips? Ask anyone in the LDS church or an adherent to Islam - neither of which is allowed by doctrine to accept state aid, IIRC. (one of the board members would need to correct me - I'm going off of old info)

 

 

asta

[Mama Geek]

I think the whole polarized aspect of this disucssion where it's people-are-spoiled vs the-jobs-aren't-worth-it is false.

 

Some people have very good reasons for not taking these jobs. Other have good reasons for taking them. Some have bad reasons for taking them and others have bad reasons for not taking them.

 

Big flippin' deal. I don't think it's any great indicator of a nation's character if people are or aren't willing to go pick fruit.

 

I would agree with you other than the fact that the tax payers (government) are supporting so many people right now.

[Melinda in VT]

Ask anyone in the LDS church or an adherent to Islam - neither of which is allowed by doctrine to accept state aid, IIRC. (one of the board members would need to correct me - I'm going off of old info)

 

 

This is definitely not true for the LDS church. There is no prohibition against taking state aid and lots of Mormons take it.

[asta]

This is definitely not true for the LDS church. There is no prohibition against taking state aid and lots of Mormons take it.

 

Thank you for the correction. Perhaps it was just the Temples & wards in which I lived which frowned upon it.

 

a

[Melinda in VT]

Thank you for the correction. Perhaps it was just the Temples & wards in which I lived which frowned upon it.

 

That's entirely possible. Most of my time as an adult Mormon was spent in Utah, which is actually one of the more materialistic places I've lived.

 

It could also be a difference of time. It was my impression growing up in the 1970s in the PNW that government assistance was frowned on. But then Ezra Taft Benson became prophet, and he had some strongly worded talks about the importance of mothers not working outside the home. The economy was pretty bad at the time, and I think many families felt it was better to take state aid than have the wife work.

[Mrs Mungo]

I would agree with you other than the fact that the tax payers (government) are supporting so many people right now.

 

A LOT of people on government assistance *do* have jobs. They are often jobs like this with low pay, hard work, seasonal and with no benefits. Government assistance for low wage earners help businesses keep prices low and maximize their own profits.

 

There are soldiers in the military who qualify for WIC, foodstamps and other government programs. It is *not true* that everyone on government assistance is too lazy to work.

[Haiku]

there are millions of people just like me in the world who wouldn't touch governmental "family" aid with a ten foot pole.

 

Good for them. They are clearly better people than I am. When you find a creative way to come up with $3000+ dollars every month, reliably, without fail, so that my kids can get their lifesaving medications, let me know so that if my dh ever loses his job and we lose our insurance, I can become a better person too. (OH, and don't forget to factor in the cost of quarterly visits to not one, not two, not three or four, but FIVE various specialists, and all the lab work too. Thanks!)

 

Tara

[Murphy101]

I noticed no one touched on / attacked the bit in my post about how the welfare state / social safety net is crumbling world wide.

 

Of course I'm not going to rely on that; it shows no signs of sustainability.

 

asta

 

I did.

 

A LOT of people on government assistance *do* have jobs. They are often jobs like this with low pay, hard work, seasonal and with no benefits. Government assistance for low wage earners help businesses keep prices low and maximize their own profits.

 

There are soldiers in the military who qualify for WIC, foodstamps and other government programs. It is *not true* that everyone on government assistance is too lazy to work.

 

:iagree: I hate many things about govt assistance. Mostly hate that it is easier to whine about it than to pay a living wage so people don't need it! It isn't just a lot of people. It is MOST. Most people receiving some form of aid do have jobs. If the rest of our society doesn't want them to seek govt assistance - then pay them a true living wage!

[Mrs Mungo]

:iagree: I hate many things about govt assistance. Mostly hate that it is easier to whine about it than to pay a living wage so people don't need it! It isn't just a lot of people. It is MOST. Most people receiving some form of aid do have jobs. If the rest of our society doesn't want them to seek govt assistance - then pay them a true living wage!

 

I agree.

[WishboneDawn]

I would agree with you other than the fact that the tax payers (government) are supporting so many people right now.

 

Many people who are being supported have paid taxes.

 

People are not static. Things change. That, to my mind, is another fault with this discussion - the failure to see that the person drawing support right now might have been the one giving it a few years ago. Instead people are being treated as never-changing entities.

[Mrs Mungo]

Many people who are being supported have paid taxes.

 

People are not static. Things change. That, to my mind, is another fault with this discussion - the failure to see that the person drawing support right now might have been the one giving it a few years ago. Instead people are being treated as never-changing entities.

 

Many of those receiving government aid *still* pay taxes, even those who don't pay income tax.

[Xuzi]

I noticed no one touched on / attacked the bit in my post about how the welfare state / social safety net is crumbling world wide.

 

Of course I'm not going to rely on that; it shows no signs of sustainability.

 

Further, call me "prideful" or whatever, but there are millions of people just like me in the world who wouldn't touch governmental "family" aid with a ten foot pole. Why? Because there ARE ways to provide for one's family if one is creative. Sometimes one must be incredibly creative, but it exists nonetheless. Want some tips? Ask anyone in the LDS church or an adherent to Islam - neither of which is allowed by doctrine to accept state aid, IIRC. (one of the board members would need to correct me - I'm going off of old info)

 

 

asta

I know many LDS families recieving state aid, but it's often the last resort option. The "hierarchy" (of sorts) of meeting our needs is: ourselves, our extended families, the Church (which has an *incredible* welfare program of it's own), the State. The church will help cover some bills, and provide food and sometimes clothing (if there's a Deseret Industries thrift store near by, you'll be provided with a voucher to go get free clothes). Many LDS families I've known of who have recieved assistance have usually recieved help from all 3, as often relying entirely on just one won't cover everything (particularly if there are several children, as there often are in LDS families :tongue_smilie:).

 

The main goal though is to achieve self-sufficiency, so all of those aids are to be seen as *temporary*, and the church will provide job-placement assistance, and sometimes even provide student loans (in countries outside of the US, at least, where such financing is hard to come by), so they can futher their education and become more marketable.

 

So ya, we're not prohibited from seeking government aid, but we're not to treat it as a lifestyle. :) (which I know most people seeking govt. aid aren't doing anyway)

[Bluegoat]

It isn't a matter of historical accuracy or inaccuracy. Someone right here on the board already said they worked the farms (and was then lambasted for childcare!).

 

The discussion was jobs. The jobs are there. How badly do people want a job? Apparently, not badly enough. A job is not "health care". A job is not "benefits". A job is a certain task done in exchange for wages. That's it. And somewhere along the line, people decided that there were jobs that would. not. be. done. by particular classes of people.

 

Well, welcome to the brave, brave new world. The one with a quarter of the workforce un or underemployed. The one that has had a structural paradigm shift -- and where new jobs may well indeed be very different than what people are accustomed to.

 

For the US to survive as a nation and compete in the global marketplace, it will have to buck up and learn how to work. The populace will also have to learn how to differentiate between "need" and "want" because, if the rioting throughout the world's Socialist Democracies are any indication, there will be a structural realignment in what US citizens refer to as "welfare" (or "the social safety net") as well. Governments are discovering that such systems are not sustainable in general, and that things go even more poorly in pockets of society that are unable to discern that food and shelter take priority over other things.

 

I believe people will see the US re-establishing itself in manufacturing, which is, guess what - work that is hard and often hot. US firms won't be able to remain profitable with the long lists of benefits that were previously in place from the unions, so things will be very different this time. The "we're going to take over by being the basis for the information age" idea failed (everyone simply stole our ideas). The "everyone goes to college" movement is more than likely a thing of the past as well.

 

Finally, the most impoverished person in the US is richer than 68% of anyone else in the entire world. The entire world. THAT is why people from other nations are willing to pick onions. Why aren't US citizens? I'm not buying most of the arguments I read here.

 

 

asta

 

I think the issue is entirely different. It is that people either know or feel that these jobs are deeply exploitative, and so they avoid them unless they are desperate.

 

Think about why the owners of the farm, doing the same kind of work, find it satisfying and worthwhile so that they will try to hang on even if the venture is economically struggling. It is because after a days work, they know they have actually improved their lot in life. Their farm is more valuable than it was, they can see the results of their work which will come to them, and over time they and their children will be able to benefit from it.

 

A days real work for a human being produces more value than what is required for immediate needs. That is why human beings have been able to create civilizations where they save for hard times, have leisure, create art, or support universities and churches. We have the wealth to do that because our labour can feed and house us, plus the people who do those things and the resources to create those things.

 

At the end of a day of hard work, a person should not only have supplied his needs for the day, he should have something extra as well, whether he puts the extra time into improving his property or wages to save.

 

If he finishes the days work and has nothing extra, there can be a few reasons, and only the first is the fault of the worker. Maybe he didn't work hard. Maybe the job he has been hired to do is not really a value producing job. Or maybe the employer has taken the extra to line his own pockets.

 

In the case of farm workers, there is no question that they are not working hard, nor that the job is foolish - it's among the most basic and necessary functions of the human community. So why isn't the worker producing anough to accomadate himself in a way that is fair and comfortable, to supply his own health and education needs, and to save a bit for emergencies, to buy his own farm one day, or to buy something nice for his kids?

 

The money. the value of his work, is not being given to him. It doesn't seem to be going to the farmers. I would say that it is going to some extent to big ag companies. But most of it is probably in our houses. It's the second car, tv, internet connection, swim lessons and so on that we can afford because we pay very little for food.

 

That's why there is such a disparity between the way the rich and poor live, and that is why no one wants to do those jobs. They aren't going to do hard, dangerous work to turn over their earnings to other people who have jobs in air conditioned offices.

 

This kind of labour system is just what we saw after the industrial revolution, and it goes against human dignity, and is immoral. Some get rich off of the labour of others, and it is no different if they are in our own country or a sweatshop in China.

[Bluegoat]

I noticed no one touched on / attacked the bit in my post about how the welfare state / social safety net is crumbling world wide.

 

Of course I'm not going to rely on that; it shows no signs of sustainability.

 

Further, call me "prideful" or whatever, but there are millions of people just like me in the world who wouldn't touch governmental "family" aid with a ten foot pole. Why? Because there ARE ways to provide for one's family if one is creative. Sometimes one must be incredibly creative, but it exists nonetheless. Want some tips? Ask anyone in the LDS church or an adherent to Islam - neither of which is allowed by doctrine to accept state aid, IIRC. (one of the board members would need to correct me - I'm going off of old info)

 

 

asta

 

I don't think it shows any more signs of being inadaquate than the lack of a safely net in other places. It isn't really the issue. Some countries are having issues, but others are not, and the difference isn't the level of public care.

 

If you all down in the US would like to save money on things, get a reasonable universal health care system; they cost a good bit less than what you are doing now and they would take a lot of the burden off of employers. People might even be more willing to take more dangerous jobs.

[Mrs Mungo]

I believe people will see the US re-establishing itself in manufacturing, which is, guess what - work that is hard and often hot. US firms won't be able to remain profitable with the long lists of benefits that were previously in place from the unions, so things will be very different this time.

 

My dad worked for a union company for 30 years. The first...maybe 10 years(?)...they had Christmas parties for families, stuff like that. They cut those in the name of saving money. Okay, fine.

 

The real problems began when the older CEOs retired and a new, young crop of CEOs came on board. They bought company box seats at all of the local sports venues. They bought six corporate jets (the old CEOs flew coach). They increased their salaries ten-fold. They installed daycare centers and fitness centers for the executives. Suddenly, they couldn't afford union salaries or paltry tool allowances for mechanics who were already buying tools out of pocket or "fancy union perks" like health insurance for normal workers. They made Fortune Magazine's list of best companies to work for when it came to CEOs even as they fired every union worker in their warehouses and moved them all to new locations 30-60 miles from where they had been in order to hire a new crop of non-union workers who made minimum wage and received no benefits. Then, they proceed to cry about how hard it is to find good help these days.

 

The idea that the American people are too lazy for these jobs is a lie. People with families *cannot live* on the salaries being offered to them for hard physical work. It is a *lie* that corporations cannot pay decent salaries. The truth is that they can't pay a living wage *and* have a corporate jet *and have a 2 million dollar salary *and* a state of the art fitness center in their office.

 

For those of you thinking this applies to small businesses, it does not. Small businesses pay WAY more in taxes than large corporations. You should be more mad than anyone at the corporate shills selling these lies to the public.

[livingnlearning]

Some people misread what I said-the Mexican lady that occasionally watched my kids, and the kids of the other workers, from the fenced yard of the farmhouse that was provided for her family by the potato farmer, was a LEGAL worker. Not an immigrant, even. A temporary worker that returned to Mexico when harvest was done. LEGAL to be here but depending on how many kids she had that day she may not have been a licensed daycare provider. In my state you only need a license if you had over a certain number of kids a day.

 

The men worked milking and potatoes all day because they WANTED to-they were getting overtime! My boss didn't make anyone do anything illegal. The Mexicans were up here for a few months of the year to make money and that's what they did. And I'll tell you what, in my world, that is what a man does. They take care of their family even if it means their hands get dirty, they get tired and they have to work more than 8 hours a day without benefits. The Mexican wives and families came with them to keep everyone together and to help them be able to work all they could. The farmer told me that he couldn't find local people to do the work any more-his daughters and wife worked the tables with us but most of the other locals wouldn't do it any more. Me and a few older farm/ranch wives, a few homeschooled teenagers, and a lot of Mexicans. Funnest job I've ever had! We didn't complain, we didn't fight, we talked all day, we helped each other out, and we respected our boss. Crazy.

 

If I could still work potatoes fulltime I would-it was a great job. I got $11/hour, overtime, mileage and it was all on the books. Plus all the free potatoes I could haul home! It's good honest work, gads-go figure.

 

Are all the jobs like that? no... but some folks here were condemning these jobs with a broad brush and I want to be clear that I'm not a slave nor a sharecropper and my boss was an upstanding citizen, good farmer, and a pastor.

 

And I didn't consider myself too good for the jobs (like many of the college kids and young people did). I got stronger, I got plenty of fresh air. Made some great friends and learned how to make awesome salsa. :D

[ChocolateReignRemix]

My dad worked for a union company for 30 years. The first...maybe 10 years(?)...they had Christmas parties for families, stuff like that. They cut those in the name of saving money. Okay, fine.

 

The real problems began when the older CEOs retired and a new, young crop of CEOs came on board. They bought company box seats at all of the local sports venues. They bought six corporate jets (the old CEOs flew coach). They increased their salaries ten-fold. They installed daycare centers and fitness centers for the executives. Suddenly, they couldn't afford union salaries or paltry tool allowances for mechanics who were already buying tools out of pocket or "fancy union perks" like health insurance for normal workers. They made Fortune Magazine's list of best companies to work for when it came to CEOs even as they fired every union worker in their warehouses and moved them all to new locations 30-60 miles from where they had been in order to hire a new crop of non-union workers who made minimum wage and received no benefits. Then, they proceed to cry about how hard it is to find good help these days.

The idea that the American people are too lazy for these jobs is a lie. People with families *cannot live* on the salaries being offered to them for hard physical work. It is a *lie* that corporations cannot pay decent salaries. The truth is that they can't pay a living wage *and* have a corporate jet *and have a 2 million dollar salary *and* a state of the art fitness center in their office.

 

For those of you thinking this applies to small businesses, it does not. Small businesses pay WAY more in taxes than large corporations. You should be more mad than anyone at the corporate shills selling these lies to the public.

:iagree:

[Murphy101]

The idea that the American people are too lazy for these jobs is a lie. People with families *cannot live* on the salaries being offered to them for hard physical work. It is a *lie* that corporations cannot pay decent salaries. The truth is that they can't pay a living wage *and* have a corporate jet *and have a 2 million dollar salary *and* a state of the art fitness center in their office.

 

For those of you thinking this applies to small businesses, it does not. Small businesses pay WAY more in taxes than large corporations. You should be more mad than anyone at the corporate shills selling these lies to the public.

 

Amen.

[mommaduck]

My dad worked for a union company for 30 years. The first...maybe 10 years(?)...they had Christmas parties for families, stuff like that. They cut those in the name of saving money. Okay, fine.

 

The real problems began when the older CEOs retired and a new, young crop of CEOs came on board. They bought company box seats at all of the local sports venues. They bought six corporate jets (the old CEOs flew coach). They increased their salaries ten-fold. They installed daycare centers and fitness centers for the executives. Suddenly, they couldn't afford union salaries or paltry tool allowances for mechanics who were already buying tools out of pocket or "fancy union perks" like health insurance for normal workers. They made Fortune Magazine's list of best companies to work for when it came to CEOs even as they fired every union worker in their warehouses and moved them all to new locations 30-60 miles from where they had been in order to hire a new crop of non-union workers who made minimum wage and received no benefits. Then, they proceed to cry about how hard it is to find good help these days.

 

The idea that the American people are too lazy for these jobs is a lie. People with families *cannot live* on the salaries being offered to them for hard physical work. It is a *lie* that corporations cannot pay decent salaries. The truth is that they can't pay a living wage *and* have a corporate jet *and have a 2 million dollar salary *and* a state of the art fitness center in their office.

 

For those of you thinking this applies to small businesses, it does not. Small businesses pay WAY more in taxes than large corporations. You should be more mad than anyone at the corporate shills selling these lies to the public.

THANK YOU!!!

[Lady Florida.]

 

The idea that the American people are too lazy for these jobs is a lie. People with families *cannot live* on the salaries being offered to them for hard physical work. It is a *lie* that corporations cannot pay decent salaries. The truth is that they can't pay a living wage *and* have a corporate jet *and have a 2 million dollar salary *and* a state of the art fitness center in their office.

 

 

As usual, Mrs. Mungo FTW.

[Rivka]

The real problems began when the older CEOs retired and a new, young crop of CEOs came on board. They bought company box seats at all of the local sports venues. They bought six corporate jets (the old CEOs flew coach). They increased their salaries ten-fold. They installed daycare centers and fitness centers for the executives. Suddenly, they couldn't afford union salaries or paltry tool allowances for mechanics who were already buying tools out of pocket or "fancy union perks" like health insurance for normal workers. They made Fortune Magazine's list of best companies to work for when it came to CEOs even as they fired every union worker in their warehouses and moved them all to new locations 30-60 miles from where they had been in order to hire a new crop of non-union workers who made minimum wage and received no benefits. Then, they proceed to cry about how hard it is to find good help these days.

 

:iagree: But remember, what you're describing isn't "class warfare." Only complaining about it or trying to change it is considered "class warfare."

 

The idea that the American people are too lazy for these jobs is a lie. People with families *cannot live* on the salaries being offered to them for hard physical work. It is a *lie* that corporations cannot pay decent salaries. The truth is that they can't pay a living wage *and* have a corporate jet *and have a 2 million dollar salary *and* a state of the art fitness center in their office.

 

YES. Thank you for saying this so clearly and eloquently. Real wages for lower- and middle-income Americans have been stagnating or falling since the 1980s, while the income of the top few percent skyrockets. It is just. plain. harder. to get by these days, and it's incredibly insulting to say that the reason why is that nowadays people are lazy. When you can work all day at backbreaking labor and have almost nothing at the end of it, that's not about laziness. When you put in 40 or more hours a week and still can't afford to take your kids to the doctor, that's not about laziness. It's about short-term unprincipled greed destroying our country.

 

I think the issue is entirely different. It is that people either know or feel that these jobs are deeply exploitative, and so they avoid them unless they are desperate.

 

Think about why the owners of the farm, doing the same kind of work, find it satisfying and worthwhile so that they will try to hang on even if the venture is economically struggling. It is because after a days work, they know they have actually improved their lot in life. Their farm is more valuable than it was, they can see the results of their work which will come to them, and over time they and their children will be able to benefit from it.

 

A days real work for a human being produces more value than what is required for immediate needs. That is why human beings have been able to create civilizations where they save for hard times, have leisure, create art, or support universities and churches. We have the wealth to do that because our labour can feed and house us, plus the people who do those things and the resources to create those things.

 

At the end of a day of hard work, a person should not only have supplied his needs for the day, he should have something extra as well, whether he puts the extra time into improving his property or wages to save.

 

If he finishes the days work and has nothing extra, there can be a few reasons, and only the first is the fault of the worker. Maybe he didn't work hard. Maybe the job he has been hired to do is not really a value producing job. Or maybe the employer has taken the extra to line his own pockets.

 

In the case of farm workers, there is no question that they are not working hard, nor that the job is foolish - it's among the most basic and necessary functions of the human community. So why isn't the worker producing anough to accomadate himself in a way that is fair and comfortable, to supply his own health and education needs, and to save a bit for emergencies, to buy his own farm one day, or to buy something nice for his kids?

 

The money. the value of his work, is not being given to him. It doesn't seem to be going to the farmers. I would say that it is going to some extent to big ag companies. But most of it is probably in our houses. It's the second car, tv, internet connection, swim lessons and so on that we can afford because we pay very little for food.

 

That's why there is such a disparity between the way the rich and poor live, and that is why no one wants to do those jobs. They aren't going to do hard, dangerous work to turn over their earnings to other people who have jobs in air conditioned offices.

 

This is so well put. And it isn't just farm workers - a greater and greater percentage of Americans are in the same boat, and they're being told to just keep their heads down and be grateful that they have a job at all. And not to ask for health benefits, or complain about working conditions, or set a decent value on their labor, because that's the politics of envy, or class warfare.

 

Enough.

[Jennifer3141]

As usual, Mrs. Mungo FTW.

 

Mrs Mungo for president! :)

 

Actually, there are a lot of moms here who would make kick butt presidents...

[KathyBC]

The farmer isn't getting your extra money. He never was. He never will. The only thing farmers in this country had going for them was the Wheat Board, which the PCs are shutting down for good tomorrow. That was the closest thing farmers ever had to a collective bargaining right. So long, bye-bye, and the same for the Port of Churchill for whom 85% of their freight business came from the Wheat Board. Oh, well, no one gives a flying flipping d*amn about a bunch of farmers and a dinky little town on Hud Bay now, do they? :rant:

 

I'm not a wheat farmer, but I understand there may be more to the Wheat Board closure. There have been reports that farmers marketing independently or cooperatively could have sold higher than the Wheat Board managed to do. I'm also thinking that selling through the Wheat Board is mandatory. Finally, the big outcry seems to be over the closure of the office and its staff of 3,000. While mass layoffs are never an easy thing, wouldn't those laid off be more middle-men standing between the farmer and profit?

 

Just some thoughts from the other side of this issue, though I don't have an opinion one way or the other.