Jump to content

Menu

Unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled labor


unsinkable
 Share

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

And we need to have jobs that do support a life, that pay a living wage, that don't require extra training and education. Not everyone can be doctors! Someone has to dig ditches and wash cars and clean schools, etc etc. It used to be that there were a lot of jobs that a person could do right out of high school, without much extra training or education, and support themselves. Now? Not so much. How did we do it before, where a person could work an entry level job and pay for a small place to live, groceries, etc and now we can't?

 

Not to mention the “adults should get training if they want better wages” is bogus. The nature of employment is the more flooded the market with availability the less the pay. And because of that, there’s literally a limit to how many people can take the training. For example, there could be 300 people with the desire and no how and ability to be wonderful nurses here but the local colleges offering those programs only take about 80 students a year. Much of the medical shortage is partly because the professions want to make sure they have just enough to be paid well and not enough to dilute the demand that allows them to be paid well.  This is true of a great many professions that pay well. There’s quite a few barriers to attaining that great pay and or other setups keeping the demand high.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

I don’t think it matters whether the person “needs” a living wage or not. Everyone should be paid a living wage because anyone who works is justified in demanding just compensation for that time and effort.  The end. 

LOTS of teens and elderly and disabled need a living wage because they don’t come from money or have had financial hardships. It is not for other people to decide that person X deserved a living wage but person Y does not because they are young/old/stayed home with their babies or have more in savings.  

Equal pay for equal work is a line I won’t budge from.  The nature of working less hours would mean less pay in itself so I don’t understand any reasoning for also making the hourly rate less for the same job.

However, if we had a minimum income instead of the nightmarish hodgepodge of various welfare programs, I’d accept that in place of a living wage.

I think the degree litmus for every single job these days needs to go the way of the dodo bird. It’s stupid and ineffective and unsustainably expensive. And I say that as a pro-college advocate. I’m not against going to college. Just against the racket the system currently is. 

QFT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

So then, who does those entry level jobs while teens are in school during the day? Do fast food places shut down for the daytime hours? Retail? Custodial? Etc etc?

That's up to the owners / managers.  I would assume that business is slower at those times and could be staffed by fewer people who may have a little more experience.  Though there certainly are job-seekers who don't need to support a family who also don't attend school during all of those hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Not to mention the “adults should get training if they want better wages” is bogus. The nature of employment is the more flooded the market with availability the less the pay. And because of that, there’s literally a limit to how many people can take the training. For example, there could be 300 people with the desire and no how and ability to be wonderful nurses here but the local colleges offering those programs only take about 80 students a year. Much of the medical shortage is partly because the professions want to make sure they have just enough to be paid well and not enough to dilute the demand that allows them to be paid well.  This is true of a great many professions that pay well. There’s quite a few barriers to attaining that great pay and or other setups keeping the demand high.

Can I just say, I wish we lived near each other and could go out for coffee or, in this heat, iced tea? Or I'd love to make you some cookies and lemonade or whatever.  Or a margarita, your choice 🙂 It is SO rare that I come across someone whose window of faith expresses itself in the way that yours does. It's incredibly refreshing. If you are ever in Florida, let me know, and I'll buy you a drink. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the argument of the living wage is that living wage is defined as an amount sufficient for a family of four -- including childcare.

Single adults do not have the same expenses.  A "living wage" for an individual would be significantly lower than for a family of four.

I agree with equal pay for equal work.  Absolutely.  But a single adult does not "need" the same amount of money as a family of four.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Single people can have people in their lives that they take care of.

My husband, for our family of four, makes the same as his single co-workers.  (I'm guessing the idea that a single adult doesn't "need" the same amount no longer counts if the job is deemed "worthy"?)  If we became a two income family should dh ask for a pay cut to make it fair?  We would have more than we "need" if I worked.

A single person seeing that "hey! Life is possible!" would most likely consider a family quicker than at current minimum wage.  (Eta:  I'm talking about responsible adults, I'm sure we all know some, who are delaying a family due to money and the insecurity of everything right now.  These are the people who could consider a family sooner and that *is* a good and kind thing.)

People working 40 hours a week should be able to afford to live and, if they want to, have a family.

 

 

Edited by happi duck
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, KathyBC said:

Looks like this thread got away from me, but I'll comment anyway: from what I observe it appears that raising minimum wage is another form of inflation. Employer costs go up, they raise their prices, everything goes up and the new minimum wage is negated by the new cost-to-income ratio.

hahahaha...got away from you?

i started the thread...got told what I had read in another thread wasn't said, then I pointed out it was, with quotes. Got told again, nope, no one thinks that. 

This thread goes on with people saying again what I had quoted from other thread. 

But, nope, no one said that or thinks like that.

LOL

*There is nothing wrong with calling unskilled labor, "unskilled labor." And IMO, it is diminished, and the people who perform it are diminished, when that is not acknowledged.*

And another thing...people have pretty short memories of all the threads over the years where posters would LOL at people who were the education majors in college, bc according to the LOLers, they were the stupidest people in the easiest majors. "hahahaha, did you ever see their homework?! hahaha! They had to make bulletin boards! hee-hee-hee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a math and data geek so I crunched some numbers regarding households of 1 and 4. (data taken from https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-FPL/ and https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wages/minimumwage

Assume a 40 hour per week, 52 week per year job for all figures below. Also, for comparison, free school lunches are served to kids under 130% of the poverty line and reduced lunches to kids under 185% of the poverty line (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/05/08/2018-09679/child-nutrition-programs-income-eligibility-guidelines).  

 

The federal poverty level for a household of 1 is $12,140 annually. This breaks down to a hourly wage of $5.84 per hour.

Current federal minimum wage (note some states are higher) is $7.25 per hour. This is 124% of poverty level. 

$15.00/ hour (the figure I see most often as a "fair living wage") is 257% of the federal poverty level for a household of 1. 

 

To contrast that with a household of 4. 

The federal poverty level for a household of 4 is $25,100 annually. Breaks down to $12.07 an hour (assuming 40 hours/week, 52 weeks/year).

A family of 4 with one minimum wage earner ($7.25/hour) is at 60% of the poverty level. Two minimum wage earners (for a total of $14.50/hour) in the family would be at 120% of the poverty level.

An increase to $15.00 would put 1 earner/4 person family at 124% of the poverty level. Two minimum wage earners (a total of $30/hour) in the family would put them at 249% of the poverty level. 

 

The household of 4 is very comparable in percentage wise to the household of 1 in both cases (current minimum wage/proposed minimum wage) if there are 2 wage earners.  However, to be equal percentage wise, they have to have two people working. An increase to a $15.00 "living wage" would only bring the household of 4 to the current level of the household of 1 if there is only 1 wage earner. 

Major cons of this number crunching: it assumes the poverty level will be static following a minimum wage increase (although both households would change accordingly). I don't know that a "living wage" has ever been quantified in a percentage because it is more based on costs than wage floors, so I went with the figure I hear most often. 

**hoping I did the math right**

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With near full employment, the workers will have the ability to demand wages that more closely match the value of their services.

To me, it does not make sense to pay based on what the person needs to support his household i.e. his life choices.

As a single parent, I don't see anything wrong with each adult in a household working to afford a reasonable lifestyle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Junie said:

The problem with the argument of the living wage is that living wage is defined as an amount sufficient for a family of four -- including childcare.

Single adults do not have the same expenses.  A "living wage" for an individual would be significantly lower than for a family of four.

I agree with equal pay for equal work.  Absolutely.  But a single adult does not "need" the same amount of money as a family of four.

 

That isn't true.  What expenses do they not share?

They both need food, housing, vehicles, medical, usually have loved ones they have some insterest in assisting in some manner or community that needs them.  They both need education and have cell phones and internet and many other things.

An apartment isn't cheaper because a single person leases it, neither is anything else.  For that matter, it isn't cheaper if a family of four is living there either.

I think a minimum income would be more efficient than a living wage in almost every way, not least would be it wouldn't matter what job anyone has or doesn't have.  It would make the "family of four" model far less problematic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, happi duck said:

Single people can have people in their lives that they take care of.

My husband, for our family of four, makes the same as his single co-workers.  (I'm guessing the idea that a single adult doesn't "need" the same amount no longer counts if the job is deemed "worthy"?)  If we became a two income family should dh ask for a pay cut to make it fair?  We would have more than we "need" if I worked.

A single person seeing that "hey! Life is possible!" would most likely consider a family quicker than at current minimum wage.

People working 40 hours a week should be able to afford to live and, if they want to, have a family.

 

 

The bolded - not sure most people would consider this a good thing.  Personally I would not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Murphy101 said:

 

That isn't true.  What expenses do they not share?

They both need food, housing, vehicles, medical, usually have loved ones they have some insterest in assisting in some manner or community that needs them.  They both need education and have cell phones and internet and many other things.

An apartment isn't cheaper because a single person leases it, neither is anything else.  For that matter, it isn't cheaper if a family of four is living there either.

I think a minimum income would be more efficient than a living wage in almost every way, not least would be it wouldn't matter what job anyone has or doesn't have.  It would make the "family of four" model far less problematic.

The bold:  I see this as problematic as we need to have some incentive to work.  For some it is a kick in the pants related to financial need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SKL said:

The bold:  I see this as problematic as we need to have some incentive to work.  For some it is a kick in the pants related to financial need.

Not every human needs incentive to work.  If you think "I'd never work again if I had a basic income to cover the minimum" then needing incentive is true for you.  Not true for everyone.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, happi duck said:

Not every human needs incentive to work.  If you think "I'd never work again if I had a basic income to cover the minimum" then needing incentive is true for you.  Not true for everyone.

Everyone needs incentive.  It isn't financial for everyone.

But it is financial for many.  We cannot afford to have a large population of people with no incentive to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

With near full employment, the workers will have the ability to demand wages that more closely match the value of their services.

To me, it does not make sense to pay based on what the person needs to support his household i.e. his life choices.

As a single parent, I don't see anything wrong with each adult in a household working to afford a reasonable lifestyle.

 

For the vast majority of humanity a large portion of what they need to support their household is not about their lifestyle choices.

My dh has type 1 diabetes.

I was born to a couple who never finished middle school.

These are just a few of the life long things we had no choice over but have paid tens of thousands of dollars (hundreds literally actually) over the years to deal with.  It wouldn't have mattered if we'd never had kids, or had two.   I know that to be a fact because of the plethora of humans who have less kids and with same or better situations who occupy the same financial boat as we do.

People want to think that because they have been so much smarter in their life decisions that's why they are so much better socio-economicly, it makes them feel safe and secure and smart and like good people.  But the truth is control is more illusion than anyone is comfortable admitting.  There's a crap ton of pure dumb luck that never gets the credit due it.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

For the vast majority of humanity a large portion of what they need to support their household is not about their lifestyle choices.

My dh has type 1 diabetes.

I was born to a couple who never finished middle school.

These are just a few of the life long things we had no choice over but have paid tens of thousands of dollars (hundreds literally actually) over the years to deal with.  It wouldn't have mattered if we'd never had kids, or had two.   I know that to be a fact because of the plethora of humans who have less kids and with same or better situations who occupy the same financial boat as we do.

People want to think that because they have been so much smarter in their life decisions that's why they are so much better socio-economicly, it makes them feel safe and secure and smart and like good people.  But the truth is control is more illusion than anyone is comfortable admitting.  There's a crap ton of pure dumb luck that never gets the credit due it.

Medical expenses like you are describing will be problematic regardless of "living wage" / "minimum income" unless they adapt those minimum figures to each individual's personal issues.  Better of course is to have a program that covers catastrophic health care costs and to fight outrageous price increases on needed drugs.

As far as parents' education, my parents were also dropouts.  It doesn't prevent any of their 6 kids from making sustainable career choices.

 

Edited by SKL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SKL said:

Everyone needs incentive.  It isn't financial for everyone.

But it is financial for many.  We cannot afford to have a large population of people with no incentive to work.

People motivated by money would not be content with a basic income, imo.  They would work to have more.

Edited by happi duck
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, happi duck said:

People motivated by money would not be content with a basic income, imo.  They would work to have more.

I think you underestimate the number of people in our society who would accept bare-bones living in exchange for a life without work.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SKL said:

I think you underestimate the number of people in our society who would accept bare-bones living in exchange for a life without work.

I don't see that as a problem.

However, I was addressing your comment about financial motivation.  The financially motivated would work because they would want luxuries.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

That isn't true.  What expenses do they not share?

They both need food, housing, vehicles, medical, usually have loved ones they have some insterest in assisting in some manner or community that needs them.  They both need education and have cell phones and internet and many other things.

An apartment isn't cheaper because a single person leases it, neither is anything else.  For that matter, it isn't cheaper if a family of four is living there either.

I think a minimum income would be more efficient than a living wage in almost every way, not least would be it wouldn't matter what job anyone has or doesn't have.  It would make the "family of four" model far less problematic.

Comparing my life when I was single compared to when dh and I only had two children:

I only bought food for myself.

I only bought clothing for myself.

I had a small apartment vs. a house.

I only had one car and I only drove when I had somewhere I needed/wanted to be.

 

The needs are the same, yes; but the amount of what I had to purchase was very different.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, happi duck said:

I don't see that as a problem.

However, I was addressing your comment about financial motivation.  The financially motivated would work because they would want luxuries.

You see no problem with a large population taking without giving?  The ballooning societal cost of that would not be sustainable IMO.

As for financially motivated, the motivation to work in order to eat / sleep under a roof / feed one's kids is also financial motivation, at least in our society.  There are many who would work just enough to pay for those things, but only if they couldn't get them for free.  There are others who would work for luxuries, but I wasn't talking about them.  Those latter are not the people who inspire the discussion about minimum income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

You see no problem with a large population taking without giving?  The ballooning societal cost of that would not be sustainable IMO.

As for financially motivated, the motivation to work in order to eat / sleep under a roof / feed one's kids is also financial motivation, at least in our society.  There are many who would work just enough to pay for those things, but only if they couldn't get them for free.  There are others who would work for luxuries, but I wasn't talking about them.  Those latter are not the people who inspire the discussion about minimum income.

I thought the discussion shifted to universal basic income.  With ubi I don't think it matters if some, even a lot, of people live sparsely.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, happi duck said:

I thought the discussion shifted to universal basic income.  With ubi I don't think it matters if some, even a lot, of people live sparsely.

 

But it matters if a lot of able-bodied adults take themselves out of the work force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SKL said:

I think you underestimate the number of people in our society who would accept bare-bones living in exchange for a life without work.

 

Again, there's little evidence to support this, but there's lots and lots of evidence that humans need purpose to survive, much less thrive.  While some do find purpose in bank accounts, the majority do not.  But bank accounts do prevent a huge number from doing things that would benefit society and themselves because they just can't afford it.  A minimum income would allow many people to pursue dreams they otherwise wouldn't be able to.  And a minimum income would give breathing room to those supplementing it in minimum wage jobs that still need to be done.

I don't see much social or character development in people working current minimum wage or less jobs just to still need food stamps to feed their kids.  Most people want to feed their kids and don't need a kick in the pants to do it.  Everyone needs to feel they have purpose beyond being a peon supporting a system that doesn't support them in return.

The concept that poor people are just too lazy to work is not founded on anything in history as far as I can tell.  Most of humanities advances are from people who received little or no financial benefit from it, often whatever finances they had came from another source.  Slaves for one thing. Most of them no matter how horrid their work, still sought purpose outside of it even though they wouldn't be paid.  Science and arts are full of people who wanted to do things because it was interesting, beautiful, or helpful.  The majority of them didn't those things around jobs that put food in the table.  And when they couldn't because the finances were too tight, they often had to slow down or stop entirely.  Most of the people on this forum don't have paying jobs, but they still seek community purpose in some form or another.  Hobbies, volunteering, elder and child care and more.  Those things have value and affect our society in numerous benefitical ways.

And the more automated our lives become, the more necessary it's going to be to expand how we think of people contributing to society beyond what kind of paying job they have.

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SKL said:

But it matters if a lot of able-bodied adults take themselves out of the work force.

 

It depends on what they are doing.  Frankly, I'd rather someone who wants the job to do it.  Aside from that, the concept of taking and giving applying to only pure dollar figures is not one I agree with or think morally acceptable.

I'd rather that if a mom (or dad) wants to stay home, she do so.  It seems convoluted to demand she pay someone's less than minimum wage so that she can also work a job that barely covers childcare and all of them can't afford their groceries.  I don't view her as a taker for staying home and I don't view her as a giver if she works for pay. What does a burger flipper give for their minimum wage work? Nothing against the job itself, bc this scenario plays out everyday for million in all kinds of jobs, but they are more likely to need a crap ton of financial assistance because of the work they do than to give much.  And in the mean time, they often have no time or money to have more purpose in their life and all they usually get for it isn't character defamation that they were just too lazy to do better.

Yes, some people are inclined to prefer hedonism over a better purpose that benefits life.  And that's mostly a social failure to not educate and raise with better expectations and aspirations, or the outliers who are going to be outliers no matter the system. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SKL said:

I think you underestimate the number of people in our society who would accept bare-bones living in exchange for a life without work.

 

What do you have against bare bones living?

I live very bare bones compared to most.  I wouldn't say I live a life without work though.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SKL said:

And again, that is not a bad thing IMO.

 

Except for a large % of our population, they may well never be able to afford to have children, or it means they will be too old to have them. It's just another way to say poor people don't deserve to have families.  While I don't view children as commodities we have a right to, I do think family has an intrinsic value to society that we shouldn't blithely ignore for matters of finance.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

 

What do you have against bare bones living?

I live very bare bones compared to most.  I wouldn't say I live a life without work though.

I have nothing against bare bones living.  I have done my share of it, proudly.  What I have a problem with is the other side of the equation I stated - a life without work / contributing to society.

Edited by SKL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Except for a large % of our population, they may well never be able to afford to have children, or it means they will be too old to have them. It's just another way to say poor people don't deserve to have families.  While I don't view children as commodities we have a right to, I do think family has an intrinsic value to society that we shouldn't blithely ignore for matters of finance.

To the bolded:  I feel the same way about material responsibilities / contributions, which in our society includes holding a job in the appropriate seasons of life.  We humans are complex enough to pursue both family and work without acting like one trumps the other.  Providing for one's own children is a basic instinct; separating "providing" from "children" is not healthy for society IMO.

Personally I don't know one single mature adult who doesn't have kids because of economics.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, SKL said:

I have nothing against bare bones living.  I have done my share of it, proudly.  What I have a problem with is the other side of the equation I stated - a life without work / contributing to society.

 

I do not equate paid work with contributing to society. They are separate things that sometimes might overlap.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, SKL said:

To the bolded:  I feel the same way about material responsibilities / contributions, which in our society includes holding a job in the appropriate seasons of life.  We humans are complex enough to pursue both family and work without acting like one trumps the other.  Providing for one's own children is a basic instinct; separating "providing" from "children" is not healthy for society IMO.

Personally I don't know one single mature adult who doesn't have kids because of economics.

 

Really? Because I've met lots.  It's not like there's no women out there who did the college and career thing and then found the eggs had dried up when they finally had the marriage or stable career.  There's lots and lots of them.  Some choose adoption or whatever, but often not until lots of heartache over not having a biological child the usual way, and it's not like just anyone can afford those other routes.

That aside, I think all people should contribute to making the world a better place to the best of their ability.  I'm just not as fixated on paid employment as the main means of doing that as you seem to be.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Can I just say, I wish we lived near each other and could go out for coffee or, in this heat, iced tea? Or I'd love to make you some cookies and lemonade or whatever.  Or a margarita, your choice 🙂 It is SO rare that I come across someone whose window of faith expresses itself in the way that yours does. It's incredibly refreshing. If you are ever in Florida, let me know, and I'll buy you a drink. 

 

Aww.  Shucks.😊

I'd happily pour you a cup of whatever you like if you ever venture to Oklahoma.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2019 at 8:00 AM, beckyjo said:

I'm sure that's part of it; employers love to see more data points on a resume. Seeing a degree means that you can finish something. I think it probably has many different reasons; maybe different occupations' requirements these days have different reasons. Overall throughout the economy, there is a push for more and more formal education before starting the job. One example is my CPA; I am grandfathered in with only a bachelor's degree. The Powers that Be raised the requirement to 150 credit hour minimum shortly after I passed. Another example is when on one vacation where we did a lot of different history stops. We went through several Abraham Lincoln stops in IL. He was a post master, store owner, lawyer, boatman, surveyor, and POTUS all with no degree (or even any formal schooling at all - I think it was about 12 - 18 months he attended school).

Possibly part of it may have been a push that happened from within the ranks of the workers. For example, nurses didn't used to have degrees; it was on-the-job training. They outsourced that training to a college; I think partly it happened because it's seen as more prestigious than no degree. So now, nurses require at least a 2 year, often 4+ year degree, and thus they are seen as a professional. Nurses now do a lot more of the medical stuff rather than the making patient comfortable (more blankets, walking them to bathroom). Those kind of things have been sent down the line to CNA's. I don't know if that is a cause or an effect though (were they asked to do more medical so wanted more formal education or did they have more education so they were asked to do more? 

 

I think one interesting part of the picture is that jobs with a low barrier to entry (and thus, typically low wages, at least at first) do attract people who are not proactive enough, disciplined enough, literate enough or some other important feature, to do a job requiring degrees. For instance, at one point, dh tried for literally years to employ a good plumber’s helper. No degree or certificate necessary; just show up, take direction, and don’t be messy. He hired young guys numerous times, but these employees failed. The people who are more on-the-ball typically get their certifications; they don’t look for plumber’s helpers jobs. 

I have a friend who keeps trying to hire employees for her cleaning company. No barrier to entry; no degree or certification needed. People do not show up for work. She says for every five she hires, only one actually comes to work. 

So. I think that is one reason why many jobs have been professionalized. It’s why many jobs which used to require nothing but a high school diploma now require at least a certification program. It is a way to weed out people who don’t make good employees. When a job is available to someone and they literally didn’t have to do a single thing but fill out an application, you’re going to see a high percentage of unsuitable applicants. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

And we need to have jobs that do support a life, that pay a living wage, that don't require extra training and education. Not everyone can be doctors! Someone has to dig ditches and wash cars and clean schools, etc etc. It used to be that there were a lot of jobs that a person could do right out of high school, without much extra training or education, and support themselves. Now? Not so much. How did we do it before, where a person could work an entry level job and pay for a small place to live, groceries, etc and now we can't?

Because the minimum wage used to be much higher relative to the COL. This is from a 2017 article in Business Insider: "Had the minimum wage been adjusted for average growth, the current minimum wage would be $11.62. ... Had it grown at the same rate as American productivity, it [would have been] $19.33" in 2017.

The system is structured to ensure that all of the increased value in productivity gets funneled to the already wealthy instead of benefitting the workers who are actually producing it. So the rich get richer, while claiming the working poor deserve to be poor — if they weren't so lazy and unmotivated, they could just enroll in one of the millions of (nonexistent) free training programs that would allow them to move up into one of the tens of millions of (nonexistent) better paying jobs.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On May 16, 2019 at 8:50 AM, SKL said:

I am a believer in entry level / stepping stone jobs.  I had them as a youth and I would like my kids to experience them too, while they are still maturing and don't yet need to support themselves independently.

For those who need a "living wage," they need to step up and get the training and experience that justifies the pay.  That's part of being an adult.  If they have some disability that prevents that, then there are (or should be) social programs to fill the gap.

Implying that the working poor are just too lazy and childish to bother getting better paid jobs is not only incredibly patronizing, it totally ignores the actual numbers involved here — 42% of American workers earn less than $15/hr. We are talking about tens of millions of workers. Where are the free or low-cost training programs for these tens of millions of people? Where is the free child care for the millions of working mothers making less than $15/hr, so they can get this training? And where are the tens of millions of better paying jobs to employ these newly-trained workers?

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quill said:

I think one interesting part of the picture is that jobs with a low barrier to entry (and thus, typically low wages, at least at first) do attract people who are not proactive enough, disciplined enough, literate enough or some other important feature, to do a job requiring degrees. For instance, at one point, dh tried for literally years to employ a good plumber’s helper. No degree or certificate necessary; just show up, take direction, and don’t be messy. He hired young guys numerous times, but these employees failed. The people who are more on-the-ball typically get their certifications; they don’t look for plumber’s helpers jobs. 

I have a friend who keeps trying to hire employees for her cleaning company. No barrier to entry; no degree or certification needed. People do not show up for work. She says for every five she hires, only one actually comes to work.

So. I think that is one reason why many jobs have been professionalized. It’s why many jobs which used to require nothing but a high school diploma now require at least a certification program. It is a way to weed out people who don’t make good employees. When a job is available to someone and they literally didn’t have to do a single thing but fill out an application, you’re going to see a high percentage of unsuitable applicants.

 

The bolded is very derogatory towards literally millions of people.  It's bigotry via classism.

My husband works with nothing but degree professionals and they are just as lazy and full of crap as any other people on the planet.  They don't show up for interviews because they decided to go to another.  Many companies interview dozens and dozens and purposely hire 3-5 knowing some aren't going to actually fill the position or work out. They come in late because crap happened or they have mental illness or they just wanted to skip work to enjoy something more enjoyable that day.  People are not better employees just because they have a degree.  That's no holds barred BS.

There's literally dozens of reasons why the lower classes or the non-degreed don't show up for jobs and for the most part it has nothing to do with the quality of their character or work ethic, and there's no evidence at all that a degree makes a difference.

Edited by Murphy101
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

The bolded is very derogatory towards literally millions of people.  It's bigotry via classism.

My husband works with nothing but degree professionals and they are just as lazy and full of crap as any other people on the planet.  They don't show up for interviews because they decided to go to another.  Many companies interview dozens and dozens and purposely hire 3-5 knowing some aren't going to actually fill the position or work out. They come in late because crap happened or they have mental illness or they just wanted to skip work to enjoy something more enjoyable that day.  People are not better employees just because they have a degree.  That's no holds barred BS.

There's literally dozens of reasons why the lower classes or the non-degreed don't show up for jobs and for the most part it has nothing to do with the quality of their character or work ethic, and there's no evidence at all that a degree makes a difference.

Are you denying that there is such a thing as a poor-quality employee? Are you trying to say that millions of people fail to pursue certification, degrees or training in a field through no fault of their own? That’s a load of bull. 

There are tons of people who don’t care about working much or would rather watch TV and drink a beer or who don’t have enough long view to think through what they hope to be doing six months from now, or two years, or four. I’m not talking about a theoretical low wage earner, I’m talking about literal people who my husband attempted to hire for a no-degree-needed job, or my friend in the same position. You know how easy it is to find an alert, mentally together, reliable, non-substance-abusing person who wants to be a plumber’s helper? It’s like trying to find a freaking unicorn. That’s not classist; it’s our actual, lived reality. 

I’m NOT saying all the white collar employees are always perfect, while the unskilled labor is always dreadful. But a person who goes to the effort of completing a program of training, or a college degree program, is manifestly able to work with some diligence for a defined period of time in order to accomplish what he set out to do. This does weed out the people who can’t/won’t work at something for a period of time to accomplish a fixed goal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

My mom is an assistant teacher at Head Start and has  no degree. However, she's been in teaching since the 80s. Should we throw out a great teacher who the kids love just because she doesn't have a degree?

Shoot, I don't have a degree and work in a department where I'm the only person without one. A degree is not necessary to do my job, and it doesn't show that I didn't try hard enough. I have never been able to afford to get a degree, and now as an adult who has to work full-time in order to pay bills it's incredibly difficult to get back to school. 

Making a degree a requirement, for many jobs, does nothing but weed out a lot of really good and qualified applicants.

Of course not. Obviously, someone with a proven track record does not need to go get papers late in life. 

Your middle paragraph is the reason I disagree with those (very prevalent in homeschooling circles particularly) who poo-poo getting a college degree, steer their kids towards not pursuing a degree and simplstically say they can go to college later if need be. I have been to college as a mom/adult and it’s hard. It’s a lot of juggling and it’s hard to balance what my kids need with what I want for myself and it’s all too easy to back-burner my degree at this point in life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, unsinkable said:

hahahaha...got away from you?

i started the thread...got told what I had read in another thread wasn't said, then I pointed out it was, with quotes. Got told again, nope, no one thinks that. 

This thread goes on with people saying again what I had quoted from other thread. 

But, nope, no one said that or thinks like that.

LOL

*There is nothing wrong with calling unskilled labor, "unskilled labor." And IMO, it is diminished, and the people who perform it are diminished, when that is not acknowledged.*

And another thing...people have pretty short memories of all the threads over the years where posters would LOL at people who were the education majors in college, bc according to the LOLers, they were the stupidest people in the easiest majors. "hahahaha, did you ever see their homework?! hahaha! They had to make bulletin boards! hee-hee-hee

Yeah, when Iast checked there were a few posts, and when I got back to it there were three pages, and I was replying without taking the time to catch up. Sorry if my comment was confusing. Not sure what you thought I meant by that...  I was obviously not being clear, so hope that makes a bit more sense!

Actually, I'm not entirely sure from this post what your take is either. Like, are you saying that people on this board do look down on unskilled labour but deny it?

 

ETA: Because I *thought* you were trying to say is that there is nothing wrong with being called unskilled and people should just get over it.
But read this definition: "An unskilled worker is an employee who does not use reasoning or intellectual abilities in their line of work. These workers are typically found in positions that involve manual labor such as packager, assembler, or apprentice, or farm worker." Then tell me an apprentice or farm worker who doesn't use reasoning or intellectual ability? The people who make up these definitions have clearly never done these jobs, and it *is* a pretty presumptuous and insulting definition.

Edited by KathyBC
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2019 at 2:02 PM, EmseB said:

Have you ever run a small business? 

The point is wages don't exist in a vacuum. If you think every business owner is swimming in cash like Scrooge McDuck and just refuses to pay his employees $5 more per hour, then I have to assume you have not. Employee salaries are a carefully budgeted item just like everything else. Comfortable isn't really the issue when many small business owners often forgo taking a salary themselves to get off the ground, get through tough economic times, or to try to grow their business. If I run a bakery and the price of grain goes up I have raise the sales price on my bread. Similarly, if the price of labor goes up, I have to make up that loss somewhere or go out of business. It's telling that you think no business is preferable to a business paying $7.25/hour when that bit of income could make a huge difference for someone for a variety of reasons.

It is denying economic reality to say that we can raise wages without causing a ripple effect in other areas of the economy. It does us no good to earn extra money if prices are higher or less people overall have jobs.

Your argument is emotionally compelling but doesn't address the actual issues with raising wages independent of other economic factors.

When unemployment is high, we don't tell businesses to just hire more people to solve that problem because in general people realize that unemployment isn't a simple matter of businesses being unwilling to hire people. I don't know why people seem to think the answer of low wages is just telling businesses to pay more.  

Everyone says, "Oh, I will pay a little more so that businesses can pay a living wage," but the problem is you've just also raised prices on those same people you wanted to lift out of poverty by paying them more. It's so obvious the problem can't be solved this way. And yet.

 

So...if business margins cannot support the additional pay, and those who are working for $7.25 can't make ends meets, then who makes up the difference? 

Hint: it starts with tax and ends with payers via the social safety net (as limited as it may be.)

So the question could also be posed as why should businesses be indirectly subsidized by the taxpayer?  And let's nor pretend these are only small businesses being subsidized.  WalMart and other major corporations benefit even more than the typical small business.  WalMart has been known to even provide employees on how to apply for government assistance.

If we are okay with subsidizing business, then fine.  But that means the constant attacks on the social safety net need to be dropped as well. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Quill said:

Are you denying that there is such a thing as a poor-quality employee? Are you trying to say that millions of people fail to pursue certification, degrees or training in a field through no fault of their own? That’s a load of bull.

Of course there is.  Dh had to fire a recent hire *in the 6 figures* because they just wouldn’t do what they were supposed to do. And that was after making exceptions to the job requirements that the person had requested in the interview. I’ve also had crummy waitresses, cashiers, and the like. In retail, I’ve tried to manage heroin addicts and my own direct boss who came and went as they pleased (probably also on some sort of drugs.) There are, most definitely, people who suck.

But, yeah, I do think there are millions of people who can’t, for one reason or another, attain the training necessary for what are currently higher paying jobs.  Those of us on the right hand side of the bell curve/s (of intelligence, behavior, mental health, circumstances, etc.) typically avoid reflecting on what’s going on on the left hand side, and there are definitely millions of people on it!  I’m thrilled for those who cross over from the left to the right, but I’ve also seen people cross in the other direction.

That isn’t to say that I think employers should have to hire and pay lousy employees if it screws with their business. But I do think they have a right to eat and be warm and get a suspicious lump checked out. As do the people who are actually capable of showing up and completing those currently low wage jobs.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

Of course there is.  Dh had to fire a recent hire *in the 6 figures* because they just wouldn’t do what they were supposed to do. And that was after making exceptions to the job requirements that the person had requested in the interview. I’ve also had crummy waitresses, cashiers, and the like. In retail, I’ve tried to manage heroin addicts and my own direct boss who came and went as they pleased (probably also on some sort of drugs.) There are, most definitely, people who suck.

But, yeah, I do think there are millions of people who can’t, for one reason or another, attain the training necessary for what are currently higher paying jobs.  Those of us on the right hand side of the bell curve/s (of intelligence, behavior, mental health, circumstances, etc.) typically avoid reflecting on what’s going on on the left hand side, and there are definitely millions of people on it!  I’m thrilled for those who cross over from the left to the right, but I’ve also seen people cross in the other direction.

That isn’t to say that I think employers should have to hire and pay lousy employees if it screws with their business. But I do think they have a right to eat and be warm and get a suspicious lump checked out. As do the people who are actually capable of showing up and completing those currently low wage jobs.

I don’t disagree. And we have been supportive of the rare instances of employees with a negative background, who wanted something better and were willing to work. Twice we have hired young men like this. Twice in thirty years. One guy moved up to a salaried position as a foreman; he’s a stand-up guy. The other became quite competant at plumbing and, though he did not have the certifications, dh trusted him to be able to do anything he, a Master Plumber, could do. But, unfortunately that guy got into some bad, bad trouble with the law. So he effed up his whole life. 

My point is, it is not classist to acknowledge the reality that jobs with no barrier to entry are more likely to be sought by people who don’t have their act together enough to gain employment in a job that does have requirements to entry. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, HeighHo said:

 

Those training programs are at the community college and at the employer. Use the Pell Grant, or work with the unemployment office if not employed.  In the 1990s, just before the first mass layoffs began, the big employers here were directly telling people not to sit on their laurels - jobs require keeping skills up and learning more.  People ignored that.

Child care is what is always has been...find someone on the opposite shift and barter if a gp or auntie or college student  is not available.  

The jobs are all over.  Many people don't want to take them because it takes a while to move up and frankly they can make more under the table.  

Of your 42% earning less the $15/hr, I'm seeing a lot of people who don't mind..the rest of the compensation, particularly low cost medical, makes up for that AND they get to qualify for bennies they wouldn't qualify for if the salary part was higher.  College tuition and housing subsidies, for ex. 

*For some people*, you’re right. Those things are tickets out. But we have to stop pretending everyone has that access and ability!

My mom is 66 years old and putting off retirement to hang on to benefits.  Her retirement accounts took major hits that cannot be fully recovered. 15 years of layoffs, changes in ownership, etc. have cut her salary to half of what it was, dipping below a living wage, and then there’s the medical bills of an older couple (one medically unable to work full time.). She works in a major metropolitan area, where she had more than one lengthy period of being unable to get hired, despite plenty of experience and keeping up to date on skills. Her latest change in ownership did keep her salary, but increased her responsibilities.

How long should I tell her it will take to move up?  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Quill said:

Are you denying that there is such a thing as a poor-quality employee? Are you trying to say that millions of people fail to pursue certification, degrees or training in a field through no fault of their own? That’s a load of bull. 

I never said there's no such thing as a poor quality employee.  In fact, I gave examples of them.  I said whether they are a poor quality employee or not has nothing to do with creditials or lack of them.

There are tons of people who don’t care about working much or would rather watch TV and drink a beer or who don’t have enough long view to think through what they hope to be doing six months from now, or two years, or four. I’m not talking about a theoretical low wage earner, I’m talking about literal people who my husband attempted to hire for a no-degree-needed job, or my friend in the same position. You know how easy it is to find an alert, mentally together, reliable, non-substance-abusing person who wants to be a plumber’s helper? It’s like trying to find a freaking unicorn. That’s not classist; it’s our actual, lived reality. 

It is classist to claim any of that is a poor people issue or a specific to those who do not have a degree/certified issue.  Because it flat out is not.  The opiod epidemic is called n epidemic for a reason, so no, I'm not at all surprised by that.  My husband sees it in degree only positions in corporate as well.

I’m NOT saying all the white collar employees are always perfect, while the unskilled labor is always dreadful. But a person who goes to the effort of completing a program of training, or a college degree program, is manifestly able to work with some diligence for a defined period of time in order to accomplish what he set out to do. This does weed out the people who can’t/won’t work at something for a period of time to accomplish a fixed goal. 

Except it doesn't.  My husband sees it all the time.  Anyone who works in HR is going to tell you a degree doesn't seem to be the defining work ethic/not a druggie difference.  It's not like there aren't any people who stay in school because they don't want to get a real job or move out of moms basement.  It's not like there aren't lots of people who leave college to the shock that is the reality of employment.  At best it says they may have liked college enough to stick with it.  It has nothing to do with whether they will show up for work on time.  This very forum has had lengthy discussions about students who seem to slide by in college with a rather cavalier attitude about deadlines, schedules, and work quality.  As the old  joke goes, you know what you call the guy who graduated last in medical school? You call him doctor same as all the rest who graduated.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'll repeat, I am NOT one of those home schoolers you reference.  I encourage my kids hard to go to college. Even if they suck at it.  Because classism is real.  I currently have dh, myself, and three kids in college.  I am not at all anti-college.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2019 at 4:31 PM, Ottakee said:

I wish that ALL workers could be paid a basic living wage of some sort.  This is off on a tangent but I think we could go a long ways as a society but having people earn a living wage and giving them the power to then decide where to live, how to spend their money, etc.  I work as a special education substitute teacher (with a 5 year degree) and I make less per hour than my special needs daughter does at Walmart.  Neither of which is a living wage.


And as long as we're wishing - I wish we stopped feeling the need to title jobs as skilled or unskilled.

Cleaning (and doing it well) requires executive function.  It requires knowing what needs to be done, making a plan, executing it, and doing it well.  I understand the OP was attempting to discern and define the terms, and did so quite effectively, however, maybe these are long outdated terms.  There are people who have graduate degrees who are rather unskilled in their positions comparatively, and then there are those who fill "unskilled" positions who are quite skilled and gifted in their area of expertise.

All this need to clearly define and put in boxes... Hmm...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BlsdMama said:


And as long as we're wishing - I wish we stopped feeling the need to title jobs as skilled or unskilled.

Cleaning (and doing it well) requires executive function.  It requires knowing what needs to be done, making a plan, executing it, and doing it well.  I understand the OP was attempting to discern and define the terms, and did so quite effectively, however, maybe these are long outdated terms.  There are people who have graduate degrees who are rather unskilled in their positions comparatively, and then there are those who fill "unskilled" positions who are quite skilled and gifted in their area of expertise.

All this need to clearly define and put in boxes... Hmm...

 

Right? I'm sitting here on a board like many other boards where questions about how to get our crap together so that our own houses are clean and organized is a very regular topic that people spend millions of dollars in books, tv shows, magazines and more because they can't seem to figure it out.  So don't tell me it's not skilled work.  Obviously it takes more skill or work ethic than a whole lot of folks here are willing to admit despite the evidence of numerous posts lamenting their lack in this category.  I don't read such posts and think those people have character problems because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Welp. I disagree. When one tries to fill a position and all that is needed for entry into the position is a pulse and the ability to turn up at the job, the people applying for that job are overwhelming likely to be the bottom-of-the-barrel employees. They are the people who can’t or won’t work towards degrees or certification. It’s not classist, it’s just factual. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...