Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

unsinkable

Unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled labor

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lack of transportation is another big stumbling block too.  Relying on public transportation isn't necessarily cheap or convenient for getting to work or getting to training classes.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Quill said:

To the bolded: because you said an intelligent, degreed person is over-qualified and should find a job that requires high competence. I’m saying if all the on-the-ball people leave childcare to earn better pay and have more mentally stimulating work, that leaves only the dim bulbs who can’t work someone else. 

As to the rest of your post, I don’t disagree; how do you pay people more is a difficult question and often has difficult answers. We ARE business owners. There have been seasons where we didn’t get paid at all because the money wasn’t in the coffers. So I am well-versed in the economic realities of not being at liberty to just pay what the employee is worth. 

In the case of the preschool, if minimum wage went to $15/hr here, I would pretty much guarantee tuition would increase. Because I agree, the money has to come from somewhere and I don’t think they are operating with high overhead. 

So if you’re a preschool teacher and a parent of an infant and toddler, it’s likely that your pay raise would be eaten up by the increased cost of your childcare. 

Sigh. There really doesn’t seem to be a good answer. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, hshibley said:

Do you think the requirement to have a 2 or 4 year degree stems from the fact that basically showing up is enough to graduate high school? You won’t be college or career ready but you have the diploma. If you have a 2 or 4 year degree you show that you can at least complete something that’s not a given. 

I don't know. I would think that parents could evaluate a preschool or daycare on its merits that would have nothing to do with degreed person teaching or being in charge of it. But I do know that a successful preschool program can be run without a college degree. Crafts, free play, outdoor time, snack, rest, stories, etc., do not require a degree. The fact that some people think we do need that for our toddlers to be "successful" runs against everything I believe to be true about early childhood, even if you gather them together in groups and call it school. 

It's one thing to have some fancy schmancy private pre-school in NYC with $30k tuition and a waiting list because parents think their kids will need it to get into the right college, but I don't buy into that anyway.

In any case, preventing someone from offering a home daycare or pre-school to take care of small children while their parents work because that person does not have a college diploma is a great example of how the state places barriers on people in order to keep them from making money, while also saying that everyone needs to be paid more. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 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.

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?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes 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?

homeschoolers 😉

college students

people with disabilities

SAHMs looking for a bit of extra income

people who want a side gig

senior citizens

people with limited availability

convicts on work release*

 

*I actually worked with a man who lived at the county prison.  He was working to pay overdue child support.

ETA:  I didn't know that he was a prisoner until I was asked to take him home.  To the prison.  Me, a 17ish-year-old girl working at McDonald's after school being asked by the manager to take a 30-something man to the prison at midnight.  (I said no.)

Edited by Junie
additional info
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My SIL owned two franchise restaurants in Atlanta, GA. He paid his employees a higher than minimum wage of approximately $9 per hour and invested most of his money back into the business. He worked 16 hour days, frequently 7 days a week for almost the entire three years. In that amount of time he brought home roughly $70,000 total, not per year but overall. There is no way he could have paid anymore than he already was.

On the other hand, two of my dds make $9 a hour where they work and they both work 40 hours a week. One lives with someone who makes slightly more then she does and they are struggling to make ends meet. The other has lived at home until now but will be soon moving into a house with two other couples and it will take all of their combined income to cover the household expenses. Both of them love their jobs and would love to continue doing them. 

 I can clearly see that my SIL can't pay more and that my dds can't live on that much, so I don't know what the answer is but clearly something needs to change for all of them. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KidsHappen said:

My SIL owned two franchise restaurants in Atlanta, GA. He paid his employees a higher than minimum wage of approximately $9 per hour and invested most of his money back into the business. He worked 16 hour days, frequently 7 days a week for almost the entire three years. In that amount of time he brought home roughly $70,000 total, not per year but overall. There is no way he could have paid anymore than he already was.

On the other hand, two of my dds make $9 a hour where they work and they both work 40 hours a week. One lives with someone who makes slightly more then she does and they are struggling to make ends meet. The other has lived at home until now but will be soon moving into a house with two other couples and it will take all of their combined income to cover the household expenses. Both of them love their jobs and would love to continue doing them. 

 I can clearly see that my SIL can't pay more and that my dds can't live on that much, so I don't know what the answer is but clearly something needs to change for all of them. 

This is exactly where I am in my head with the preschool teacher thing. I think it’s insufficient wage. But raising tuition sky-high isn’t a solution, either. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 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.

This is what I think about Universal Basic Income. The poorest people would still be the poorest people, we would just have a different line of income for poverty. 😞 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 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.

 

26 minutes ago, Quill said:

This is what I think about Universal Basic Income. The poorest people would still be the poorest people, we would just have a different line of income for poverty. 😞 

 

But, with the universal basic income example, the idea is to base it on necessities. I don’t personally know of anyone pushing for CEO wages for all. The people I talk to want all humans to have access to adequate food, shelter, health care, child care, and education. When the poorest of the poor have that, we’re good.

I have people in my life who, frankly, suck. They would be used as examples in many of these arguments. But I cannot imagine looking them in the face and telling them they deserve homelessness and/or hunger, which some of them genuinely face each day. And I sure as heck wouldn’t tell them that they shouldn’t work a dollar store register because that’s for people who don’t actually need the income.

Big picture, minimum wage is just 1 factor. But it is an important one.  It was designed with a very specific purpose that, overall, did work at the time. “We” stopped caring as much, and jobs changed. People’s basic needs haven’t changed between custodial work in a factory and custodial work in an Amazon warehouse.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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 2

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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**

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SKL said:

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

I wasn't clear.  I'm talking about the responsible adults, we probably all know, who are delaying having a family due to money.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, happi duck said:

I wasn't clear.  I'm talking about the responsible adults, we probably all know, who are delaying having a family due to money.

And again, that is not a bad thing IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
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
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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 2

Share this post


Link to post
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 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2019 at 10:38 PM, hshibley said:

Do you think the requirement to have a 2 or 4 year degree stems from the fact that basically showing up is enough to graduate high school? You won’t be college or career ready but you have the diploma. If you have a 2 or 4 year degree you show that you can at least complete something that’s not a given. 

 

Yes.  What I think is interesting is that the college prep version of the high school degree doesn't get a person any more in an entry level job than the gen ed version.  Contrast that -- top 10% has taken AP/DE everything ie has finished first year of university coursework  vs a person done with watered down Alg 1 that reads on the 8th grade level.  Kid that learned really is forced to get college or university credentials to move up; unless of course they have the family support that Gates and Zuckerberg did to start their own business or they are a urm in a city school where they grad with an AA and workforce ready skills in something like programming. 

Edited by HeighHo

Share this post


Link to post
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 2

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My neighbors with two children:

one vehicle - it belongs to the employer, but they can use it after work to shop for whatever they need aside from their garden and chickens

house - belongs to a senior citizen to get half property taxes, really owned by three families, each of which have a bedroom

clothing - employer supplies for males, social services supplies for children

food - federal school lunch program provides 10 meals a week, year round to all between 0 and 18 including those on WIC. 

 

Single neighbors:  

vehicle supplied by employer 

share apt; some hot bunk

food for one

clothing supplied by employer

 

School district and social services find the neediest children are those with two working married parents, they qualify for nothing except for those who can get a 10% off property tax exemption for Vet status ($50/mo). 

Edited by HeighHo

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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 5
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...