Why do people say Kids/young people don’t want to work/expect free money???

[JennyD]

1 hour ago, Heartstrings said:

I see a real connection between this idea that “only work done for pay counts” idea when it comes to kids and the disrespect SAHMs get. There is value in doing things that don’t bring a paycheck.  
 

Yes!   In reading this thread I keep thinking about the one from a few days ago in which people were reflecting on what it means to spend many years doing challenging, important, necessary work --specifically, homeschooling our children -- that is also unpaid.

 

[Farrar]

Given that so many young people now live at home...

And given that the parents housing them are seeing this play out with their young people still at home when they themselves had long moved out by that age...

If there's actually an uptick in people complaining that the youths are lazy and don't want to work these days (which I'm not convinced is even true) then maybe that's your answer as to why. It's because the adults are literally seeing them stuck at home and don't get why. And often parents seem to think "MY new adult works hard but THOSE OTHERS don't" which is a common way people approach societal issues (MY school is good, those others are terrible, MY incumbent politician is good but other others are ruining the country, MY decision to cut corners is justified but when everyone else does it that's a problem, and so on).

[Clarita]

25 minutes ago, Farrar said:

Given that so many young people now live at home...

And given that the parents housing them are seeing this play out with their young people still at home when they themselves had long moved out by that age...

We haven't even scratched this topic yet which is the young people who can't afford their own place are not just the people working retail, fast food, type jobs but stuff that's real careers. Where I live people making six-figures also need to choose between living with roommates or living with their parents, because that's how expensive housing is. 

[Melissa Louise]

5 hours ago, Farrar said:

Do the people who think teens should have a job where managers and customers treat them poorly for crappy pay because it builds character also the people who think kids should be bullied in school because it will toughen them up?

Having a job where you do hard, boring work for good pay or hard, boring work and you're well treated also builds character, you know.

Join the real world, where even non-teens get treated poorly for crappy pay.

I would LOVE for everyone to work in a decent job with decent conditions, however, this is not the world we live in.

And there's just so much socio-economic privilege behind, 'oh, my teens don't work.' Or 'my teens work, but only in jobs where we know the family'. Great. Bully for you,

Many teens work because that's how they can pay for things. Many teens don't have extensive networks of contacts, or the luxury of just waiting for the right thing while mama pays.

So yes, when teens work because they have to, in the available jobs, we hope they will have decent managers, though we know their conditions will be not great. And when they find they have a poor manager, we help them deal with that while looking for the next job, and learning how most people live their lives - dealing with imperfect situations while trying your best to improve on it as you go. Find and building solidarity with co-workers, learning how to manage difficult people. Learning the monkey bar art of swinging along to what is coming, without letting go of one bar before you've got hold of another. The skills most ordinary people need to survive life.

(At least, unlike school, there is an element of autonomy. Teens can quit their workplace by securing another job if their manager is abusive or insufferable.)

Yes, lovely if you can do that at 16 with wonderful pay and conditions.

Dream-world for most.

 

[Melissa Louise]

20 hours ago, Clarita said:

Bad conditions meaning literal sexual harassment with a management too incompetent to actually protect the worker against it. Or well management encouraging employee to put up with sexual harassment to sell more stuff, get more tips, or just enjoyment of management. (I've heard awful things for both male and female staff. It's worse I think for males because teen males often don't recognize they are being sexually harassed since they are conditioned to think they should want this type of attention.)

On this front, I think fast food is actually one of the better employment options. I only referenced McD's not in the treatment of workers, but in terms of how hard we are thinking people should work to get a job flipping burgers there.

Yes my children will likely encounter poor treatment of the same elsewhere in their lives. I'd like to keep those to one offs and not something they "have to" tolerate in exchange for money. I don't think teens are mature enough to truly handle that. They'll survive it, but I don't think it makes for a stronger person.  

 

I think that if people think that the modern workplace is a place, for most people, particularly for those working in under-valued industries, where poor treatment is a one-off, they are not in touch with the modern workplace.

It's endemic.

Health, education, care, not to mention retail and hospitality - poor treatment  of employees (labor conditions and wages + management ) is how these systems are sustained.

I think teens is a good time (while you still have the support of parents and the hope that you don't actually have to be financially independent) is a great time to learn to recognize the ways in which you are being exploited, become active in challenging it, and learn to leverage the little power you have - withdrawal of your labour - for your benefit.

I have a strong sense that people who think their children are 'too deserving' for this experience may be playing a part in upholding it - my son's workplace is better off, employee wise, for having him in it. He helps co-workers make sure they know their rights, and helps them check that they are not being underpaid. He takes part in union and other activism, while still maintaining productive relationships with managers. These are good things to do in the workplace - we need good, intelligent, capable and concerned young people being active in these jobs.

Schools are not a site free of abuse, harassment, pressure, denial of autonomy.  In fact, such terrors can thrive there.

 

 

 

[SKL]

18 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Schools are not a site free of abuse, harassment, pressure, denial of autonomy.  In fact, such terrors can thrive there.

 

Yeah and someone above mentioned theater, sports, etc. as better alternatives to the horrible workplace.  Except pretty horrible abuse is known to occur in sports, theater, etc. as well.

[Clemsondana]

I think that when thinking about these sorts of issues, we are all so limited by our own perspectives that it's hard to talk productively.  Like, I can absolutely agree with the idea that bad managers and abusive customers are not OK.  At the same time, I can think that if you are being paid $25 to stat a ball game...that may not be a lot of money, but it's easy money, you can dress how you want, eat while you work, not interact with anybody but the scoreboard operator, and if you take the job then you should do it instead of playing on your phone.  And, failure to do that is a poor work ethic - you are not being asked to go above and beyond, you are being asked to do the 2 hrs of work that you contracted to do.  

I was at Science Olympiad practice today, talking with long-time coaches who have also taught at various homeschool co-ops and worked as tutors for 10-20 years.  There is a feeling that Covid accelerated a trend that seemed to start in 2018-2019, of there being an inordinate number of flaky or lazy students and parents.  Over the 8 years that we've taken lessons, our music teacher's studio policy page has gotten harsher, to the point that I was worried about having to reschedule something.  The teacher quickly said that my once-each-year conflict was not at all a problem, and not at all what the policies were meant to address.  My kids have done several different groups and private lessons and the teachers and coaches have all said that no-shows (and no-pays) are a chronic problem.  One said that Covid gave him an excuse to retire from it (he still has his day job) because he was just tired of dealing with people being flaky and having no respect for his time.  He had been giving these lessons for 15 or more years at that point.  We've all also seen an uptick at different co-ops, and my friends who teach college classes report the same thing.  Where a student or 2 not turning in work, or sleeping in class, used to be noteworthy it's now a expected for there to be several in most classes.  We're waiting to see if it's just part of a cycle - there is always variation, and each year's class has a different personality, but it seems to apply across groups  The attitude of 'If I don't like the teacher, I'm not going to do the work' is not an ideal approach to one's responsibilities.  I don't remember it being common when I was in school, and I didn't hang out with a brainy, achievement-oriented group.  There is practicality in 'A C is good enough' that is different than 'I'm just not going to do anything', just as 'I'm going to do my job but nothing extra' is different from 'I only show up when I feel like it'.  

I've said in other contexts that it feels like there isn't a bell curve, there's a bifurcation.  I usually have very few Cs, but lots of As/Bs and then some Fs.  Students work hard at a ton of stuff (and may or may not burn out), or they do nothing, including the basic school work.  I'd assume that the same is true of work environments. 

It doesn't make me want to complain about them - it makes me sad, and perplexed.  I don't think that you can be a good teacher or tutor or coach unless you genuinely desire for people to succeed, and it doesn't bring me any joy to say that I see people developing behaviors and habits that won't serve them well.  I mean, if nothing else it's hard to think of what you'd say in a recommendation...Well, Joe didn't take notes, slept in class, and didn't come to ball practice, but I'm sure that he'll be a great employee.  Suzy cheated on tests and said that it was unreasonable to expect her to learn things that weren't interesting to her...put her behind the cash register and I'm sure she'll be fine.  I don't know, maybe I'm just grumpy after having caught my first 2 cheating incidents of the year this past week, after having 2 of 10 kids take no notes, after seeing 2 kids asleep in another class, after having a kid literally come to my discussion class and sleep every single week last year.  It annoys the good students, which is why we don't dirupt their learning by dealing with it in class.  It's not just the kids, since parents know, but there is something different than when I started 10 years ago and I don't see how it isn't filtering into many areas of life.  

[hshibley]

1 hour ago, Melissa Louise said:

 

I have a strong sense that people who think their children are 'too deserving' for this experience may be playing a part in upholding it - my son's workplace is better off, employee wise, for having him in it. He helps co-workers make sure they know their rights, and helps them check that they are not being underpaid. He takes part in union and other activism, while still maintaining productive relationships with managers. These are good things to do in the workplace - we need good, intelligent, capable and concerned young people being active in these jobs.

 

 

 

I think it’s important to remember that depending on where you live your rights vary greatly. (I realize you live in Australia and I do not know your labor laws). I live in an at will state (similar to right to work states) there are very few worker protections and you can be fired easily. 
 

[TechWife]

7 hours ago, SKL said:

 

Maybe it's because I was brought up working-class.  I think the school of hard knocks is more valuable than soft landings.  Yes, we want our kids to have empathy, but this is often/usually gained by having been in the trenches oneself.

 My husband & I were brought up working class. I don’t think that has anything to do with it. The school of hard knocks breaks a lot of people, and people engaged in trench warfare get shell shock. Empathy is learned a lot of different ways, one doesn’t have to be in a poor working situation to later empathize with others who are in a poor working situation. Empathetic people who deal with bad work situations try to improve them so others don’t have to go through the same thing. They don’t look at it as a badge of honor. The work world isn’t some fraternity that we get hazed into. 

Edited November 4, 2022 by TechWife

[Farrar]

2 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

Join the real world, where even non-teens get treated poorly for crappy pay.

I would LOVE for everyone to work in a decent job with decent conditions, however, this is not the world we live in.

And there's just so much socio-economic privilege behind, 'oh, my teens don't work.' Or 'my teens work, but only in jobs where we know the family'. Great. Bully for you,

Many teens work because that's how they can pay for things. Many teens don't have extensive networks of contacts, or the luxury of just waiting for the right thing while mama pays.

So yes, when teens work because they have to, in the available jobs, we hope they will have decent managers, though we know their conditions will be not great. And when they find they have a poor manager, we help them deal with that while looking for the next job, and learning how most people live their lives - dealing with imperfect situations while trying your best to improve on it as you go. Find and building solidarity with co-workers, learning how to manage difficult people. Learning the monkey bar art of swinging along to what is coming, without letting go of one bar before you've got hold of another. The skills most ordinary people need to survive life.

(At least, unlike school, there is an element of autonomy. Teens can quit their workplace by securing another job if their manager is abusive or insufferable.)

Yes, lovely if you can do that at 16 with wonderful pay and conditions.

Dream-world for most.

 

Just because abuse is in the real world does not mean anyone should be in this thread advocating for it as a positive character building experience.

I'm not totally sure why all these points were addressed to me, but when I pointed out in a totally different post that my kid got a job through a friend of a friend, it was after applying and not hearing back for a month from almost anywhere. I'd have preferred (and he would have too) he get the job through a meritocracy, so there's no "only" about it. The fact that the world is not a meritocracy where all people get the jobs they most deserve and no one ever uses connections is also "the real world." Welcome to LinkedIn.

ETA: Reading this post again, I'm genuinely not sure why if you're advocating for people not to complain about abusive situations because some people have fewer choices or what. I don't think anyone should be the subject of abuse for character building at any age. When you respond to a post that is making that point that abuse on a job or in a school is not a positive character building experience with hostility, it makes it sound like you're for abuse. Which, I don't think you are. I'm not unaware of the issues you're pointing out here by any means. Nor did my post read like I was unaware.

Edited November 4, 2022 by Farrar

[Corraleno]

4 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

I think that if people think that the modern workplace is a place, for most people, particularly for those working in under-valued industries, where poor treatment is a one-off, they are not in touch with the modern workplace. 

It's endemic.

Health, education, care, not to mention retail and hospitality - poor treatment  of employees (labor conditions and wages + management ) is how these systems are sustained.

But that's exactly what most people in this thread are saying — people in lower-paid, "lower skill" jobs routinely get treated like crap, and it's not OK. However, the current labor shortage is finally giving workers some degree of leverage to fight against it.

 

4 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

I think teens is a good time (while you still have the support of parents and the hope that you don't actually have to be financially independent) is a great time to learn to recognize the ways in which you are being exploited, become active in challenging it, and learn to leverage the little power you have - withdrawal of your labour - for your benefit.

Which is exactly what young people are currently doing, much to the dismay of business owners who are used to being able to maximize their profits by exploiting young workers.

 

4 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

I have a strong sense that people who think their children are 'too deserving' for this experience may be playing a part in upholding it - my son's workplace is better off, employee wise, for having him in it. He helps co-workers make sure they know their rights, and helps them check that they are not being underpaid. He takes part in union and other activism, while still maintaining productive relationships with managers. These are good things to do in the workplace - we need good, intelligent, capable and concerned young people being active in these jobs.

I think the people in this thread who don't want their kids subjected to abusive and demeaning treatment have made it pretty clear that they oppose that kind of treatment for all workers, not just their own kids. The whole idea that people with kids who don't need to work should insist they work in toxic environments anyway, in order to make life better for those who do need to work, makes no sense in the current economic environment (or at all, IMO, but for the sake of the discussion, I'll stick to the current context).

The fact that many young people living at home aren't forced to endure toxic work environments in order to avoid starvation or eviction, and can therefore demand better pay and better working conditions, is actually improving conditions for those who do have to work. Because in the current labor market, the pool of have-to-work young adults is not nearly enough to meet demand, so employers are forced to increase pay and improve working conditions in order to also attract those who don't have to work in order to eat or have a roof over their heads. And that improves conditions for all workers — a rising tide lifts all boats.

 

4 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

Schools are not a site free of abuse, harassment, pressure, denial of autonomy.  In fact, such terrors can thrive there.

Well you're certainly not going to get an argument about that on a homeschooling board. But the argument that people should send their kids to work in abusive environments, to make the environment better for those who have no choice, is strikingly reminiscent of the argument that intelligent, involved parents who care about their kids' education should put them in PS instead of homeschooling them, in order to improve public schools for the benefit of children who have no choice. And IMO the employment argument makes less sense than the education argument, because empowering kids to not put up with toxic work environments actually does improve things for the others who work there, either by forcing employers to improve conditions or providing workers with more options in an environment where jobs are plentiful and employers are desperate.

 

 

Edited November 5, 2022 by Corraleno
typos

[Brittany1116]

5 hours ago, Clemsondana said:

I think that when thinking about these sorts of issues, we are all so limited by our own perspectives that it's hard to talk productively.  Like, I can absolutely agree with the idea that bad managers and abusive customers are not OK.  At the same time, I can think that if you are being paid $25 to stat a ball game...that may not be a lot of money, but it's easy money, you can dress how you want, eat while you work, not interact with anybody but the scoreboard operator, and if you take the job then you should do it instead of playing on your phone.  And, failure to do that is a poor work ethic - you are not being asked to go above and beyond, you are being asked to do the 2 hrs of work that you contracted to do.  

I was at Science Olympiad practice today, talking with long-time coaches who have also taught at various homeschool co-ops and worked as tutors for 10-20 years.  There is a feeling that Covid accelerated a trend that seemed to start in 2018-2019, of there being an inordinate number of flaky or lazy students and parents.  Over the 8 years that we've taken lessons, our music teacher's studio policy page has gotten harsher, to the point that I was worried about having to reschedule something.  The teacher quickly said that my once-each-year conflict was not at all a problem, and not at all what the policies were meant to address.  My kids have done several different groups and private lessons and the teachers and coaches have all said that no-shows (and no-pays) are a chronic problem.  One said that Covid gave him an excuse to retire from it (he still has his day job) because he was just tired of dealing with people being flaky and having no respect for his time.  He had been giving these lessons for 15 or more years at that point.  We've all also seen an uptick at different co-ops, and my friends who teach college classes report the same thing.  Where a student or 2 not turning in work, or sleeping in class, used to be noteworthy it's now a expected for there to be several in most classes.  We're waiting to see if it's just part of a cycle - there is always variation, and each year's class has a different personality, but it seems to apply across groups  The attitude of 'If I don't like the teacher, I'm not going to do the work' is not an ideal approach to one's responsibilities.  I don't remember it being common when I was in school, and I didn't hang out with a brainy, achievement-oriented group.  There is practicality in 'A C is good enough' that is different than 'I'm just not going to do anything', just as 'I'm going to do my job but nothing extra' is different from 'I only show up when I feel like it'.  

I've said in other contexts that it feels like there isn't a bell curve, there's a bifurcation.  I usually have very few Cs, but lots of As/Bs and then some Fs.  Students work hard at a ton of stuff (and may or may not burn out), or they do nothing, including the basic school work.  I'd assume that the same is true of work environments. 

It doesn't make me want to complain about them - it makes me sad, and perplexed.  I don't think that you can be a good teacher or tutor or coach unless you genuinely desire for people to succeed, and it doesn't bring me any joy to say that I see people developing behaviors and habits that won't serve them well.  I mean, if nothing else it's hard to think of what you'd say in a recommendation...Well, Joe didn't take notes, slept in class, and didn't come to ball practice, but I'm sure that he'll be a great employee.  Suzy cheated on tests and said that it was unreasonable to expect her to learn things that weren't interesting to her...put her behind the cash register and I'm sure she'll be fine.  I don't know, maybe I'm just grumpy after having caught my first 2 cheating incidents of the year this past week, after having 2 of 10 kids take no notes, after seeing 2 kids asleep in another class, after having a kid literally come to my discussion class and sleep every single week last year.  It annoys the good students, which is why we don't dirupt their learning by dealing with it in class.  It's not just the kids, since parents know, but there is something different than when I started 10 years ago and I don't see how it isn't filtering into many areas of life.  

 

People are getting flakier overall. I think diminished personal interaction in favor of online social interaction is one component, but not the whole picture. 

I think it's reasonable to assume most of the kids who spent the last 2 years sleeping in class or not logging in to online classes are also not out job-hunting. Makes me think of the thread where we discussed schools passing everyone even if they never do an assignment. It you get a 60 for putting your name on the paper, there is little incentive to do the work. If mom and dad let you live off of them until you are 26, there is little incentive to do the work. 

Somehow this thread makes it seem like every fast food place or grocery store is a hell hole with pervy bosses, and $15 isn't enough for a 17 year old who has no real bills. 

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, Brittany1116 said:

Somehow this thread makes it seem like every fast food place or grocery store is a hell hole with pervy bosses, and $15 isn't enough for a 17 year old who has no real bills. 

I think most teens with no real bills would be fine with $15/hr and good working conditions, but they're less likely to take $15 (or $17 or $20) with an obnoxious manager and a terrible schedule, since they don't need to put up with that in order to eat.

That was DD"s approach anyway. She left the jobs that paid $16-19/hr but had bad working conditions, and although her current job pays more, she would have chosen it even if it paid less than the other jobs, because she has a really nice boss who treats her like a valuable member of the team and it provides the opportunity to learn new skills and room for advancement. And that's worth a lot more to her than a few extra dollars per hour (although she got really lucky because this job also pays more per hour).

 

Edited November 5, 2022 by Corraleno

[Carrie12345]

8 hours ago, Brittany1116 said:

Somehow this thread makes it seem like every fast food place or grocery store is a hell hole with pervy bosses, and $15 isn't enough for a 17 year old who has no real bills. 

One is too many, and there are WAY more than one! And it isn’t just pervs.

The value of work isn’t based on age. Whether the same work is done from 6-10pm or 8am-noon (when minors are in school and grown ups are doing said work), it’s of equal value.  
Undercutting a 17yo’s value is gross and assessing their “need” for money (saving for college? car? apartment by 18, 19, 24? video games and pot?) is plain rude and none of anybody else’s business. 
Should my pay be based on the fact that my bills are already paid by someone else’s income? Is it okay for an employer to ask what I need/want the money for?

My 19yo has all of her basic necessities met by us. That doesn’t mean she wants it that way forever, and she needs money to change that! Not that it’s anyone’s business.

 

[regentrude]

8 hours ago, Brittany1116 said:

Somehow this thread makes it seem like every fast food place or grocery store is a hell hole with pervy bosses, and $15 isn't enough for a 17 year old who has no real bills. 

Since when should one base the value of the work on whether the person "has real bills" or not?
Should a woman's wage depend on whether she has a husband who brings an income or whether she is single?
Whether the 17 y/o saves for college, or is self-supporting and living on that wage, or helping his family with the income, or is spending his money on candy and videogames has no bearing on what is a fair, competetive wage for xyz job. This is precisely the argument people make who argue the minimum wage does not need to be increased.

[Brittany1116]

Well, if we perpetuate the idea that college is a path to a successful career and good money, then the reverse is true. A job for unskilled labor is not going to pay the same. If you can get $22 to bag groceries or do dental assessments, why waste your time and money in school? Let's not pretend bad bosses and work environments don't exist at every pay level. 

Besides that, there is obviously more finacial need and pressure on a single mom or someone with a dependent with chronic illness than there is on a kid living at home. It has nothing to do with someone's worth, and I didn't say it did. I am not angry that a 14 year old can work for $10 keeping books at the shop down the road when he previously made $0. I'm not angry if he spends every penny of it on video games. I hope he learned how to be a good employee while doing it. 

We have a group of people who aren't working. It may be financial or ideological or any other reason, but if it's being noticed en masse, it's because it's happening en masse. Wages are way up here, in most sectors. I haven't known anyone who wanted a job who couldn't get one immediately. I have known of several to flake out, not show for an interview, or ghost in week 2. It takes a certain point of privilege to feel unaffected by the massive decline in work sentiment, because like it or not, people showing up is the way we are fed and sheltered in this society. 

[Carrie12345]

43 minutes ago, Brittany1116 said:

We have a group of people who aren't working. It may be financial or ideological or any other reason, but if it's being noticed en masse, it's because it's happening en masse. Wages are way up here, in most sectors. I haven't known anyone who wanted a job who couldn't get one immediately. I have known of several to flake out, not show for an interview, or ghost in week 2. It takes a certain point of privilege to feel unaffected by the massive decline in work sentiment, because like it or not, people showing up is the way we are fed and sheltered in this society

I really think you’re focusing on 1 small issue in a mountain of issues.

For example, the fact that many understaffed sectors are ones that used to be second job territory, but no longer give set schedules.

Or those advertising for help “for show” while continuing a skeleton crew. Or those keeping employees under 40 hours to avoid benefits when those employees would be happy to be full time.

Plus just the fact that, again, we don’t need more dollar stores, chain fast food joints, or vape stores. No one is asking for more of these types of businesses or jobs. Why is there this expectation for people to fill them???

[Idalou]

Why do we say the young don't want to work? Well we can't speak of it here, but it boils down to political parties and-or which way you lean in that party. 

[Clemsondana]

11 minutes ago, Brittany1116 said:

 

We have a group of people who aren't working. It may be financial or ideological or any other reason, but if it's being noticed en masse, it's because it's happening en masse. Wages are way up here, in most sectors. I haven't known anyone who wanted a job who couldn't get one immediately. I have known of several to flake out, not show for an interview, or ghost in week 2. It takes a certain point of privilege to feel unaffected by the massive decline in work sentiment, because like it or not, people showing up is the way we are fed and sheltered in this society. 

To piggyback on this...when things were pretty reopened in our area in summer 2021, a college kid that I know came home and resumed his high school fast food job for the summer.  15 year old sibling also started to work there.  Until they are 16, there are limits on hours, but the company was letting kid work more because they couldn't find workers.  This was a great environment, and it wasn't coercive - they would have let kid work the smaller number of hours, but kid was happy to work and usually rode in with sibling, and kid is now 16 and works as much as he can.  For that matter, another high schooler in our orbit loves working for the same chain and is now a ?shift manager? I think - she has definitely been promoted and has been offered some career advancement opportunities after working there under a year. 

But, when older sibling was worried about the company getting in trouble for having kid work too many hours, the inspector or whatever regulators come and oversee stuff said that they were being lenient and not really enforcing those rules for a while because it was needed to keep businesses open.  People who are traveling, people who work on the road (like sales, or people who do in-home therapy and go from place to place), people who don't have offices (construction, delivery driver, or road work) need a place to eat and use the bathroom and it causes a lot of problems for there to be no places open due to lack of staff.  And, the management/owners need the business to be open because that's their livelihood. 

There's a lot of talk about demeaning workers, and I think that's actually gotten worse since the 'college for all or you'll be flipping burgers' mindset came about.  I've long believed that, while jobs require different skills and are differently compensated based on what the client base can afford and on how many people have those skills, all honest work has value and should be respected.  We could have a discussion about how much should be paid.  But, we need people doing all sorts of jobs.  Some - farmer, truck driver, trash collector - are essential to our survival.  Some, like restaurant employee, make our lives easier or more enjoyable.  i don't have a lot of patience with managers who treat people poorly.  I also don't have a lot of patience with people who won't meet reasonable expectations that are the definition of the job.  

I know that there are people with a different attitude towards workers, though.  Over the years we've had lots of different people do work on our house - roofer, painter, the people who built the patio, the guy who plows for the garden etc.  Some have come out multiple times and we've gotten to know them.  One commented that he liked working here because...we were nice?  Didn't act like we were better than them?  Treated them like people?  Something like that.  It made me sad.  These guys are skilled - even for things that I could do, we paid them because they do it faster and better.  Most of them were good guys, and I enjoyed talking to them.  But, despite both having advanced degrees, spouse and I grew up in a different environment.  He worked on construction sites with his dad, my dad worked in management, but in the trucking industry where mechanics and truck drivers were the people who made it all work.  I think that part of the reason that I was uncomfortable during my stint in academia was that there was a kind of classism that I wasn't accustomed to or comfortable with from many, but not all, of my coworkers.  

Our co-op has a skeleton staff of workers paid out of fees (teachers are contract employees), and most of the day-to-day work like hall monitor, set-up crew, lunch server, etc, is done by parents doing their 'family work hours'.  Most people do what they are supposed to, some people pay others to work their shifts (which is allowed), and there is a core group that works to cover shifts for people who have an emergency situation.  But, we also have people not show up with some crazy excuses.  One didn't come because 'It was too windy'.  Another didn't want to sign up to work, saying that they couldn't do heavy lifting so no cleaning or set-up, but they didn't want to be around kids so they couldn't do hall monitor or even study hall supervisor.  But they also didn't want to pay somebody and thought that we should make an exception for them.  We've had people in wheelchairs monitor study hall and serve lunch, and we've made exceptions for people who started chemo or had to care for a parent in hospice, but we were at a loss about that one...because, as with paid workers at businesses everywhere, the work is important for the group to function, and it has to be done.  

[Brittany1116]

39 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

I really think you’re focusing on 1 small issue in a mountain of issues.

For example, the fact that many understaffed sectors are ones that used to be second job territory, but no longer give set schedules.

Or those advertising for help “for show” while continuing a skeleton crew. Or those keeping employees under 40 hours to avoid benefits when those employees would be happy to be full time.

Plus just the fact that, again, we don’t need more dollar stores, chain fast food joints, or vape stores. No one is asking for more of these types of businesses or jobs. Why is there this expectation for people to fill them???

Would you please clarify what you think is one small issue I am focusing on? 

I can name half a dozen places within 10 miles of me (some mentioned in a prior reply) that are full-time, with benefits immediately or within 3 months, room for advancement, and competitive wages that don't get a bite. They don't all havr crappy management. It's not just people flaking out; they aren't even trying. 

I'd be interested to look up the stats on new vs old chains today because I have seen a lot of places close but only 1 Popeyes open around here. I thought I read we were back to 2008 level store closures. Do you have any resources on that?

[TechWife]

1 hour ago, Brittany1116 said:

Well, if we perpetuate the idea that college is a path to a successful career and good money, then the reverse is true. A job for unskilled labor is not going to pay the same. If you can get $22 to bag groceries or do dental assessments, why waste your time and money in school? Let's not pretend bad bosses and work environments don't exist at every pay level. 

Besides that, there is obviously more finacial need and pressure on a single mom or someone with a dependent with chronic illness than there is on a kid living at home. It has nothing to do with someone's worth, and I didn't say it did. I am not angry that a 14 year old can work for $10 keeping books at the shop down the road when he previously made $0. I'm not angry if he spends every penny of it on video games. I hope he learned how to be a good employee while doing it. 

We have a group of people who aren't working. It may be financial or ideological or any other reason, but if it's being noticed en masse, it's because it's happening en masse. Wages are way up here, in most sectors. I haven't known anyone who wanted a job who couldn't get one immediately. I have known of several to flake out, not show for an interview, or ghost in week 2. It takes a certain point of privilege to feel unaffected by the massive decline in work sentiment, because like it or not, people showing up is the way we are fed and sheltered in this society. 

But the reverse should not be true. There should be jobs and career paths that don’t require college. While there certainly are jobs, the career paths don’t exist like they used to. For example - my dad designed electrical systems for airplanes at Lockheed in the 1970’s. He didn’t have a college degree, but he had a career.

As for privilege - having privilege is real, but it’s not a bad thing when handled wisely. Shortened hours at restaurants, grocery stores & other places didn’t affect me during Covid shutdowns. I fully realize it impacted people who worked there and our local food bank had a huge increase in need. So, we used our privilege and made a generous donation to the food bank. Now, the economic landscape is very different and, combined with some awareness gained during covid, people are demanding higher wages and better working conditions. A lot of people are maintaining their multi generational family homes & don’t plan to change things, mainly due to economics. That’s fine. Yes, it allows a certain amount of security and freedom to choose where one works, and that is also a privilege.

As far as work sentiment, I don’t see it declining. I see the work culture shifting. People, especially younger people, are working to live, not living to work. That’s a huge change in attitude. Yes, people showing up to work is how things get done, but ideas about what we need done and what we want to do to make it happen are also changing. Employers need to realize that and change accordingly. If they can’t adequately staff a restaurant  from 6a - 11 p, then maybe they need to change their hours. People don’t need on demand access to goods and services. We really don’t. We don’t need 40K sq. ft. of grocery store space. So, maybe we all need to adapt in various ways. This is not a necessarily bad thing. Will there be a cascade of changes as a result of shifting business hours and business models? Yes, there will. Some changes will be good & some changes difficult. Thinking that business models should stay the same for our convenience or just to prevent change is privilege too, and I’d argue that it’s a privilege with unreasonable expectations of others. People don’t have to irk in bad working conditions or for little amount of money just so I can go to the grocery store at 10pm when I want to make cookies and realize there aren’t any eggs in the fridge. People can grab a variety of portable breakfast foods at home - they don’t need McDonald’s at 6:30 in the morning. The culture is shifting and needs & wants are being evaluated along with that shift. That’s  really okay. 

Edited November 5, 2022 by TechWife

[Meriwether]

I have 3 teens and an almost teen. I would love to provide everything for them, but the fact is the teens need to work.
 

My oldest worked 2 (sometimes 3) concurrent minimum wage jobs in high school. She also volunteered one morning per week at a local school. We were okay with her taking minimum wage jobs (local library and dojo) because it was likely she would get some scholarships. She works part time while at school (tutor) and took an internship she didn't particularly want this past summer to pay for school. She is paying all tuition, books, and rent. We pay her gas and anything else she gets at Sam's and Dh's (minimum wage, so about $25-35 each week) pay from teaching at the dojo gets deposited into her account to help with groceries and fun. She wanted to change one of her majors but decided to just add the third so we wouldn't have to make up the difference in lost scholarship money, about $4500 per year. That will mean a few tought sememsters, but she was willing to do it. Such a thoughtful, responsible girl.

My second oldest has been working at a grocery store for over two years. He has saved for and purchased a nice car and is currently saving for college. He is not going to get scholarships. He was really close to an automatic scholarship at the state school he will attend, but his processing speed just wasn't there for the standardized test. So, he is working as many hours as possible while taking 9 hours at the CC this semester. He is currently being scheduled for 24-31 hours per week. This week he worked an evening shift on Tuesday and early shifts (starting at 6:00, 5:00, and 6:00) Thursday-Saturday. He'll be able to pay for at least half of his college expenses himself. Yes, he has to put up with rude customers. Yes, he has to put up with bad employees (sexual harassment from not one but two other male employees, kids not showing up for their shifts so he has more work to do at close and gets home really late, etc). Yes, he has had one manager that he hasn't liked to work under (impossible to please). But he is doing his part to get through college debt free. He is thinking about switching jobs, but only because he could make more than his current $12.50 and hour.

My other teen started working a few months younger than the older two. He had, somewhat accidentally, qualified for Team USA for his sport (long story that I think I've already shared here). We were not prepared for that financially, so he got a job to pay for part of the international travel. He is pretty busy these days. He needs to train. He also needs to work to pay for this next level of involvement. We will also help him less with other things, since we are spending so much on this sport. So, he is only working about 16-18 hours per week (every single Saturday we are in town) during school but will work as many hours as he can get this summer. He flat out needs to earn money to accomplish what he wants - international competition, a good car, half of college expenses.

My 12 year old is volunteering this morning. The church youth are raking leaves for all the older people in church. She wants a job as soon as she turns 14.

It is obvious to me that there are kids who are willing to work to get what they need/want. We see lots of examples of good teen workers. We also see a fairly high number of kids who don't work or don't show up for shifts or do a shoddy job. I tell my kids that all they need to do to stand out is to show up on time for their shifts and do their job with a pleasant attitude. They have found this to be 100% true. I also tell them to do the best job they can do. Denigrate the protestant work ethic all you want, but my kids are prepared for when the job market shifts.

[Tanaqui]

Brittany1116, the fact that people like to gripe is not proof that they actually have something to complain *about*.

If there are a dozen places around you that can't get workers, why do you conclude that "people don't want to work"? Is it not as likely that they do want to work, and have all gotten better-paying jobs with better conditions and/or more social prestige elsewhere?

[Corraleno]

4 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

Plus just the fact that, again, we don’t need more dollar stores, chain fast food joints, or vape stores. No one is asking for more of these types of businesses or jobs. Why is there this expectation for people to fill them???

Exactly. There seems to be this underlying assumption that businesses have an inherent right to the labor of workers, and they are now being deprived of something they are owed by virtue of having opened a business. If there are workers who are capable of working, but they're choosing not to work (because in many cases they don't need to), that's not just unfair, it's downright immoral, and they should be shamed into working for whatever wages, and in whatever working conditions, employers are willing to provide.

That's really no different than insisting that businesses have a right to consumers, so people in a local area have an obligation to purchase things at Business X, despite the fact that they can get better quality for less money at Business Y or Business Z, because Business X is owed a profitable income for simply existing. Most people would acknowledge that as ridiculous — if you can't provide a product with the quality people want at a price they're willing to pay, then you go out of business.

So why should it be any different when businesses are competing for workers instead of customers? Businesses that provide higher pay and better working conditions will attract more, and better, workers, and the others will either need to up their game or go out of business. So maybe the community ends up with only 8 fast food joints instead of 12, and 1 dollar store instead of 3. Isn't that how the "free market" is supposed to work? 

Edited November 5, 2022 by Corraleno

[Corraleno]

4 hours ago, Brittany1116 said:

Well, if we perpetuate the idea that college is a path to a successful career and good money, then the reverse is true. A job for unskilled labor is not going to pay the same. If you can get $22 to bag groceries or do dental assessments, why waste your time and money in school? Let's not pretend bad bosses and work environments don't exist at every pay level. 

When I was a teen and young adult, college was vastly cheaper, the percentage of people with college degrees was much smaller, and the best jobs (in terms of salary) were actually union and trade jobs. For most people, the benefit of a college degree was a more interesting, less repetitive job that did not require physical labor, not a higher salary. So you got an English degree and went to work for the newspaper, or got a Spanish degree and worked as a translator or interpreter, or whatever. Those jobs paid better than serving burgers, but generally less than a good union job. The wealthiest person in my family was an uncle who worked for the pipefitters union on big constructions projects like the Alaska pipeline. After the divorce my mother married a guy who made great money working as a union lineman for the power company, and he retired with a full pension. They had a fully paid off house, new cars every few years, and multiple annual cruise vacations. They were much better off financially than me with my multiple degrees.

I'd be thrilled to see the US go back to high-paying union jobs and affordable public universities. I think pushing the idea that you need a college degree to get a decent-paying job has been a huge mistake, and was really designed to justify both stripping funding from public universities (students should pay more because they'll make more) and busting unions/paying blue collar workers less. So for decades we've been insisting that low wage workers deserve low pay because if they wanted more money they could just get a college degree.

And now that's come back to bite businesses in the ass, because kids with college degrees want the high-paying, meaningful jobs they were promised in return for taking on huge debt, and no one wants to do the low paid and/or physically demanding grunt work that they've been told for years only losers with no other choice would settle for. 

[Brittany1116]

6 hours ago, TechWife said:

But the reverse should not be true. There should be jobs and career paths that don’t require college. While there certainly are jobs, the career paths don’t exist like they used to. For example - my dad designed electrical systems for airplanes at Lockheed in the 1970’s. He didn’t have a college degree, but he had a career.

As for privilege - having privilege is real, but it’s not a bad thing when handled wisely. Shortened hours at restaurants, grocery stores & other places didn’t affect me during Covid shutdowns. I fully realize it impacted people who worked there and our local food bank had a huge increase in need. So, we used our privilege and made a generous donation to the food bank. Now, the economic landscape is very different and, combined with some awareness gained during covid, people are demanding higher wages and better working conditions. A lot of people are maintaining their multi generational family homes & don’t plan to change things, mainly due to economics. That’s fine. Yes, it allows a certain amount of security and freedom to choose where one works, and that is also a privilege.

As far as work sentiment, I don’t see it declining. I see the work culture shifting. People, especially younger people, are working to live, not living to work. That’s a huge change in attitude. Yes, people showing up to work is how things get done, but ideas about what we need done and what we want to do to make it happen are also changing. Employers need to realize that and change accordingly. If they can’t adequately staff a restaurant  from 6a - 11 p, then maybe they need to change their hours. People don’t need on demand access to goods and services. We really don’t. We don’t need 40K sq. ft. of grocery store space. So, maybe we all need to adapt in various ways. This is not a necessarily bad thing. Will there be a cascade of changes as a result of shifting business hours and business models? Yes, there will. Some changes will be good & some changes difficult. Thinking that business models should stay the same for our convenience or just to prevent change is privilege too, and I’d argue that it’s a privilege with unreasonable expectations of others. People don’t have to irk in bad working conditions or for little amount of money just so I can go to the grocery store at 10pm when I want to make cookies and realize there aren’t any eggs in the fridge. People can grab a variety of portable breakfast foods at home - they don’t need McDonald’s at 6:30 in the morning. The culture is shifting and needs & wants are being evaluated along with that shift. That’s  really okay. 

I don't live in a metro and never have. I'd estimate half of the people I know who have or had upwards mobility and/or lateral moves for greater incentive in career paths are not college educated. They also aren't all boomers. Maybe those types of jobs don't exist in every city, but they exist. 

I agree we don't need 24 hour access to goods. We opt out of Amazon and streaming services etc. But unless I missed it, no one in this thread is saying the grocery store should close at 8. They are saying they need more money, nicer bosses, or atleast a sweet spot where the money makes it easier to put up with the jerks. As for grocers, the ones here primarily stock overnight. Someone I know well had to do the overnight stocking and went in when the store closed. 

Sure, everyone theoretically could cook at home, but given the popularity of food delivery services, McD is going to open at 6:30 because there is a demand from the same people who refuse to work there.

 

[Brittany1116]

4 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

Brittany1116, the fact that people like to gripe is not proof that they actually have something to complain *about*.

If there are a dozen places around you that can't get workers, why do you conclude that "people don't want to work"? Is it not as likely that they do want to work, and have all gotten better-paying jobs with better conditions and/or more social prestige elsewhere?

So with the current unemployment level, business owners and managers in all sorts of places saying they can't get or keep help, and the whole other side of people saying they won't work under xyz conditions, it's still an imaginary problem? Many people in this thread are acknowledging there is a lack of workers, whatever the reasons. 

No, that is often not the case. If you have read all my posts, I have mentioned several people who won't get or keep jobs, and several employers who are offering very high/competitive compensation and not getting bites. Places with impeccable reputations. It's something of a small town; when I say I know my people, neighborhood, local businesses, I do. With few exceptions, the trend is that they younger they are, the less likely they are to be working despite increased wages and signs in every window. 

[Rosie_0801]

Then there are all the people the economy doesn't want.

From what I've read, Autistic people have higher rates of unemployment than the general disabled community does and they have problems enough. I'm sure we're not all lazy. We may, however, suffer from seeming "a bit off" or be rubbish at making good first impressions, requiring time for people to get to know us, or able to make a good first impression but be completely unable to keep the mask on long term, etc. Anecdotally, it seems very common to be able to do jobs, but not able to do the things one has to do to be allowed to do those jobs.

[Brittany1116]

9 hours ago, regentrude said:

Since when should one base the value of the work on whether the person "has real bills" or not?
Should a woman's wage depend on whether she has a husband who brings an income or whether she is single?
Whether the 17 y/o saves for college, or is self-supporting and living on that wage, or helping his family with the income, or is spending his money on candy and videogames has no bearing on what is a fair, competetive wage for xyz job. This is precisely the argument people make who argue the minimum wage does not need to be increased.

I had to wait to reply to this because something about the wording made me think I misrepresented my thoughts? To be clear, I think the current minimum wage is atrocious. I am not valuing or devaluing any human because of their age or sex or any other factor.

The point I probably did not make clearly is that I do think young people (let's say teens living at home up through new college grads) have an idea that they need a certain rate of pay. But need is relative.

Who do we collectively think is best suited for working for $11/hr part time? A young person who doesn't have a ton of bills. Someone who doesn't have but needs work experience. Someone who just wants to earn a little extra cash for something coming up. 

Fair and competitive is also hard to define and varies by location. I have a friend who is a single mom working full time for under $13/h. She doesn't get benefits or child support. She doesn't have debt. She has considered all year looking for another job because she could get $18/h making burritos down the road. She stayed because her job is in a convenient location, has a generous leave policy when things come up with the kids, she is good at her work, and she loves her boss and coworkers. Her wage isn't competitive but to her it is fair. 

[Brittany1116]

Hit enter too soon.

All of that to say this:

People have left jobs. Many of those jobs have responded by raising wages significantly to widely accepted fair and competitive rates. People are still not taking the jobs. That is what I and many around me are seeing.

[TechWife]

19 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

Then there are all the people the economy doesn't want.

From what I've read, Autistic people have higher rates of unemployment than the general disabled community does and they have problems enough. I'm sure we're not all lazy. We may, however, suffer from seeming "a bit off" or be rubbish at making good first impressions, requiring time for people to get to know us, or able to make a good first impression but be completely unable to keep the mask on long term, etc. Anecdotally, it seems very common to be able to do jobs, but not able to do the things one has to do to be allowed to do those jobs.

In the US, the unemployment rate for people who are “high functioning” was over 80% the last time I looked at the numbers. Interviews are a real barrier and the kinds of jobs that have low barriers to entry are often jobs that wouldn’t be suitable - fast food and retail are not doable. 

[Rosie_0801]

16 minutes ago, TechWife said:

In the US, the unemployment rate for people who are “high functioning” was over 80% the last time I looked at the numbers. Interviews are a real barrier and the kinds of jobs that have low barriers to entry are often jobs that wouldn’t be suitable - fast food and retail are not doable. 

Then there are all those weird social rules like how they say they want you to use your initiative, but they really mean their initiative and we're not mind readers, for goodness sakes. And jobs where you are hired to solve problems, but only in ways that won't solve the problems.
I don't know how to deal with that. It's too messed up!

[TechWife]

56 minutes ago, Brittany1116 said:

I don't live in a metro and never have. I'd estimate half of the people I know who have or had upwards mobility and/or lateral moves for greater incentive in career paths are not college educated. They also aren't all boomers. Maybe those types of jobs don't exist in every city, but they exist. 

I agree we don't need 24 hour access to goods. We opt out of Amazon and streaming services etc. But unless I missed it, no one in this thread is saying the grocery store should close at 8. They are saying they need more money, nicer bosses, or atleast a sweet spot where the money makes it easier to put up with the jerks. As for grocers, the ones here primarily stock overnight. Someone I know well had to do the overnight stocking and went in when the store closed. 

Sure, everyone theoretically could cook at home, but given the popularity of food delivery services, McD is going to open at 6:30 because there is a demand from the same people who refuse to work there.

 

My point is that if the employers need to adapt to the culture -  they need to change. This will result in downstream changes as well. High demand & need employees?  Change your workplace culture. It isn’t all about the money. Train your managers - people skills, admin skills, operational skills. Set schedules one to two weeks in advance. Stop requiring hourly employees to be available on their days off in case someone else calls in. Stop scheduling people for 29 hours a week. Schedule them for 30 hours and pay  for the benefits. Raise prices if you need to. Yes, that will affect demand. More people might eat at home. But, the choice is also there to dial back executive compensation packages and actually used the money saved there to invest in the company to make life tenable to the people that earn it for the company in the first place. Maybe if that happens, prices don’t have to go up as much or maybe even hold steady. If they can’t change these aspects, then they can change operational hours or maybe it means the area really can’t support that business and the business owner needs to do something else, entirely. No one business is entitled to function by undervaluing their employees, either monetarily or behaviorally. No one area is entitled to have a certain number of businesses - just ask the people who live in food deserts where the grocery store chains have left because they can make more money elsewhere. 

Edited November 5, 2022 by TechWife

[itsheresomewhere]

26 minutes ago, TechWife said:

In the US, the unemployment rate for people who are “high functioning” was over 80% the last time I looked at the numbers. Interviews are a real barrier and the kinds of jobs that have low barriers to entry are often jobs that wouldn’t be suitable - fast food and retail are not doable. 

This.  Part of something we have noticed locally is they are giving very little training time.   One place they are given 15 minutes and you should learned it all in that time.  Goodness if you need more training due to a disability.  My DS ( HFA) is looking for a job and we have really been noticing this along with some really good honesty from the workers telling him to not apply here as they will not treat him fairly. 

[Wheres Toto]

My son who is autistic, was asked at his job interview how he felt about customer service.  His response was "I can grin and bear it".    I forgot to tell him they didn't really want honesty at a job interview.     He did end up still getting hired but Spirit Halloween is kind of known for being open to hiring "quirky" people.  

A while back I read a short write up that was about interviewing for a job while autistic.  It went through all the things that were completely foreign to someone on the spectrum, in a somewhat humorous manner.   I really wish I could find it again because I'd love to show it to ds.  

[Tanaqui]

 Brittany, I don't know what to tell you. You can keep saying the word "competitive" all you like, but if they can't get people to work for them then the wages aren't competitive, or the environment is bad, or everybody is already employed.

The word "competitive" is not a magic charm that means "great".

[Heartstrings]

3 hours ago, Brittany1116 said:

ho do we collectively think is best suited for working for $11/hr part time? A young person who doesn't have a ton of bills

It doesn’t matter what we think.  One of the functions of the market is price discovery.   If jobs go unfilled at $11 the market has discovered that $11 is too low for that job at this time.  
 

 

 

[TechWife]

6 hours ago, Brittany1116 said:

 

Who do we collectively think is best suited for working for $11/hr part time? A young person who doesn't have a ton of bills. Someone who doesn't have but needs work experience. Someone who just wants to earn a little extra cash for something coming up. 

 

I need to circle back to this. What you are proposing here is age-based discrimination. I’m addition you are giving the employer the power to decide who has financial goals worthy of getting a job and worthy of a particular pay rate. What a huge opportunity for discrimination. That is not what employment is about. It is an exchange of labor for money - once the employee earns the money - it belongs to them to do whatever they want to do with it.

If, as you propose, people qualify for jobs based upon their age and their financial goals - you are also opening the door to every kind of discrimination that people have fought so hard to make gains in - namely women and minorities. 

[Laura Corin]

7 hours ago, TechWife said:

I need to circle back to this. What you are proposing here is age-based discrimination. I’m addition you are giving the employer the power to decide who has financial goals worthy of getting a job and worthy of a particular pay rate. What a huge opportunity for discrimination. That is not what employment is about. It is an exchange of labor for money - once the employee earns the money - it belongs to them to do whatever they want to do with it.

If, as you propose, people qualify for jobs based upon their age and their financial goals - you are also opening the door to every kind of discrimination that people have fought so hard to make gains in - namely women and minorities. 

I'm not defending the lower UK minimum wage for young people - I don't know enough to do that. The rationale that is given for it, however,  is that being unemployed in the years immediately after leaving school has a catastrophic effect on long-term career prospects and earning power. The lower rate of pay is therefore a deliberate attempt to encourage employers to give young people a chance, so that they can build their work history. 

Eta in the UK, the government will top up with cash benefits the income of an 18yo who is living independently.  So the lower minimum wage is an employer incentive rather than necessarily an income reduction for the young person.

Edited November 6, 2022 by Laura Corin

[El...]

Paying young people less sounds Dickensian. Why hire an adult when kids work for less? 

[Faith-manor]

4 hours ago, El... said:

Paying young people less sounds Dickensian. Why hire an adult when kids work for less? 

Bingo. At least in America, companies really like Dickensien. Pay pittance to the workers, while the CEO's and their friends take home hundreds of millions between salary and stock options. They really really like Scrooge and awful lot. He is their role model. They aren't so fond of the last part of that story, so they ignore that and hope the ghosts of their actions never come home to roost on them.

[annandatje]

In my opinion, the perception that young people do not want to work is an extension of Socrate’s opinion that younger generation is disrespectful and slovenly.  If that were true, civilization would have self-imploded.

i am hopeful that younger generations will continue to fight for a better work/life balance that has eluded so many of my generation 

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

Bingo. At least in America, companies really like Dickensien. Pay pittance to the workers, while the CEO's and their friends take home hundreds of millions between salary and stock options. They really really like Scrooge and awful lot. He is their role model. They aren't so fond of the last part of that story, so they ignore that and hope the ghosts of their actions never come home to roost on them.

LOL ok.

The vast majority of US businesses - especially those that can employ teens - do not have filthy rich CEOs.  Nor evil owners.

For most, it's not that simple to provide attractive pay and conditions and still pay the bills.  Have you done this lately?  Hired a bunch of people you don't know and kept them all happy, productive, and customer-friendly, kept the premises well-stocked and clean, and remained in the black?  If so, what are your tips for other business owners?

As for youth wages - they used to have them here, but they were voted out some years ago.  Besides the obvious pros and cons, I think there was a (temporary) economy that made them unnecessary.

There's so much going on right now with the economy.  The value of the starting hourly rate is decreasing thanks to inflation.  I seem to remember people predicting that this would happen after minimum wage increases (I mean no-brainer, right?) ... but who needs jobs, services, or products anyway?

But back to rich (and upper-middle) people.  They are the ones not currently feeling the pinch.  They can afford the higher prices.  They can afford to let their teens shun the workplace.  Their kids will be fine because they will have the education and personal contacts to get a great job.  It's a nice layer of insulation from realities most teens must navigate.

[katilac]

11 hours ago, TechWife said:

you are giving the employer the power to decide who has financial goals worthy of getting a job and worthy of a particular pay rate.  

Interesting, non-government story about this. 

My dh used to work for an old school company in an old school industry. About 25 years ago, he went in one day and happily announced that we were expecting a baby. 

The next day, he was called into the office and given a substantial raise, based on the fact that he was now going to be raising a family. We were happy with the raise, of course, but even 25 years ago, we were astonished at the old-fashioned approach!

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

For most, it's not that simple to provide attractive pay and conditions and still pay the bills.  Have you done this lately?  Hired a bunch of people you don't know and kept them all happy, productive, and customer-friendly, kept the premises well-stocked and clean, and remained in the black?  If so, what are your tips for other business owners?

Again, why are we assuming that business owners have an inherent right to the labor of others? If business owners can't (or won't) offer the wages and working conditions necessary to compete for workers against other businesses, then maybe they need to find another line of work. Population growth in the US has flatlined, and the current fertility rate (1.84) is below the replacement rate (2.1), so unless we reverse current immigration policies (which seems politically unlikely), then businesses are going to have to adapt to an environment where they no longer have access to lots of cheap workers who have to put up with crap because they have no other choice. 

1 hour ago, SKL said:

There's so much going on right now with the economy.  The value of the starting hourly rate is decreasing thanks to inflation.  I seem to remember people predicting that this would happen after minimum wage increases (I mean no-brainer, right?) ... but who needs jobs, services, or products anyway?

Blaming inflation on fast food workers wanting to make a decent wage, instead of corporations that are raking in record profits, combined with supply chain issues resulting from a worldwide pandemic and a war in Europe, is BS. Paying the kid who works at Burger King an extra dollar or two per hour is not going to change the price of oil or natural gas or housing. If it makes the cost of a Whopper go up 5 cents, and people are outraged about having to pay a few cents more so someone can make a decent wage, then they can always make their own burgers at home.

1 hour ago, SKL said:

But back to rich (and upper-middle) people.  They are the ones not currently feeling the pinch.  They can afford the higher prices.  They can afford to let their teens shun the workplace.  Their kids will be fine because they will have the education and personal contacts to get a great job.  It's a nice layer of insulation from realities most teens must navigate.

Workers are not getting screwed by teens who don't work; a labor shortage forces businesses to improve the pay and working conditions for the workers they have. 

When you add together all the points you are trying to make in this post, it basically comes down to: lazy middle-class teens who don't work deprive businesses of the labor they are owed and forces them to pay a decent wage, which might cause price increases that are a minuscule drop in the bucket compared to the record profits of the oil and gas industry, but let's blame teens anyway.

 

Edited November 6, 2022 by Corraleno

[katilac]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

LOL ok.

The vast majority of US businesses - especially those that can employ teens - do not have filthy rich CEOs.  Nor evil owners.

 

 

LOL ok - what are you basing this on? Bc I very much think the vast majority of US businesses that employ teens have filthy rich CEOs. 

Top 11 Fast Food CEOs Pay Averages Over $6,000 Per Hour

Wendy's CEO, 5.5 million. Starbucks' CEO, 13.3 million. McDonald's CEO. 15.8 million. 

Walmart USA CEO, 14.4 million. Walmart CEO, 24.5 million. 

Target CEO, 19.7 million 

"For most, it's not that simple to provide attractive pay and conditions and still pay the bills."

Isn't it, though? 

Companies' profit growth has far outpaced wages

Companies see fat profits as they publicly complain about inflation

High company profits contribute disproportionately to inflation

US corporate profits soar

 

 

 

[katilac]

17 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Again, why are we assuming that business owners have an inherent right to the labor of others? If business owners can't (or won't) offer the wages and working conditions necessary to compete for workers against other businesses, then maybe they need to find another line of work.  

Your whole post, but especially this right here. 

If your business isn't profitable, you can go get a job. I hear there are a lot of openings to fill! 

[Corraleno]

In 1965, the ratio between CEO and worker pay averaged 20:1. It's now 324:1 — and at McDonalds, it's 2,251:1.

"... S&P 500 CEOs averaged $18.3 million in compensation for 2021—324 times the median worker’s pay, and higher than both 2020’s pay ratio (299-to-1) and 2019’s ratio (264-to-1).

During 2021, a year crippled by the pandemic plus inflation, CEOs were fast to pin blame for price increases on the pandemic, inflation, and increases in worker wages. The AFL-CIO report, however, shows that workers’ real wages fell 2.4% in 2021, after adjusting for inflation.

That means company profits are up, CEO compensation is also up, but real employee wages are down. The AFL-CIO, which is America’s largest union, argues there’s only one interpretation. “CEOs, not working people, are causing inflation,” it says, adding: “Runaway CEO pay is a symptom of greedflation.”

“Instead of investing in their workforces by raising wages and keeping the prices of their goods and services in check, their solution is to reap record profits from rising prices and cause a recession that will put working people out of our jobs,” said Fred Redmond, AFL-CIO’s secretary-treasurer.

To get a broad look, the group’s report focused on both S&P 500 and Russell 3000 companies. Publicly traded companies must disclose the pay gap between their top-paid executive and the median employee. Average total compensation for S&P 500 CEOs saw a $2.8 million (or 18.2%) increase from 2020. Inflation for 2021 was 7.1%, and workers’ wages rose just 4.7% for the year.

Companies atop the report’s list of biggest pay gaps include the ones typically criticized for poor employee compensation. McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski earned 2,251 times more than the average worker [and] Starbucks’s ex-CEO, Kevin Johnson, took home 1,579 times more..."

https://www.fastcompany.com/90770163/the-age-of-greedflation-is-here-see-how-obscene-ceo-to-worker-pay-ratios-are-right-now

[Faith-manor]

I would like to remind people who do not understand the worker shortage that 4 million people left the workforce and did not return after the 2020 lockdown. Another million retired within the next two years. A million died, and while many of those were older folks our of the workforce, we still lost a substantial amount that were working age. Women left the workforce to supervise their children for online school and when 50% of the daycares in just my state alone did not re-open, those same parents were forced to stay out of work or to reduce their hours to work only when their children were in school. The workforce was turned upside down.

On top of this, the last of the BabyBoomers are heading into retirement age, and millions more will leave creating lots of promotions for Gen X which will leave a lot of promotions for Mils. Gen Z, the current crop of teens and early to mid-20 year olds was smaller than Mils. They can't fill the vacancies left by the Mils who move up the chain. In addition to this, immigration which used to make up for labor shortfalls is exceedingly tight to non-existent. Mathematically speaking, there aren't bodies to fill the gaps. Yes, that means businesses will have to be very competitive to get workers because workers have a lot of choice, and many will not be able to hire. This is not an issue of character or morality. It is simple math.

Mils and Gen Z also have realized they are inheriting an absolute sh*tshow. Knowing how effed their futures are, they have very much collectively decided not to take the crap that Gen X has endured from their employers, and they don't have to because their presence in the workforce is desperately needed.

The reality is that a lot of businesses and companies have piss poor business plans. They really think short term, and impulsively. For instance, Dollar General has built 3 new DG's in our county. We already had a plethora of them. But the demographics of my county is that it had been losing population steadily for the last thirty years. A whomping 25% of the population is aged 60+. That is 1/4th of the population is retiring or already retired. Another 14.4% are between the ages of 18-65 and on disability. They aren't working.  The number of folks age 16-25, the ones who would often work these types of retail jobs while in high school, college, while trying to figure out what kind of career they want to end up in is only 18%. How many people are in my county. 52,400 rounded up.  Now think about how few workers that is, and they have to compete with ALL the other businesses and employers in the county from the fire places to auto parts to fast food to hospital to farms to manufacturing, which we do still have some small manufacturing places left. And the demographic of worker that DG wants are the very people graduating high school, leaving for job training and college, and never coming back. The prediction is another 8-10% lost by the next census, and the schools are looking at which districts will need to combine. The net result is not only can they not staff the new DG's, they are struggling to staff the ones they already had. So why did the ding gong company build 3 more? Because when they announce expansion, stock prices go up. Executives, board of directors, major stock holders make money. They will play this game for a while and then when DG has issues, sell high, make a killing, and then announce "Well bummer. We have to close a whole bunch of stores." It is just crazy. The amount of money they will make is ridiculous, and then the house of cards will fall. It is a business plan based on short term accumulation of wealth by abusing resources to consume land, building materials, etc. only to abandon it and leave the locals with the mess.

The county seat of only 4300 people has five auto parts stores. Five. And the newest built one, an O'Reilly, is complaining it can't make money. Well duh. It is in a three block area that includes, NAPA, Auto Value, Auto Zone, and Advanced Auto all of whom are across the road from Walmart! 🙄 No joke. What a dumb business plan! On top of which there are only 4 towns in the entire county that do not have an auto parts store.

The McDonald's/Taco Bell/Shell Gas, Dollar General in every hamlet, every city neighborhood, every suburb was NEVER a sustainable plan. Shrinking generations, and GEN Z likely to have practically zero kids in the grand scheme of "population growth" of necessity means that businesses will close. They have to close. There aren't workers for all of them. The ones that are left, like it or not, are going to have to treat their workers like liquid gold to keep them for a while until the situation equalized to where there are not a huge number of jobs available and no bodies to fill them much less workers willing to take a "go no where" job which a lot of these are. Even in my dad's heating and cooling business, there was no room for advancement, no way to get any further ahead than the worker already was. The business plan only called for 1-2% pay raises, and no expansion so no one was ever going to go anywhere in the job. That is really common with many businesses.

My county is not the only one like this. Business saturation exceeding any possibility of population support is actually not rare. 

As for young people not working, we just fetched two more face cord of wood from the two high school boys we are patrons of in the community to the north of us. They are charging $60 a face cord and have ordered 25. They have numerous customers. They make twice per hour or more for their hard work at home, and can work it round school, family life, etc. than they can make at fast food or the gas stations or anywhere else hiring high school students. We very much appreciate them and their industrious nature/hard labor, and are more than happy to spend our money with them usually leaving an additional tip after every two or three face loads we pick up. I am sure the local Dollar General manager doesn't appreciate that these hard working young men have the opportunity to control their own hours and make more money than working for DG. I have no sympathy for the company.

[SKL]

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Again, why are we assuming that business owners have an inherent right to the labor of others? If business owners can't (or won't) offer the wages and working conditions necessary to compete for workers against other businesses, then maybe they need to find another line of work. Population growth in the US has flatlined, and the current fertility rate (1.84) is below the replacement rate (2.1), so unless we reverse current immigration policies (which seems politically unlikely), then businesses are going to have to adapt to an environment where they no longer have access to lots of cheap workers who have to put up with crap because they have no other choice. 

Blaming inflation on fast food workers wanting to make a decent wage, instead of corporations that are raking in record profits, combined with supply chain issues resulting from a worldwide pandemic and a war in Europe, is BS. Paying the kid who works at Burger King an extra dollar or two per hour is not going to change the price of oil or natural gas or housing. If it makes the cost of a Whopper go up 5 cents, and people are outraged about having to pay a few cents more so someone can make a decent wage, then they can always make their own burgers at home.

Workers are not getting screwed by teens who don't work; a labor shortage forces businesses to improve the pay and working conditions for the workers they have. 

When you add together all the points you are trying to make in this post, it basically comes down to: lazy middle-class teens who don't work deprive businesses of the labor they are owed and forces them to pay a decent wage, which might cause price increases that are a minuscule drop in the bucket compared to the record profits of the oil and gas industry, but let's blame teens anyway.

All very creative interpretations of things I did not say.

The minimum wage increase was more than an extra dollar or two, at least in many places.

Employers aren't entitled to employees.  I'm just saying it's not that easy for most businesses to pull higher wages out of their asses.  The implication that most US business owners are overflowing with profit is untrue and ridiculous.

As an employer, I profit-share in addition to paying decent wages.  And when I say profit-share, that's before considering that it's my obligation, not the employees', to pay off the debt I incurred in order to make hiring businesses happen.  It's before considering that some of my tenants aren't paying their rent.  It's also before giving myself a penny of salary.  There are many businesses run by people who are not exploiters.  However, can I guarantee my employees that they will never have to work with an asshole co-worker, customer, or vendor?  No, I cannot.  Nor can I afford to pay high wages when there isn't high income to cover them.