I think perhaps you are trivializing the plight of ACTUAL slaves.
Having a crappy job is not in fact the same thing as forced labor.
At this point you’re obviously being intentionally dense (or you really ARE just that dense). I have to admit, I’m a bit sheepish that I allowed myself to be trolled even just this far.
I could try to get you to understand how you took a larger issue, threw in a piss-poor anecdotal attempt to undermine the entire claim of the larger issue, then I threw in contradictory anecdotal evidence (to which your response amounted to “nuh uh, you LIE!”) and followed up with larger-scale statistical evidence (yes, to a Think Progress article, which links to its source data - which I named for you) that brings the discussion back to the larger scale issue.
Or I could just let you continue with your moronic strawman argument. Which is probably better, since the alternative would only work if you only had a brain.
McJobs Should Pay, Too: Inside Fast-Food Workers’ Historic Protest For Living Wages
The term “McJob” has come to epitomize all that’s wrong with the low-wage service industry jobs that are growing part of the U.S economy. “It beats flipping burgers,” the cliché goes, because no matter what your job might be, it’s assumed to be better than working in a fast-food restaurant.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that seven out of 10 growth occupations over the next decade will be low-wage fields. And these jobs are not being done by teenagers. Across the country, the median age of fast-food workers is over 28, and women – who make up two-thirds of the industry – are over 32, according to the BLS.
Over 28, so much for ‘college job’ myth.
Timex - Ah yes. That one. Ignoring the root of mortgage, and workfare of course… Not to mention those pesky trends in wages…
I think maybe you are getting angry, and letting that color your interpretation of what I’m saying. I do appologize though for suggesting that you were just making up your anecdotal evidence. I honestly thought that you had just made it up, purely for the sake of illustrating that anecdotes are not backed by hard statistical data (which is certainly true), rather than actually relating a real anecdote from your own experience.
My original statement was specifically about Best Buy, and not the entire retail sector at large. As I’ve actually specifically stated, I realize that many retail outlets employ many older workers. This has actually been cited as a problem related to this discussion, in that many of those workers are actually being pushed into those low wage jobs, which traditionally went to younger, less skilled workers. By older workers being pushed into those sectors, there is suddenly more competition for those low wage jobs that young people first entering the workplace had traditionally taken.
But my statement was about Best Buy specifically (since someone had made statements about Best Buy, specifically) tending to hire younger workers. Best Buy was actually sued in 2004 for age discrimination, although the lawsuit focused primarily on hiring in their corporate offices (where the average age of employees was also quite young, at 29 years old).
This was supported by the fact that every Best Buy I’ve ever been in has always been primarily staffed by younger workers. Given Best Buy’s focus on high tech gadgetry, the notion of young tech savvy people fits well, so their workforce being younger than many retailers is quite intuitive.
And indeed, in 2008, Bob Anderson told students at the Spark Invitational that he was 40 years old, but that the average age of his 140,000 employees was their age. So, beyond my own anecdotal experience with multiple Best Buy stores (which others here have also agreed with), there is actually some data on record supporting the notion that Best Buy’s workforce is actually younger than most retail workforces.
To tie this back together, and perhaps help alleviate some of the animosity you’re feeling, there is certainly an issue with more and more of the workforce being pushed into lower paying jobs.
However, the reality is that these jobs are low skill jobs, which had previously been held by young workers with zero experience. For that type of worker, getting paid minimum wage is not exploitive, is it? When I worked as a kid for minimum wage, I didn’t feel exploited at all (I actually worked in the retail sector too). I had no skills. It was my first job, ever. It was not a requirement that I support a whole family on my wages.
Now, as your recent article pointed out, more folks are being pushed into those jobs. However, the jobs themselves have not changed.
Simply because you may possess lots of skills, if you’re being hired to dig ditches you aren’t really worth any more than another ditch digger. The fact that you have to support a family doesn’t make you a better digger, and worthy of higher pay.
So I’m curious then, as to what the big issue is with this, other than, “Yep, that sucks.”
Do you believe that those employers should just pay more for the same work, just based upon the need of those new employees? Despite the fact that there are folks who don’t have families, and are perfectly happy to work for those lower wages?
It seems like you are kind of misplacing your anger about this, and blaming the employers who are really just doing what they always did… Because now people who previously had better jobs, are being forced to take crappier jobs… and now you’re upset that those jobs are crappy.
The problem is the lack of good jobs. The problem is not that crappy jobs pay poorly. That’s one of the things that makes them crappy jobs.
And the answer is not to simply eliminate the crappy jobs… because there are people who are only qualified for those jobs, and whose needs match the payment.
Ah, the old You Will Be Happy in Your Work defence. Never misses.
I’m a bit wary of your notion that employers should be the ones deciding what is the need of their workforce, because that’s likely to open up a Pandora’s box of discrimination. “Oh, so you must take medication that’s not covered by insurance? You’re a single mother with children? Why, then, we don’t hire you, because your needs are too high.”
It’s just part of the whole trend for employers to tell their employees how they should spend their private time, what they should eat, what they should do and what they shouldn’t do. What next? Force them to live in company-owned housing developments? Pay them in company scrip? (As for the slippery-slope-fallacy-wankers here, it’s happened before, don’t you know.)
I’m a bit wary of your notion that employers should be the ones deciding what is the need of their workforce, because that’s likely to open up a Pandora’s box of discrimination. “Oh, so you must take medication that’s not covered by insurance? You’re a single mother with children? Why, then, we don’t hire you, because your needs are too high.”
Ya, but that’s the thing… the employer doesn’t really have to consider what the employee needs.
They say, “This is the job we need done, and this is what it is worth to us to get it done.” and then people who are willing to do that job agree to do it. If no one qualified is willing to work for that wage, then they are forced to increase those wages.
You can’t just mandate, from the side of the employee, how much employers must pay because SOME of the potential employees have certain needs. It’s not just about what an employer wants, it’s about how much it is worth to an employer to get that job done.
I just can’t understand the argument that every job MUST pay so much that the every employee must be able to support a family of 3. It just doesn’t make sense. Are you going to apply that to every possible job? So, a kid on a paper route is going to be making a wage that translates to enough money to support a family of three?
Again, I think the problem is not that crappy jobs don’t pay enough… it’s that so many people are being forced to take crappy jobs due to a combination of the terrible job market, and their lack of qualifications.
Trying to jack up the wages of the lowest paying jobs is not the solution. You’re treating a symptom rather than the illness, at that point. You need to improve the economy such that older workers are better qualified, and that the jobs requiring those qualifications are availible in the economy.
The answer isn’t to just make them paid more for doing menial service jobs like working at McDonalds… the answer is to make it so that they don’t have to work at McDonalds.
I know all too well that employers don’t give a damn about what their employees need, and it would be even far worse if they decided to decide arbitrarily, and always in its own interest. That’s where the government comes in, and makes sure the interests of workers are represented.
And if the government decides to increase minimum wage, employers must shut up.
I just can’t understand the argument that every job MUST pay so much that the every employee must be able to support a family of 3. It just doesn’t make sense. Are you going to apply that to every possible job? So, a kid on a paper route is going to be making a wage that translates to enough money to support a family of three?
Why not? Or are you going to write an impassioned defence of the Waltons, whose collective wealth could probably keep a country of three million afloat? It’s not like they need that money, you know.
Again, I think the problem is not that crappy jobs don’t pay enough… it’s that so many people are being forced to take crappy jobs due to a combination of the terrible job market, and their lack of qualifications.
Trying to jack up the wages of the lowest paying jobs is not the solution. You’re treating a symptom rather than the illness, at that point. You need to improve the economy such that older workers are better qualified, and that the jobs requiring those qualifications are availible in the economy.
The answer isn’t to just make them paid more for doing menial service jobs like working at McDonalds… the answer is to make it so that they don’t have to work at McDonalds.
I love your notion that an individual has no intrinsic value in himself except that placed on him by the Market. “You there! The Market dictates that you become an IT technician! What, you don’t think you have the aptitude for it? Oh, but you must! It has been ordained.” Not to mention, it isn’t (or, I should say more accurately, shouldn’t be) the school system’s purpose to create a class of servile workers.
And naturally, training more people to do more skilled work is going to bring down wages for them too. Another victory for employers, I guess.
Why not? Or are you going to write an impassioned defence of the Waltons, whose collective wealth could probably keep a country of three million afloat? It’s not like they need that money, you know.
But you’re mistaking my motivation.
It’s not about preserving some rich guy’s wealth. It’s about preserving the job.
When I was a kid, if K-Mart had to pay me twice as much for my unskilled labor? For instance, a lot of my work was as a cashier… they’d just replace me with those auto-checkout lines.
You can’t actually just force employers to hire people. You can make it harder for them to do so, through government regulation, but at some point you are just eliminating the jobs themselves, because you’ve managed to push the cost up above where some other alternative becomes more cost effective.
I love your notion that an individual has no intrinsic value in himself except that placed on him by the Market. “You there! The Market dictates that you become an IT technician! What, you don’t think you have the aptitude for it? Oh, but you must! It has been ordained.”
And naturally, training more people to do more skilled work is going to bring down wages for them too. Another victory for employers, I guess.
I’m not sure what to tell you, man. I think maybe you’re fooling yourself into thinking that the government can just magically mandate prosperity.
I mean, you are now arguing “Well, what about people who have no useful skills? What about them??”
I dunno dude! I mean, if you honestly have no useful skills? I guess you’re fucked? I dunno what I’m supposed to think… that we just pay them a bunch of money, as though they were more useful than they are? And then, presumably we’ll pay the people who actually DO have useful skills even more?
And then what? The new wages you’re paying the folks with no skills are now below the poverty line again… what have you accomplished?
I’m honestly not seeing what you are proposing as a real solution here, or how you think it’s gonna improve things. You seem to just be raging against abstract “rich fat cats”.
But they haven’t. They’ve forced the Government to take on many of the costs which otherwise they would be forced to pay. It’s called Corporatism for a reason.
I just can’t understand the argument that every job MUST pay so much that the every employee must be able to support a family of 3.
How about supporting themselves? A full-time job where if someone did it, they would be unable to afford food and shelter, given no outside support?
Moreover, again, Australia debunks your jobpocalypse. You cannot get round that!
Paper routes aren’t full time jobs.
Otherwise, what happens when the two adults in a family of three can only get jobs that don’t support a family of three? This is not a rare outcome at all with the current market structure, central bank behavior, and state. If that’s not what society wants, you have to change something in those categories.
The most straightforward fix would be a guarenteed minimum income.
Many are in favor of A basic income. It seems very logical – and it has minimal distortion effects.
I am totally in favor of a basic income instead of a vastly complex social safety net – so complex that the vast majority of people do not access all of the benefits to which they are ‘entitled’ (as per the CBO).
Further, the basic income doesn’t distort incentives as perversely as other systems as it doesn’t affect marginal rates.
And, finally, I really appreciate how a basic income distills very complex policy questions into a single number. This allows most voters to form an opinion that makes sense about how much welfare they want their fellow man to receive.
Weirdly, basic income doesn’t come up at all in ‘serious’ political debate.
I posted this in another thread but it was quickly buried in Andy Bates blather:
https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/folbre/REST_a_00039-Dube_proof2.pdf
Many conservatives like to cite the “conventional” wisdom that minimum wages actually displace workers and cause unemployment. However the best real world evidence we have does not support this. The study above is probably the most comprehensive and looks at unemployment rates in counties that border each other but have different minimum wages (most frequently on state boundaries but also in cases where counties have their own minimum wage such as San Francisco). They found no adverse affects of minimum wages on unemployment levels.
(P.S. for those who have followed my criticism of economic theory for years, this is the good stuff. These guys are using actual, empirical data to reach a conclusion instead of throwing out fundamentally flawed/incomplete models and calling it a day.)
I think this is because the “real” libertarians that should and do support it are only a tiny subsegment of the self-identified libertarians out there. And those libertarians are a tiny subsegment of the population.
Most of the right half of the spectrum and some of the left can probably be more closely described as “market as moralistic enforcer.” If you get bad pay, you somehow deserved it, so we shouldn’t interfere.
What do you mean here? The state just giving you money?
Many conservatives like to cite the “conventional” wisdom that minimum wages actually displace workers and cause unemployment.
I think that the larger issue that minimum wages just don’t ultimately do much. It seems that they would just cause inflation, although I suppose there might be some lag to that effect, and so you’d get some short period of time where they had their wages bumped up closer to higher skilled job wages.
I believe that’s because there’s a belief that if you just give away the money, people will spend it on booze’n’whores and you’ll still have the same problem. Probably true for some people and not true for others, as with everything. Certainly basic income is not the one-size-fits-all solution that it is often presented as.
Yep. That is the idea. A lot of economists on both sides think it is ration since it is so efficient and has so few distortion effects. And we could vote on the income level since it is pretty simple, how damn terrific is that?
The numbers are pretty big but a large amount of that comes out in the wash.
Hardly the same problem: we wouldn’t care one iota about their problems after they were given the money. They did what made them happy, if they are less happy now that what they wanted. I’m not going to tell people how to live.
Hmm. I think that it might make immigration a problem. That is, you would need to lock down immigration pretty tight, right? Or else you are basically offering the world free money.
To me, I think I would rather have no free money, and instead have open borders.
Even though he supported the idea, this was Hayek’s problem with a basic income. Which is why he thought it would only happen far in the future when most nations had increased their standard of living.
I think that a simple patch is that the guaranteed basic income only some number of years after becoming a citizen. Given how many years it takes to become a citizen (and whatever extra people want to tack on) this should be a sufficient fix.