![]()
![]()
As Karmakin likes to note, in general, worker productivity has risen far above wages. Corporations have record profits and benefited from globalization, while we've gone from one man being enough to support a household to two incomes being require to barely scrap by. What would you call that, if not an indicator that workers as a group already are owed compensation that they haven't been getting regardless of the qualifications of individuals?
Speaking of supply and demand.... We, as a society, have told people that they need to go to college to be successful and 'earn' that comfortable income. That's the attitude you're espousing. What has that resulted in? More and more people struggling under decades of debt from escalating college costs for an increasingly meaningless education, with fewer and fewer 'skilled', well-paying jobs to support them once they get out into the real world.
The economy isn't just about highly-trained professionals. You can't have a restaurant that's staffed with 100% chefs and no waiters, you can't have everyone be lawyers and doctors, and those other people deserve the right to live a happy life in exchange for working hard, just like everyone else.
No, I'm not advocating everyone be paid the same regardless of how hard their job is. But I am saying that you can't tell people that they DESERVE to live in poverty just because they didn't have the innate talent or the opportunity to train to be a neurosurgeon. The economy is at its best when the AVERAGE PERSON has spare spending money in his pocket.
edited 15th Dec '12 10:47:32 AM by Karkadinn
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.Euo: The catch there is that is highly dependent on where you live. Living costs are affected by region and local pricing schemes in genereal. Living wage for West Omaha, NE vs West L.A., California or any other city for that matter are going to be different animals.
Never mind the types and average pay for workers and jobs available. Also I am sorry but if your job is putting groceries into a bag, bussing tables, or other similar low skill/low labor jobs you are not entitled to living wage for little work. I would say youa re entitled to minimum wage yes living wage not unless it is minimum wage.
Who watches the watchmen?The real problem being that unions, by and large, stopped representing people at the bottom of the wage scale, if indeed they ever did. By the way, a very large proportion of those fees went into pension systems, which invested heavily in stocks and bonds, and was not pumped back into the "real economy".
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Medinoc: The vast majority of bus boys and baggers do not even come close to working all day. No it shouldn't pay living wage for someone just putting groceries in a bag. That is ridiculous and unrealistic. If you are working standard 40 hour week you have quite a bit of time to find a second job.
You actually have to work quite a few hours in a day or night to not have time to find a 2nd job. There are not that many jobs with that kind of condition.
If you work 12 hour shifts 5 days a week at minimum wage you are doing quite a bit of work but your also taking home quite a bit of pay.
Who watches the watchmen?![]()
Maybe you do, sure.
But you certainly dont have the gas money to, and working a 40 hour job and another job means you will essentially have no time to do anything but work. at which point, why bother? What point is there to working if working is all you accomplish?
I know full well the only reason I bothered with being employed before I went back to school was to afford myself food and shit to do in my leisure time. if I dont get any leisure time, why the fuck should I bother?
edited 15th Dec '12 12:06:47 PM by Midgetsnowman
It is not hiallarious it is reality. People do it every day they even do it when times are not lean. A single 8 hour shift a day does not shit up your entire chances of finding a second job.
If your choice is to work or not have money you need the majority of us work. And even two minimum wage jobs means that person is taking in quite a bit of money. Most people also don't need to work two jobs forever.
Also quite a few people all over the U.S. can and have found a second job if your just working basic 40 hour shift. I am afraid it is rather common.
edited 15th Dec '12 12:08:45 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?And your point is what? You don't even have two 40 hour work weeks to take in a fair amount of extra cash. Even at minimum wage working an extra 20 hours over the course of a week nets you an extra 580 dollars a month in addition to the take from your other 40 hour job. Guess what. You still have time to rest and do stuff that isn't work.
edited 15th Dec '12 12:16:11 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?@Tuefel: That's only assuming that you're able to find two employers who are willing to give you hours that work with each other.
I've done the two jobs thing before, and it's a LOT harder than you make it sound. One of my jobs went from 16 hours a week to 5 hours a week when I gave them a new availability schedule that would work around the second job.
And because the two jobs I had were in different cities, and I didn't have a car, I was wasting my entire day on the bus system, with no extra money coming in.
edited 15th Dec '12 12:18:41 PM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianA careful "yay". I'm still at uni, and though I already joined TEK
(the Finnish engineers union) I haven't needed them yet and don't need to pay dues as a student member.
Also I find the consept of baggers wierd. I've never had somebody else bag my groseries, but do they generally know how to pack them correctly? Do they care enough to pack cans at the bottom, crushables on top etc.?
Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.Then that is an issue of your transportation and honestly picking two jobs in two different cities was a mistake.
I have also done the two jobs thing multiple times over the past 10 years. One employer got the most work otu of me because they paid the most. The other got whatever I could give. I still had free time I also had the money I needed to pay my bills, put food on the table, and make sure rent was paid.
You guys are making it sound way harder then it is.
Who watches the watchmen?I'm against mandating them, but I'm not for baring them either.
The main issue with establishing that unskilled labor isn't something you work till retirement is that acquiring skills takes money, and you actually have to have income to support yourself at the same time. Even if you make education and other skill acquisition free, you still have people who's primary main of gain skill is simply experience, which ties back into the no experience no hire no experience cycle. Essentially, for a person to be able to develop skills from unskilled labor, the wage they earn has to be at a level that can support them, their dependents, and leave enough time of the day to develop skills.
I suppose the other option would be negative tax rates where everyone gets a certain amount of money to live on a month no matter what, and we could remove the minimum wage and let getting a job just be a way to get money for luxuries. That would have the added bonuses of removing the people who'd greatest contribution to a company is staying out of the way and removing a lot of the necessary infrastructure.
Fight smart, not fair.DGF: That does kind of suck. Half hour drive isn't too bad.
Point is minimum wage for everyone greatly improves the wages of quite a few people. Two jobs is doable and it is entirely possible to have some down time. Most people get a few hours worth of free time here and there on all but the most strenous of schedules. Mandatory overtime for everyone ensures they compensated for their extra work. Unless your salaried then they tend to work you like a dog.
I can agree quite a few jobs earn less then they should. Actual wages for most food industry workers comes to mind. Waitress wages are horrible. Dishwashers when I last did that kind of work wasn't much better. Bussing was either folded into the dish washer or waiting staff positions not sure if that is local or common. Only cooks and the head of the resturaunt got decent pay and a cut of the tips.
Jobs with demanding physical standards, hazardous conditions, long hours beyond the standard 8, jobs that entail a large number of tasks of varying complexity, etc. There is a litany of conditions that should give some extra financial return to the worker but don't.
But there is a point where the value of the job really doesn't deserve a huge jump in wages beyond minimum wage. Bag boys and most table bussers come to mind. If your just placing groceries in a bag and into a cart i am sorry but your not doing a lot. Now if you haul groceries, move around carts, sweep floors then yeah i think your entitled to extra cash in your pocket to a point.
Unions are nice as long as they are open to everyone, protect everyone in that part of the industry, and are not abusing their position. The local city unions for example are not exactly friendly to non-union members at all. It made it very difficult to move up in the Public Library system no matter how qualified you were. You had to be approved by the union first.
Speaking of low or unskilled labor or even skilled labor. It is slowly being outdated by automated processes partially because the automation is cheaper in the long run.
edited 15th Dec '12 1:00:53 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?Problem is there are not that many more skilled labor jobs to go around to be giving to newly skilled labor in the first place. The more skill needed for most jobs the fewer of those jobs there tends to be. Anyone can sweep streets but not everyone can be a certified electrician.
Honestly I believe America has shot itself in the foot with both avilable jobs and skilled and unskilled labor. Unions and labor disputes are ultimately just a tiny portion of a much larger and more difficult problem.
edited 15th Dec '12 2:05:34 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?
Its not us shooting us in the foot. Its the fact its impossible to treat employees with even a modicum of respect, dignity, or decent pay if you want to stay competitive with firms that have shipped production to countries where human rights laws dont exist and workers can be locked in a factory with no regard for their safety.
I'm not sure that applies to "fast" food places or the like*...
Keep Rolling OnThen there is really nothing we can do in the U.S. we have to wait on other countries to improve their standards. On the plus side between shipping costs, rising wages over sea, and mechanisms like automation making labour costs in the U.S. cheaper. Cost of shipping coupled with cheaper production means easier to profit in the U.S. again.
We did shoot ourselves in the foot. Between a push for technology and a even bigger push for greater education we have produced an excess of 'skilled' labour ready inviduals hence the large number of people with degrees working low skill jobs or are unemployeed at the same time the steady push on tech has cost us jobs normally held by unskilled or low skill labor. More then a few joined the throng of skilled workers already looking for jobs that there is not enough of.
edited 15th Dec '12 3:02:50 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?We have too many laborers both skilled and unskilled and not enough jobs for all of them. We have a lot of unemployed or underemployed people with degrees. They are taking up jobs normally held by low skill or unskilled workers.
Lots of jobs traditionally held by unskilled or low skilled labor have been steadily vanishing either through automation and outsourcing. Now you have pressure from the glut of trained or skilled labor taking up the low skill/unskilled jobs.
We are drowning in workers with not enough jobs in general.
Who watches the watchmen?

^
Essentially, any job where you're working full time and a few bucks more than minimum wage?
edited 15th Dec '12 10:37:55 AM by Barkey