5 ms·

I'm never quite sure what to think about articles (or ideas) like this. I think of my grandfather who served in the air force for 20 years. When he needed more

by esaym 11y ago

I'm never quite sure what to think about articles (or ideas) like this. I think of my grandfather who served in the air force for 20 years. When he needed more money, what did he do? He picked up a paper route early in the morning. What did he do when the paper route + air force income still wasn't enough? He started driving a taxi during evening hours. And when those three jobs weren't enough? He opened up a service station/gas shop to serve the other taxi drivers, which eventually morphed into a full blown auto service shop which allowed him to quite all his other jobs. As a software developer I am doing ok. I crawled my way up the ladder though from blue collar work. But I still have plenty of friends that never really went anywhere after high school. Some work fast food, some general labor, but they all make less than $8/hr. What do they do when then need money? Get a second job? No. They get on facebook and whine about it or make a gofundme account. One of my friend's even works at a warehouse 10 hours a day only 4 days a week. On those 3 days off he has does he work another job? No. He just plays video games all day, as does everyone else I mentioned. It seems that people nowadays seem to think they only need to work one job, and if that job doesn't pay enough, it is the job's fault. Granted, I know working 70+ hours a week at $6hr won't get you any where... But we all have to learn the climb the ladder. The complete lack of work ethic and skill sets I see today I don't think we can blame on the public schooling or government policies. I'd like to think it is the fault of the parents who never taught their own children to work. Perhaps they don't know how to work either. Yet I go back to thinking about my Grandfather. He lived out in the sticks and didn't really go to school. The family spent the money his dad made (at a brick factory) on buying supplies for gardening so they could have food. For meat they only had chickens and wild rabbits (both of which he refuses to eat to this day). So perhaps formal education isn't the magic bullet either. But something is amiss in our world today.

pasquinelli 11y ago
people complain about money. people complain about a lot of things. people complain. this isn't something being amiss in the world today. it's pretty typical. shit, maybe your grampa even complained about money a time or two himself. just not to his grandkids, obviously. if there's a big difference in how people now view work compared to people in your grampa's time -- go back further and they might even have viewed wage labor with some contempt -- it's foolish to assume that the reason for it is that people today are different, rather than the circumstances they're in, which determine what constitutes a rational choice, have changed. maybe your friend who works 40 hours a week has good reason to not look for a second job for his three free days a week. maybe his assessment of his circumstances is actually better than your assessment of his circumstances, even if he complains about money now and again.
chris11 11y ago
I think there is huge difference between saying someone is personally responsible for their future and saying the only thing preventing the lower class from doing well is laziness. A minimum wage would definitely not be close to a living wage, and a living wage doesn't include saving for retirement or other less basic expenses.The average income in 2015 in the U.S. for people with some college was around $37,000. That's around $18/hr for a 40 hour week. That is definitely livable in most places, but money would be a little tight. Sure, maybe most people earning a below average income could improve themselves and do a lot better financially. But the average wage isn't really good, and low income workers will always be below average. You could make the argument that if most of low income workers became a more valuable by raising their skill level then the average income would also raise. And you might be right, to a point. But I don't think there are enough decent jobs available for everyone. Not everyone is a good fit to work in the medical field or tech. So the increased average skill level would just mean that businesses could be more selective and even lower their pay. I worked full-time for a short amount of time in a tech related field. I remember looking for entry level work, and it was really competitive. I did get a full-time contract position that was a really good opportunity, but the pay was very low. The job was good, it was at a good company, and it would provide me valuable experience. But I ended up going back to school to finish my degree and change fields. And I ended up applying for internships. And reviewing my offers I noticed that all of the decent offers were in the same range as an entry level full-time position in my old company. One offer was more than my yearly salary in the old field. I could have told my old coworkers that they would do a lot better changing careers, and it would be true. But if everyone in the field did that, there would be no-one applying for entry level work in that field. And I think that indicates a problem with the job market, not just a problem with laziness.
- evilgenius134 11y ago
  > $37,000 > That is definitely livable in most places, but money would be a little tight. > Average wage isn't really good I consider livable to be much under $15,000, probably under $10,000 in most states. I'm not sure how you would spend $37,000 to only consider it livable.
dredmorbius 11y ago
Consider, your father worked more and more hours, until he found an option in which he actually acquired capital -- the equity and goodwill of his service station. One of the challenges of wages-based employment is that you put a large portion of the population on a track in which they have no equity. Only claims to compensation in competition with every other schlub seeking same. Marx had a few points about means of production.

by esaym 11y ago

pasquinelli 11y ago

people complain about money. people complain about a lot of things. people complain. this isn't something being amiss in the world today. it's pretty typical. shit, maybe your grampa even complained about money a time or two himself. just not to his grandkids, obviously. if there's a big difference in how people now view work compared to people in your grampa's time -- go back further and they might even have viewed wage labor with some contempt -- it's foolish to assume that the reason for it is that people today are different, rather than the circumstances they're in, which determine what constitutes a rational choice, have changed. maybe your friend who works 40 hours a week has good reason to not look for a second job for his three free days a week. maybe his assessment of his circumstances is actually better than your assessment of his circumstances, even if he complains about money now and again.

chris11 11y ago

I think there is huge difference between saying someone is personally responsible for their future and saying the only thing preventing the lower class from doing well is laziness. A minimum wage would definitely not be close to a living wage, and a living wage doesn't include saving for retirement or other less basic expenses.The average income in 2015 in the U.S. for people with some college was around $37,000. That's around $18/hr for a 40 hour week. That is definitely livable in most places, but money would be a little tight. Sure, maybe most people earning a below average income could improve themselves and do a lot better financially. But the average wage isn't really good, and low income workers will always be below average. You could make the argument that if most of low income workers became a more valuable by raising their skill level then the average income would also raise. And you might be right, to a point. But I don't think there are enough decent jobs available for everyone. Not everyone is a good fit to work in the medical field or tech. So the increased average skill level would just mean that businesses could be more selective and even lower their pay. I worked full-time for a short amount of time in a tech related field. I remember looking for entry level work, and it was really competitive. I did get a full-time contract position that was a really good opportunity, but the pay was very low. The job was good, it was at a good company, and it would provide me valuable experience. But I ended up going back to school to finish my degree and change fields. And I ended up applying for internships. And reviewing my offers I noticed that all of the decent offers were in the same range as an entry level full-time position in my old company. One offer was more than my yearly salary in the old field. I could have told my old coworkers that they would do a lot better changing careers, and it would be true. But if everyone in the field did that, there would be no-one applying for entry level work in that field. And I think that indicates a problem with the job market, not just a problem with laziness.

evilgenius134 11y ago
> $37,000 > That is definitely livable in most places, but money would be a little tight. > Average wage isn't really good I consider livable to be much under $15,000, probably under $10,000 in most states. I'm not sure how you would spend $37,000 to only consider it livable.

dredmorbius 11y ago

Consider, your father worked more and more hours, until he found an option in which he actually acquired capital -- the equity and goodwill of his service station. One of the challenges of wages-based employment is that you put a large portion of the population on a track in which they have no equity. Only claims to compensation in competition with every other schlub seeking same. Marx had a few points about means of production.