7 ms·

If people weren't so obsessed with their jobs it wouldn't matter where you worked. Unfortunately, we are. Case and point -- North Carolina and their need for f

by tabeth 10y ago

If people weren't so obsessed with their jobs it wouldn't matter where you worked. Unfortunately, we are. Case and point -- North Carolina and their need for farmers [1] [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/05/15/north-carolina-needed-6500-farm-workers-only-7-americans-stuck-it-out/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/05/15/north...

TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
That's a pretty poor example. The laborers were paid $9.70/hr. No American would want to do that when you can make more working at a gas station. That seems to be the biggest problem with lower class work in the US at the moment. Cost of living is always going up, but the companies want to pay the same paltry wages they were a few decades ago.
- tabeth 10y ago
  I don't understand. $9.70 is better than being unemployed. Your comment perfectly illustrates the point I'm trying to make (people care too much about what they're doing and/or where they're doing it -- this naturally leads to your identity being tired to your job). If it's not I'd love to hear the reasoning.
  - salesguy222 10y ago
    Jobs involve physical risks and opportunity costs. There are plenty of truly poor people out there who I really do think would rather be homeless than toil dangerously. 9.70 doesn't pay for a broken arm or back pain years down the line
    - tabeth 10y ago
      Not every job that pays $9.70 is necessarily dangerous, so I fail to see your point. That article is more of a representation of a greater potential issue.
      - Dylan16807 10y ago
        > Not every job that pays $9.70 is necessarily dangerous Right, hence the comment implying that a gas station job around that amount would get workers. But in a time where there is a significant push to make the minimum wage $15, it's not surprising that people won't do hard labor for $10.
        tabeth 10y ago
        Hard labor pays more than $10. You're missing the overall point, but OK. It still doesn't explain why foreigners take the jobs and not Americans.
        nikdaheratik 10y ago
        Because the opportunity cost equation is different for them. $10/hr working hard labor vs. easy labor is the choice for American workers; $10/hr in the U.S. versus $4/hr elsewhere is the equation for the foreign workers. On top of that, they have the option of taking the $10/hr work for 4-6 months, and then travelling back to their home country where their cost of living is much lower and it works out the be the equivalent of $25-30/hr in purchasing power.
        astrange 10y ago
        Maybe it'd help if the cost of living was lower here.
  - TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
    My point is that if you expect people to always work more for less, at some point people won't do it anymore. If you want Americans to do the work, you've got to make it worth it for them. There are many factors that go into whether or not it's worth it, like the stability of work hours, autonomy, ability to work your way up, and hourly pay. With no stability, autonomy, or room for growth, and always living under the threat that their work may be outsourced, it simply isn't worth it for Americans to do the work for $9.70/hr.
    - tabeth 10y ago
      Again, I fail to see how being unemployed is superior to making money. Your point is correct, if you assume the person could get a job with the qualities you describe. If they could, they wouldn't be unemployed to begin with (unless it's by choice, of course) Why is that foreigners are taking these jobs and not Americans?
      - true_religion 10y ago
        At some point it becomes easier to beg for charity from family, friends and society so that it is not worth working. Hard labor that damages your body for minimum wage may not be worth it in the long term versus a cashier's position for the same wage.
      - TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
        I view things differently. Back in the 60s when unions were strong and jobs weren't outsourced, employees got their fair share of corporate earnings, and a laborer could afford a middle class life with a car, house, and nuclear family. Look at things today. The return on labor has dropped significantly due to outsourcing and immigration dropping wages at a time when corporate earnings are higher than ever and socioeconomic mobility is at an all-time low[1]. Productivity is higher & GDP per capita is over $50k/yr, yet the majority of people, especially in the lower class, have not been benefiting from this. I guarantee the corporate managers make obscenely more money than the farm laborers do. I personally don't feel it's bad to feel entitled to my fair share of the work I put in. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the...
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    Well, because you're losing the time. In the case where a partner works, so basic bills are covered, you working as well for $10/hr might be a directly economic negative -- childcare, chores, etc you're doing now are simply worth more to the family than the dollar value you bring in. Particularly so if your job would require a second vehicle. Even in the case where people have no income, there's likely still a floor at which the person values their time. If $10/hr doesn't benefit their life in equal measure to the value of a) not having a shitty boss and b) whatever they're doing now (TV, masturbating, bumming at the library), then it makes economic sense not to take those jobs. Once you factor in social safety net benefits, it likely makes economic sense for people not to take certain jobs. tl;dr: You analysis fails to account for the opportunity cost of not using the time on things besides a job.
- douche 10y ago
  Kids used to do a lot of menial farm labor. At least I did... Try getting a 14-17 year old to do anything these days.
  - slavik81 10y ago
    It was pretty frustrating job hunting as a 15-year-old. Nobody liked the idea of hiring someone with no work experience, even for minimum wage, and there were a lot of jobs that I seemed qualified for that were legally mandated to require people 18+. The problems with children are really just problems with adults.
    - douche 10y ago
      I suspect we're violently agreeing. Minimum wage is too high for the value provided by the jobs I used to do, although they were not value-less. And restrictions around child-labor are well-intentioned but occasionally produces sub-optimal results. Ten-year olds threading bobbins in a 1870s textile mill twelve hours a day is a different beast than a high-school kid picking potatos or strawberries for a few hours as a summer job.
      - bluedino 10y ago
        You don't pick strawberries for a few hours after school - you have a limited window to harvest some crops and it's back-breaking, all-day work.
- randomdata 10y ago
  That article is several years old now, and maybe there are some regional factors at play, but as a farmer myself, these days I regularly see offers of $20/hour if you're willing to show up, and closer to $30+/hour if you bring any skills to the table. Despite that, there is still is a lot of struggle to fill those jobs. And maybe the price just needs to go higher still. I'm not going to tell someone how much they have to work for. But it's interesting that – once you account for the significantly lower cost of living generally found in these rural areas – you're practically making programmer in a big city wages now and that's still not appealing to someone who is unemployed. In a lot of ways, I think enraged_camel (and cobo) hit the nail on the head[1]. Nobody wants the identity of working on a farm. There are a lot of negative connotations related to that type of work that have been built up over the years. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14074922 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14074922
  - therpe1 10y ago
    It's not "negative connotations" -- there are in fact enormous opportunity costs for such low-skilled, seasonal work. Nobody in their right mind would spend 10 hours a day kneeling in the fields picking tomatoes given (1) you are employed on literally a daily basis meaning on any given day you might show up and be told there's "no more work" which means (2) you literally have to go from farm to farm, moving around constantly, to find work, since no job generally lasts more than 3 months and which really means (3) there are literally zero benefits available at each job. To put a pretty penny on it farms tend to be in rural areas that offer very little in the way of infrastructure and amenities. Price simply isn't the issue here, when you look at what's actually involved agriculture does not offer anything like a "job" it just offers dumb work, in the purest sense of the word. That means it will always get done by poor, transitory, essentially enslaved populations that have zero other avenues for work. (This has been the essential logic of human history since literally the dawn of time so I'm a bit at a loss when I see people discussing farm labor salaries...) There's a remarkable consistency at work here. Between Trump advocating to bring back coal jobs and others calling for better paid farmhands to the silly article suggesting that wind turbines can support anything like the number of jobs supported by coal plants... it seems like just a remarkable failure of imagination across the board.
  - 10y ago
patrickg_zill 10y ago
Part of the problem is, you can go on Craigslist and find non-contract labor in that general area - starting at a wage of at least $10/hour. So $9.70 is simply not competitive at all.

by tabeth 10y ago

TheAdamAndChe 10y ago

That's a pretty poor example. The laborers were paid $9.70/hr. No American would want to do that when you can make more working at a gas station. That seems to be the biggest problem with lower class work in the US at the moment. Cost of living is always going up, but the companies want to pay the same paltry wages they were a few decades ago.

tabeth 10y ago
I don't understand. $9.70 is better than being unemployed. Your comment perfectly illustrates the point I'm trying to make (people care too much about what they're doing and/or where they're doing it -- this naturally leads to your identity being tired to your job). If it's not I'd love to hear the reasoning.
- salesguy222 10y ago
  Jobs involve physical risks and opportunity costs. There are plenty of truly poor people out there who I really do think would rather be homeless than toil dangerously. 9.70 doesn't pay for a broken arm or back pain years down the line
  - tabeth 10y ago
    Not every job that pays $9.70 is necessarily dangerous, so I fail to see your point. That article is more of a representation of a greater potential issue.
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      > Not every job that pays $9.70 is necessarily dangerous Right, hence the comment implying that a gas station job around that amount would get workers. But in a time where there is a significant push to make the minimum wage $15, it's not surprising that people won't do hard labor for $10.
      - tabeth 10y ago
        Hard labor pays more than $10. You're missing the overall point, but OK. It still doesn't explain why foreigners take the jobs and not Americans.
        nikdaheratik 10y ago
        Because the opportunity cost equation is different for them. $10/hr working hard labor vs. easy labor is the choice for American workers; $10/hr in the U.S. versus $4/hr elsewhere is the equation for the foreign workers. On top of that, they have the option of taking the $10/hr work for 4-6 months, and then travelling back to their home country where their cost of living is much lower and it works out the be the equivalent of $25-30/hr in purchasing power.
        astrange 10y ago
        Maybe it'd help if the cost of living was lower here.
- TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
  My point is that if you expect people to always work more for less, at some point people won't do it anymore. If you want Americans to do the work, you've got to make it worth it for them. There are many factors that go into whether or not it's worth it, like the stability of work hours, autonomy, ability to work your way up, and hourly pay. With no stability, autonomy, or room for growth, and always living under the threat that their work may be outsourced, it simply isn't worth it for Americans to do the work for $9.70/hr.
  - tabeth 10y ago
    Again, I fail to see how being unemployed is superior to making money. Your point is correct, if you assume the person could get a job with the qualities you describe. If they could, they wouldn't be unemployed to begin with (unless it's by choice, of course) Why is that foreigners are taking these jobs and not Americans?
    - true_religion 10y ago
      At some point it becomes easier to beg for charity from family, friends and society so that it is not worth working. Hard labor that damages your body for minimum wage may not be worth it in the long term versus a cashier's position for the same wage.
    - TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
      I view things differently. Back in the 60s when unions were strong and jobs weren't outsourced, employees got their fair share of corporate earnings, and a laborer could afford a middle class life with a car, house, and nuclear family. Look at things today. The return on labor has dropped significantly due to outsourcing and immigration dropping wages at a time when corporate earnings are higher than ever and socioeconomic mobility is at an all-time low[1]. Productivity is higher & GDP per capita is over $50k/yr, yet the majority of people, especially in the lower class, have not been benefiting from this. I guarantee the corporate managers make obscenely more money than the farm laborers do. I personally don't feel it's bad to feel entitled to my fair share of the work I put in. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the...
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  Well, because you're losing the time. In the case where a partner works, so basic bills are covered, you working as well for $10/hr might be a directly economic negative -- childcare, chores, etc you're doing now are simply worth more to the family than the dollar value you bring in. Particularly so if your job would require a second vehicle. Even in the case where people have no income, there's likely still a floor at which the person values their time. If $10/hr doesn't benefit their life in equal measure to the value of a) not having a shitty boss and b) whatever they're doing now (TV, masturbating, bumming at the library), then it makes economic sense not to take those jobs. Once you factor in social safety net benefits, it likely makes economic sense for people not to take certain jobs. tl;dr: You analysis fails to account for the opportunity cost of not using the time on things besides a job.
douche 10y ago
Kids used to do a lot of menial farm labor. At least I did... Try getting a 14-17 year old to do anything these days.
- slavik81 10y ago
  It was pretty frustrating job hunting as a 15-year-old. Nobody liked the idea of hiring someone with no work experience, even for minimum wage, and there were a lot of jobs that I seemed qualified for that were legally mandated to require people 18+. The problems with children are really just problems with adults.
  - douche 10y ago
    I suspect we're violently agreeing. Minimum wage is too high for the value provided by the jobs I used to do, although they were not value-less. And restrictions around child-labor are well-intentioned but occasionally produces sub-optimal results. Ten-year olds threading bobbins in a 1870s textile mill twelve hours a day is a different beast than a high-school kid picking potatos or strawberries for a few hours as a summer job.
    - bluedino 10y ago
      You don't pick strawberries for a few hours after school - you have a limited window to harvest some crops and it's back-breaking, all-day work.
randomdata 10y ago
That article is several years old now, and maybe there are some regional factors at play, but as a farmer myself, these days I regularly see offers of $20/hour if you're willing to show up, and closer to $30+/hour if you bring any skills to the table. Despite that, there is still is a lot of struggle to fill those jobs. And maybe the price just needs to go higher still. I'm not going to tell someone how much they have to work for. But it's interesting that – once you account for the significantly lower cost of living generally found in these rural areas – you're practically making programmer in a big city wages now and that's still not appealing to someone who is unemployed. In a lot of ways, I think enraged_camel (and cobo) hit the nail on the head[1]. Nobody wants the identity of working on a farm. There are a lot of negative connotations related to that type of work that have been built up over the years. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14074922 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14074922
- therpe1 10y ago
  It's not "negative connotations" -- there are in fact enormous opportunity costs for such low-skilled, seasonal work. Nobody in their right mind would spend 10 hours a day kneeling in the fields picking tomatoes given (1) you are employed on literally a daily basis meaning on any given day you might show up and be told there's "no more work" which means (2) you literally have to go from farm to farm, moving around constantly, to find work, since no job generally lasts more than 3 months and which really means (3) there are literally zero benefits available at each job. To put a pretty penny on it farms tend to be in rural areas that offer very little in the way of infrastructure and amenities. Price simply isn't the issue here, when you look at what's actually involved agriculture does not offer anything like a "job" it just offers dumb work, in the purest sense of the word. That means it will always get done by poor, transitory, essentially enslaved populations that have zero other avenues for work. (This has been the essential logic of human history since literally the dawn of time so I'm a bit at a loss when I see people discussing farm labor salaries...) There's a remarkable consistency at work here. Between Trump advocating to bring back coal jobs and others calling for better paid farmhands to the silly article suggesting that wind turbines can support anything like the number of jobs supported by coal plants... it seems like just a remarkable failure of imagination across the board.
- 10y ago

patrickg_zill 10y ago

Part of the problem is, you can go on Craigslist and find non-contract labor in that general area - starting at a wage of at least $10/hour. So $9.70 is simply not competitive at all.