3 ms·

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

by 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.

by tabeth 10y ago

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.