4 ms·

"It is also the poorest paid job in the country, with some sheepherders still earning around $750 a month; with their long hours of work, that amounts to about

by mnm1 9y ago

"It is also the poorest paid job in the country, with some sheepherders still earning around $750 a month; with their long hours of work, that amounts to about a dollar an hour." How many Americans are willing to work for this type of wage in these conditions? My guess would be zero.

throwaway7312 9y ago
Of course they wouldn't. The poorest 5% of Americans are still wealthier than 68% of the world. [1] It makes little sense for even an unemployed person on welfare or disability to do this job rather than cash a welfare check. There is zero incentive for an American to do this kind of work at this rate of pay. If the range owner could only hire Americans, he'd have to increase pay, or America would have to import its wool from Peru instead of import Peruvians to shepherd sheep in America. [1] https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-the-have-nots/ https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-...
AcerbicZero 9y ago
For the sake of accuracy, that was $750 in 1991, which is around ~$1350 adjusted for inflation. Minimum wage in '91 was ~$680 per month and my understanding is these jobs came with room (crappy room) and board (also probably crappy). That doesn't take into account the extremely long hours they were forced to work, or the general working conditions which sound horrid, but I'm sure there are a few Americans who would take the job. That would of course require hiring Americans, and that's a hard sell when presented with a near endless supply of easily exploitable workers being imported into the country for this exact role.
gozur88 9y ago
The reason those jobs pay so little is ranchers can find people willing to take them. You may be right that Americans wouldn't take that job, but that's not an argument for bringing in cheap labor from other countries. Quite the opposite, actually. If ranchers couldn't fill those slots they would pay what it takes for Americans to work there.
xxSparkleSxx 9y ago
What is the purpose of this comment? Do you honestly think Americans should feel bad that we won't exploit ourselves even further? If anything the average American should be demanding more, not accepting less. There is no morality in sacrificing for your masters. If anything it is immoral to allow the market to swing so low by accepting a job with such a low wage. Let the masters herd sheep, the current herders would serve society better by not accepting such low paid work and choosing to die if better work could not be found.
- danbolt 9y ago
  While a decision like that would likely serve the market better and encourage higher wages, I think telling people they should die instead of giving any attempt to survive is a bold, if not heartless statement. If you don't mind me asking, have you found yourself ever having to make that sort of decision?
- mnm1 9y ago
  You seriously think people will choose to die? Have you ever met other people?
  - xxSparkleSxx 9y ago
    Of course I don't think they would do that. I'm just saying people that would choose that are likely on the moral high ground compared to those that choose to take jobs that don't even pay a living wage.

by mnm1 9y ago

throwaway7312 9y ago

Of course they wouldn't. The poorest 5% of Americans are still wealthier than 68% of the world. [1] It makes little sense for even an unemployed person on welfare or disability to do this job rather than cash a welfare check. There is zero incentive for an American to do this kind of work at this rate of pay. If the range owner could only hire Americans, he'd have to increase pay, or America would have to import its wool from Peru instead of import Peruvians to shepherd sheep in America. [1] https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-the-have-nots/ https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-...

AcerbicZero 9y ago

For the sake of accuracy, that was $750 in 1991, which is around ~$1350 adjusted for inflation. Minimum wage in '91 was ~$680 per month and my understanding is these jobs came with room (crappy room) and board (also probably crappy). That doesn't take into account the extremely long hours they were forced to work, or the general working conditions which sound horrid, but I'm sure there are a few Americans who would take the job. That would of course require hiring Americans, and that's a hard sell when presented with a near endless supply of easily exploitable workers being imported into the country for this exact role.

gozur88 9y ago

The reason those jobs pay so little is ranchers can find people willing to take them. You may be right that Americans wouldn't take that job, but that's not an argument for bringing in cheap labor from other countries. Quite the opposite, actually. If ranchers couldn't fill those slots they would pay what it takes for Americans to work there.

xxSparkleSxx 9y ago

What is the purpose of this comment? Do you honestly think Americans should feel bad that we won't exploit ourselves even further? If anything the average American should be demanding more, not accepting less. There is no morality in sacrificing for your masters. If anything it is immoral to allow the market to swing so low by accepting a job with such a low wage. Let the masters herd sheep, the current herders would serve society better by not accepting such low paid work and choosing to die if better work could not be found.

danbolt 9y ago
While a decision like that would likely serve the market better and encourage higher wages, I think telling people they should die instead of giving any attempt to survive is a bold, if not heartless statement. If you don't mind me asking, have you found yourself ever having to make that sort of decision?
mnm1 9y ago
You seriously think people will choose to die? Have you ever met other people?
- xxSparkleSxx 9y ago
  Of course I don't think they would do that. I'm just saying people that would choose that are likely on the moral high ground compared to those that choose to take jobs that don't even pay a living wage.