5 ms·
> The first example is a junior level social worker -- that's fine, but come now: we all know that social work is not a high-paying industry. This is an unfai
by rcme 4y ago
> The first example is a junior level social worker -- that's fine, but come now: we all know that social work is not a high-paying industry.
This is an unfair dismissal. Most industries are not high paying, therefore most workers are not earning enough to save. You're basically saying "they're not saving because they're not earning more!" Also, what is your proposed solution here? To stop having social workers?
> someone with three jobs, who still manages to save $200 a month!
Saving $200 a month is basically nothing, especially in NYC. It would take multiple years just to save a few months worth of rent.
- timr 4y agoI'm not dismissing the person. I'm saying: if the author's purpose is to generalize from this example to all 20-somethings, it's obviously biased. Placing this example first was an editorial decision, and it's designed to elicit sympathy. Imagine if the author had led with the 28-year old NYC resident who saves 2k a month. Also, I just want to add: I'm not engaging you in a debate about whether or not social workers "should" be paid more. I don't run the world.
- burkaman 4y ago$40,000 is an above-average income for a 22-year-old in America. If anything they should have picked someone who made less if they wanted to generalize to all 20-somethings.
- yamtaddle 4y agoSaving $200 a month just means you won't have to go into debt when you need to hire a plumber or auto mechanic or have a very-minor, insured ER visit. [EDIT] Assuming you don't have more than ~2 such urgent expenses per year, that is. And none worse than that.
- mrguyorama 4y agoI have I think good insurance. It still asks for $350 for an ER visit.
- notch656c 4y agoSomeone with the skills to be a social worker, on average, can use those skills for higher paid work. They are knowingly trading the good feeling they get when helping people for the cash they could get by being a cold capitalist. You can make the argument social workers should be paid more but probably not the argument the person is employed in the highest saving ability profession they could reasonably hope to work in.
- jewayne 4y agoAgain, you seem to believe that eliminating the job of social worker from society is a viable option.
- notch656c 4y ago[flagged]
- rqtwteye 4y agoWhat are all the capitalists going to do if everybody wants to go for the big bucks and not do things like social work, nursing and many other jobs? Society is seriously f...ed up if it's ok to exploit people who do a valuable job for society and only selfishness gets rewarded. Same for entrepreneurs. What are the genius billionaires going to do if nobody wants to work for them and everybody wants to be an entrepreneur? We need to reward all kinds of useful jobs and not have all reward go to the sociopaths at the top.
- notch656c 4y agoIf nobody does at the current wage, then wages will have to rise to meet supply/demand. As it stands individuals see the good feels as part of their wages. Otherwise they would do something higher paying. IF nobody does the job because the good feels does nothing for them then they'll have to start paying as much as the cold capitalist job.
- jewayne 4y ago
- monero-xmr 4y ago> Also, what is your proposed solution here? To stop having social workers? Reduce expenses to live within your means, or figure out how to earn more money. The plight of... every person on earth
- Shared404 4y ago> Reduce expenses to live within your means, or figure out how to earn more money. This means "stop having social workers". You can only reduce expenses so far, and the easiest way to earn more money is to get a new job.
- medvezhenok 4y agoUnions & collective bargaining is another option - depending on the profit margins of the companies involved. Basically, if social workers collectively refused to work for the current pay, either social work would be eliminated (unlikely), or pay would rise - either through government subsidies, or at the expense of profit margins.
- Shared404 4y agoTrue. I wonder if social workers would find themselves in the "not allowed to strike" group of government employees.
- rsfern 4y agoA lot of social workers are not government employees, there are a bunch of private counseling practices, NGOs, and hospital systems and the like that employ social workers as well. (I’m only familiar with the situation in the US) But I think your point stands even aside from any regulatory specifics. Asking social workers to strike for better wages is essentially asking some of the most vulnerable in our society (e.g. kids in the foster system) to bear the brunt of our collective underinvestment in meeting their needs. I think that’s less acceptable of an impact compared to stressing out some BigCorp’s bottom line in the case of Amazon or Starbucks and similar
- dr-detroit 4y ago[dead]
- kelnos 4y ago> Also, what is your proposed solution here? To stop having social workers? Training for a job that pays below what you need to live comfortably is a choice. You may feel passionate enough about that job that you are willing to accept the consequences of a low salary. If you are not, then you should not train to do that job. I do sympathize, as it's essentially impossible for a 16- or 17-year-old to fully understand the lifetime ramifications of the profession they're about to choose. But if people stopped making dangerous financial compromises to take jobs they are passionate about, then those jobs will either have to get funded more such that the salaries go up, or yes, they'll cease to exist. I think social work is a job that's extremely valuable to society, so I would hope that, in the face of a shortage (due to people not wanting to take the job because of low pay), legislatures and whatnot would vote to fund it more. But that's up to communities to decide. > Saving $200 a month is basically nothing, especially in NYC. The woman who saves $200/mo (the article actually says $200-$300/mo, so it's a bit better, even) lives in Bensenville, Illinois.
- feet 4y agoI think the pertinent question is do we just stop having social workers? They provide essential services, you're focusing too much on the choice to do something that pays a lot vs choice to do something you're passionate about How about the choice to do something that simply needs to be done?
- _aavaa_ 4y agoUnder the current circumstances, if someone chooses to do a job because they find it socially important then they won’t have much leverage to bargain for better pay. If there are people who will todo your job for the amount of money you find unacceptable, you will have a hard time bargaining for more money. We, the people who pay for social worker through taxes, must be willing to pay them more. AND the social workers must be willing to walk away if their own needs aren’t being met.
- tablespoon 4y ago> But if people stopped making dangerous financial compromises to take jobs they are passionate about, then those jobs will either have to get funded more such that the salaries go up, or yes, they'll cease to exist. If a "passion" is common enough, it will get systematically exploited by employers.
- brightball 4y agoDon't most government jobs have a great benefits plan including 401k with matching and the ability to have loans dismissed?
- caycep 4y agoThis is probably off topic, but I would gladly pay a few more $$ in taxes to have social workers have pay equity with other professionals.