6 ms·

Why is it that people working <less good jobs> shouldn’t have families? Why does half the country have such a firm belief that the bottom tier of society has no

• dotnet00 3y ago
  Probably because typically jobs such as in fast food are seen as being for those too young to have a family, teenagers, college students etc.
  • nickthegreek 3y ago
    Is that the reality of the fast food labor force though? I don’t think it is. I see less kids working at fast food in my city than adults.
• akira2501 3y ago
  I don't believe that at all. I just don't believe that minimum wage "hacks" like this are the correct tools to solve the problem. I think policy energy would be much better spent dealing with the over monopolization of our economy and in creating new industries for these people to own and to be employed by.
• gmadsen 3y ago
  probably because there isn't much support for the collective subsidizing the very personal choice of procreating
  • Retric 3y ago
    Which looks really silly once significant negative population growth kicks in. With US well below replacement rate and net immigration rate down 58% since 1998 and continuing to trend down. So things may start getting interesting fairly soon. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/population-growth-rate https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/popu...
    • toomuchtodo 3y ago
      Sounds better than an economic system that demands surplus labor to treat as disposable. Drive that total fertility rate down.
      • Retric 3y ago
        Ultimately population scales the demand just as it scales the workforce, so it’s not inherently going to change anything outside of extreme situations. Significant negative population growth is however unpleasant because the infrastructure you build today ends up excessive in the future. As to surplus labor you need flexibility simply from people changing jobs. Average 1 month searching every 4 years and that’s a 2.1% unemployment rate. Yes, many people keep their jobs for very long periods but other people job hop regularly.
        • tnel77 3y ago
          Excessive? Since we refuse to build light rail and such, at least we might have roads that aren’t slammed sometime in the future!
          • Retric 3y ago
            Oddly looking at Japan etc you’re likely to see worse traffic as population declines not better. People end up abandoning areas and concentrating more so you get ghost towns and mega cities. It becomes much more expensive per person to keep a small town water treatment plant running and roads cleared etc as population declines. So not only is useful infrastructure abandoned early, you now have people migrating into already densely populated areas.
  • adamisom 3y ago
    "the collective subsidizing the very personal choice of procreating" I support massive subsidies because the sum of these personal choices is equivalent to the next generation's collective
  • tnel77 3y ago
    Collective subsidizing how? Are you referring to food stamp and other government benefits? If so, I’d argue that jobs offering better wages should help with that issue.
• paulddraper 3y ago
  > Why is it that people working <less good jobs> shouldn’t have families? No one said that. However, it is unrealistic to expect that a single 40/hr week low-skill income to provide for a family living independently.
• JackMorgan 3y ago
  Because our servants should be as cheap as possible and not distracted with their own families of course /s Really though, we're on a website with mostly upper middle class people, many of whom rely on cheap labor to provide their affordable luxuries. If that labor was paid the same as most of us are paid we'd have fewer luxuries. This is clearly unpopular with many people. I think secretly many people wish their baristas and cooks weren't paid at all so they could eat out even more. In fact, not that long ago a terrible war was fought over that very desire, so clearly it's an opinion popular enough nearly half the country was willing to die for it. So it's no surprise the idea lingers that some jobs deserve to be paid barely enough to cover the car and gas to get to the job. That big companies should be able to collude and prevent organized labor and suppress fair wages, while inflation eats away at the remainder. I mean, they're just standing in a hot greasy and dangerous kitchen all day next to a boiling vat of flammable oil. It's hardly worth the same pay as going to stand-ups and zoning out on the internet most of the day from the comfort of home.