5 ms·

> Hence the lowest paying of all jobs are the most fiercely fought for. That does not sound like a healthy economy to me. Minimum wage is for employees with m

> Hence the lowest paying of all jobs are the most fiercely fought for. That does not sound like a healthy economy to me. Minimum wage is for employees with minimal skills. Almost always that should mean entry level positions. You don't want to run a business where the bulk of your workforce is barely qualified. You want a balance between the noobs, the competent young ones, and the old dogs who know all the ropes. So even if for a position that has an "imbalance between the number of job seekers and the available positions", I would expect the average employee to make somewhere between 2x and 4x the minimum wage. Otherwise, what you are telling me is that an average high school kid can do the job equally well as a person with 10+ years of experience.

bryondowd 12y ago
The fact is that many jobs are exactly as you describe. An average high school kid can be trained to do the job within a week and perform at least 90% as well as someone who's been doing it for 10 years. That's why those jobs pay minimum wage. You want almost all your employees to be like this, and maybe one person with experience in a marginally higher position to handle unusual cases. For instance, a clothing store pays a number of people minimum wage to work the registers, keep the racks/shelves stocked and organized, and clean the place. Then they pay (not substantially) more for a few managers to keep things running smoothly. Usually there are many more employees than managers, and while an employee might be promoted to manager, there are so few openings that the average employee can't expect to rise at all. There's no reason to give these people any significant raise because they can be replaced in a week with another kid at minimum wage. The only incentive to pay a little bit more for someone who sticks around long term is because they tend to be more reliable in terms of showing up for their scheduled shift, but even that isn't uncommon enough to be worth much. It's the same for any position that doesn't require a developed skill. Stocking shelves, unloading trucks, cashiers, cleaners, some basic customer service positions like a host(ess) at a cheap restaurant (the people who greet you at the door and show you to your seat for $8/hour). I would guess that there are at least in the tens of millions of these positions in the US, so probably at least 5-10% of the population. Some of these are students who will rise out of it by getting a degree and landing an entry level position elsewhere, but I doubt that covers the majority. And people will fight over these jobs, simply because they don't have skills to get a better one, and need to either work 2-3 jobs at once to get by, or pool their resources and live in a group with a number of other people who work the same jobs or only slightly better. Here's some examples [1][2] that cover a small group of the described jobs. This accounts for a bit under 8 millions jobs. The site there isn't granular enough to get many other positions, as they are lumped in with others that earn more, like "Hand Laborers" which has a median income a couple dollars higher and adds a few million more jobs. [1] http://www.bls.gov/ooh/sales/cashiers.htm http://www.bls.gov/ooh/sales/cashiers.htm [2] http://www.bls.gov/ooh/food-preparation-and-serving/food-and-beverage-serving-and-related-workers.htm http://www.bls.gov/ooh/food-preparation-and-serving/food-and... [3] http://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/hand-laborers-and-material-movers.htm http://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/ha... NOTE: I'm not saying any of this is right, or good, or the way it should be or has to be, just that this is the way things are.
Xixi 12y ago
I am merely describing how I think the economy is running. Not how it should be running. In fact I agree with you that it is not healthy at all. Japan used to run the other way around, where the salary was solely a function of age (or rather, how long a worker had been working in a company, but that was essentially the same). I don't think it makes for a healthy economy either. But I'm also not entirely convinced it's that much worse than the "free market" you have in the US. I don't have any form of competence in terms of economy, but sometimes it feels like the economy we are living in right now is optimizing for the wrong things. It is becoming more and more efficient, more and more optimized, but not at all for the common good. Maybe for quarterly results?

bryondowd 12y ago

The fact is that many jobs are exactly as you describe. An average high school kid can be trained to do the job within a week and perform at least 90% as well as someone who's been doing it for 10 years. That's why those jobs pay minimum wage. You want almost all your employees to be like this, and maybe one person with experience in a marginally higher position to handle unusual cases. For instance, a clothing store pays a number of people minimum wage to work the registers, keep the racks/shelves stocked and organized, and clean the place. Then they pay (not substantially) more for a few managers to keep things running smoothly. Usually there are many more employees than managers, and while an employee might be promoted to manager, there are so few openings that the average employee can't expect to rise at all. There's no reason to give these people any significant raise because they can be replaced in a week with another kid at minimum wage. The only incentive to pay a little bit more for someone who sticks around long term is because they tend to be more reliable in terms of showing up for their scheduled shift, but even that isn't uncommon enough to be worth much. It's the same for any position that doesn't require a developed skill. Stocking shelves, unloading trucks, cashiers, cleaners, some basic customer service positions like a host(ess) at a cheap restaurant (the people who greet you at the door and show you to your seat for $8/hour). I would guess that there are at least in the tens of millions of these positions in the US, so probably at least 5-10% of the population. Some of these are students who will rise out of it by getting a degree and landing an entry level position elsewhere, but I doubt that covers the majority. And people will fight over these jobs, simply because they don't have skills to get a better one, and need to either work 2-3 jobs at once to get by, or pool their resources and live in a group with a number of other people who work the same jobs or only slightly better. Here's some examples [1][2] that cover a small group of the described jobs. This accounts for a bit under 8 millions jobs. The site there isn't granular enough to get many other positions, as they are lumped in with others that earn more, like "Hand Laborers" which has a median income a couple dollars higher and adds a few million more jobs. [1] http://www.bls.gov/ooh/sales/cashiers.htm http://www.bls.gov/ooh/sales/cashiers.htm [2] http://www.bls.gov/ooh/food-preparation-and-serving/food-and-beverage-serving-and-related-workers.htm http://www.bls.gov/ooh/food-preparation-and-serving/food-and... [3] http://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/hand-laborers-and-material-movers.htm http://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/ha... NOTE: I'm not saying any of this is right, or good, or the way it should be or has to be, just that this is the way things are.

Xixi 12y ago

I am merely describing how I think the economy is running. Not how it should be running. In fact I agree with you that it is not healthy at all. Japan used to run the other way around, where the salary was solely a function of age (or rather, how long a worker had been working in a company, but that was essentially the same). I don't think it makes for a healthy economy either. But I'm also not entirely convinced it's that much worse than the "free market" you have in the US. I don't have any form of competence in terms of economy, but sometimes it feels like the economy we are living in right now is optimizing for the wrong things. It is becoming more and more efficient, more and more optimized, but not at all for the common good. Maybe for quarterly results?