3 ms·

I'm not anti-robot. I am pro entry-level job. > There is very little opportunity to grow beyond the entranceway. That was just an example. Nobody would show u

I'm not anti-robot. I am pro entry-level job. > There is very little opportunity to grow beyond the entranceway. That was just an example. Nobody would show up to flip burgers for $0.25 an hour unless they saw a longer-term payoff down the road. They might take a job doing menial work for little-to-nothing while they learn the ins and outs of a business and eventually apply for a more substantive role. We could call them 'apprentices'.

SapphireSun 11y ago
eh... I never flipped burgers and I got a good job. There are more ways to demonstrate worth than simply being present and wasting your time. It's more important to open useful doors to people than it is to make them do robotic work for no reason. I feel like your view is the sort of a "paying your dues" view, but the people I know that take off quick find something substantive to do, learn a lot very quickly, and are off doing something better in rapid iterative succession. The strategy you're advocating sounds like a very long runway before takeoff.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  > The strategy you're advocating sounds like a very long runway before takeoff. It's on-the-job training. Whether it happens quickly depends on the industry. And the current employment problem doesn't revolve about well spoken people who regularly read tech blogs. The unemployed are disproportionately young, make, and under-educated. I'm saying a feasible way to get the retrained is to make it easier for them to find an occupation in booming industries. We need to get the point where employers can think, "Why not? Let's give him a shot and ramp up his salary if he's any good." when an unproven young guy applies for a job. Right now, that doesn't make any sense because hiring him is too expensive. So you get situations where they give fewer hours to avoid providing expensive benefits, etc.
  - SapphireSun 11y ago
    I think you do have something there, but that only works if the manager has discretion to do so. For instance, at a mom & pop shop that's clearly possible. However, if wages are pegged by HQ and there aren't slots to move someone up, this sounds like a waste of time. The employee is only getting the pay and time spent flipping burgers out of it.
ryandrake 11y ago
There's no wage too low that _someone_ won't take it. The only limits we have are minimum wage and public assistance. Without those, if employers offered $0.10/hr, people would be still lined for blocks to take the job when the alternative is nothing. Longer-term payoff is meaningless when you can't meet your short-term goal of eating.
- coolnow 11y ago
  "$0.10/hr, people would be still lined for blocks to take the job when the alternative is nothing." Are you serious? You could find more money on the floor than work at a job like that.
  - serge2k 11y ago
    No, he's right. Of course we call places that pay like that sweatshops. Let's just start paying people in company scrip.

SapphireSun 11y ago

eh... I never flipped burgers and I got a good job. There are more ways to demonstrate worth than simply being present and wasting your time. It's more important to open useful doors to people than it is to make them do robotic work for no reason. I feel like your view is the sort of a "paying your dues" view, but the people I know that take off quick find something substantive to do, learn a lot very quickly, and are off doing something better in rapid iterative succession. The strategy you're advocating sounds like a very long runway before takeoff.

humanrebar 11y ago
> The strategy you're advocating sounds like a very long runway before takeoff. It's on-the-job training. Whether it happens quickly depends on the industry. And the current employment problem doesn't revolve about well spoken people who regularly read tech blogs. The unemployed are disproportionately young, make, and under-educated. I'm saying a feasible way to get the retrained is to make it easier for them to find an occupation in booming industries. We need to get the point where employers can think, "Why not? Let's give him a shot and ramp up his salary if he's any good." when an unproven young guy applies for a job. Right now, that doesn't make any sense because hiring him is too expensive. So you get situations where they give fewer hours to avoid providing expensive benefits, etc.
- SapphireSun 11y ago
  I think you do have something there, but that only works if the manager has discretion to do so. For instance, at a mom & pop shop that's clearly possible. However, if wages are pegged by HQ and there aren't slots to move someone up, this sounds like a waste of time. The employee is only getting the pay and time spent flipping burgers out of it.

ryandrake 11y ago

There's no wage too low that _someone_ won't take it. The only limits we have are minimum wage and public assistance. Without those, if employers offered $0.10/hr, people would be still lined for blocks to take the job when the alternative is nothing. Longer-term payoff is meaningless when you can't meet your short-term goal of eating.

coolnow 11y ago
"$0.10/hr, people would be still lined for blocks to take the job when the alternative is nothing." Are you serious? You could find more money on the floor than work at a job like that.
- serge2k 11y ago
  No, he's right. Of course we call places that pay like that sweatshops. Let's just start paying people in company scrip.