A Week in the Life of a McDonald’s Cashier(vice.com)
vice.com
A Week in the Life of a McDonald’s Cashier
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zmjjnj/how-i-get-by-a-week-in-the-life-of-a-mcdonalds-cashier
750 comments
>I often work with people who have never worked such jobs. They're upset that they're 'overworked' and spend their time in the fancy break room with all the perks. Many I suspect have no clue.
Not that it's a realistic idea but damn if everyone had experiencing working in the demanding, underpaid, crappy jobs in the service industry, we might be more empathetic and better off as a whole.
Not that it's a realistic idea but damn if everyone had experiencing working in the demanding, underpaid, crappy jobs in the service industry, we might be more empathetic and better off as a whole.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. Everybody needs a &^%$ job once in a while to reset their empathy scale.
Walmart does something interesting for their software development process. Say a developer is working on a warehouse automation system -- that dev. is then trained and works in the warehouse for a month. Same goes for checkout/cashier, or customer service, or whatever. You WORK that job for a month and you'll understand just how trying it can be to struggle with lousy software on top of a sometimes difficult public. You'll know the trouble spots and the workarounds, and can take that education back to a nice safe quiet desk where you can then go on to help solve the problems.
Walmart does something interesting for their software development process. Say a developer is working on a warehouse automation system -- that dev. is then trained and works in the warehouse for a month. Same goes for checkout/cashier, or customer service, or whatever. You WORK that job for a month and you'll understand just how trying it can be to struggle with lousy software on top of a sometimes difficult public. You'll know the trouble spots and the workarounds, and can take that education back to a nice safe quiet desk where you can then go on to help solve the problems.
I think this is a phenomenal idea. The last project I worked on was designed to look good in a demo or on mocks but not really to be usable.
I was constantly asking our designers and PMs to try using our product as a user might. I'd write up little scenarios that I knew our users struggled with and invite people to try them out with our product.
Sadly, I found it impossible to persuade anybody to design for anything except what looks good on a presentation of UX mocks.
I was constantly asking our designers and PMs to try using our product as a user might. I'd write up little scenarios that I knew our users struggled with and invite people to try them out with our product.
Sadly, I found it impossible to persuade anybody to design for anything except what looks good on a presentation of UX mocks.
I begged to job shadow the future users of my software at my last job and I was told there not enough time.We are all too busy. Keep your head down. Do what you're told.
But I'll be able to understand their job better and what the software really needs to do to make than more efficient and productive. They'll appreciate that and be more likely to buy in and adapt to the product they'll be using.
That's not your job. Your job is to implement the features you're told to implement.
But the users saw those features and said that is not what they asked for.
So? Why do you care if the project fails? It's not on you if it fails. Just do what the BA's said to do.
Boss, they aren't translating the business needs correctly. We have to rebuild features 2 or 3 or 4 times. Is we could see what they do and talk to them it'd only take once. That's happened a couple times during user acceptance. They said that's not what what we asked for. I said what did you ask for? I coded it right there on the spot and they signed off on the user story.
Go back to work. I'm busy. This isn't a productive conversation.
But I'll be able to understand their job better and what the software really needs to do to make than more efficient and productive. They'll appreciate that and be more likely to buy in and adapt to the product they'll be using.
That's not your job. Your job is to implement the features you're told to implement.
But the users saw those features and said that is not what they asked for.
So? Why do you care if the project fails? It's not on you if it fails. Just do what the BA's said to do.
Boss, they aren't translating the business needs correctly. We have to rebuild features 2 or 3 or 4 times. Is we could see what they do and talk to them it'd only take once. That's happened a couple times during user acceptance. They said that's not what what we asked for. I said what did you ask for? I coded it right there on the spot and they signed off on the user story.
Go back to work. I'm busy. This isn't a productive conversation.
> Everybody needs a &^%$ job once in a while to reset their empathy scale.
Imho that's trying to solve a symptom, not the actual problem.
Why does society tolerate &^%$ jobs in the first place? Why not strive to make jobs non-&^%$?
Instead, it somehow has become completely normalized that these kinds of jobs exist, and anybody who doesn't want to work them is considered "too entitled", which all goes back to this notion of "work as a virtue".
And while the idea that this experience might help change something from the desk job, the reality is most people will just be glad to be having their desk job, with a lot having a mindset of "I went through the &^%$ jobs to get here, everybody else should have to suffer like I did!".
Imho that's trying to solve a symptom, not the actual problem.
Why does society tolerate &^%$ jobs in the first place? Why not strive to make jobs non-&^%$?
Instead, it somehow has become completely normalized that these kinds of jobs exist, and anybody who doesn't want to work them is considered "too entitled", which all goes back to this notion of "work as a virtue".
And while the idea that this experience might help change something from the desk job, the reality is most people will just be glad to be having their desk job, with a lot having a mindset of "I went through the &^%$ jobs to get here, everybody else should have to suffer like I did!".
> Why does society tolerate &^%$ jobs in the first place? Why not strive to make jobs non-&^%$?
We do strive, which is why we have non-shit jobs now. After the advent of agriculture, overwhelming majority of people has worked mundane, tiring, repetitive and straining jobs. It’s only recent increases in technology allowed us to produce immense amounts of wealth, finally allowing huge swaths of population to enjoy light, interesting and fun jobs. We still have lots of shit jobs out there, but don’t worry, we’re working on that.
We do strive, which is why we have non-shit jobs now. After the advent of agriculture, overwhelming majority of people has worked mundane, tiring, repetitive and straining jobs. It’s only recent increases in technology allowed us to produce immense amounts of wealth, finally allowing huge swaths of population to enjoy light, interesting and fun jobs. We still have lots of shit jobs out there, but don’t worry, we’re working on that.
We should pay the most for those jobs. Instead those who move money from this account to that account our convince people to spend more money than they need to make the most. Fake work.
As radical as this sounds, there might actually be something to it.
Service and social jobs are usually those "closest to the base", being in constant contact with people from all walks of life, while at the same time usually the least well paid.
That's a lot of exposure compared to many other jobs, in particular, desk jobs and pretty much most management and executive positions.
Imho the importance of such real in flesh contact to other people, across peer groups, is vastly underestimated these days.
The ever-present social media gives digitally affine people often the misleading idea they can find everybody, with all their issues and opinions, online but from my experience that just holds not true.
There's plenty of people out there that don't even know what Facebook is, as unbelievable as that might sound.
Service and social jobs are usually those "closest to the base", being in constant contact with people from all walks of life, while at the same time usually the least well paid.
That's a lot of exposure compared to many other jobs, in particular, desk jobs and pretty much most management and executive positions.
Imho the importance of such real in flesh contact to other people, across peer groups, is vastly underestimated these days.
The ever-present social media gives digitally affine people often the misleading idea they can find everybody, with all their issues and opinions, online but from my experience that just holds not true.
There's plenty of people out there that don't even know what Facebook is, as unbelievable as that might sound.
Hypothesis: McDonald's pays brilliant automation or engineering type minds to do difficult to automate work like we are discussing here. Big salaries. Only part time. The other half is spent on the engineering. Make these jobs sought after.
Slowly the org transitions to much higher paid people in these roles across the board.
I think part of it is mgmt types think they save money reducing wages for the most numerous type of employee and it creates a black hole race to the bottom.
High end restaurants have very well paid front of house because they have a financial incentive to perform. Cashiers don't.
Slowly the org transitions to much higher paid people in these roles across the board.
I think part of it is mgmt types think they save money reducing wages for the most numerous type of employee and it creates a black hole race to the bottom.
High end restaurants have very well paid front of house because they have a financial incentive to perform. Cashiers don't.
Because society has evolved to consider the economic aspirations of people who own stuff to be a higher order virtue than liberty or the public welfare.
> society has evolved
Can you point to any point in human history (since the invention of farming) in which a smaller fraction of people worked menial jobs than now?
Can you point to any point in human history (since the invention of farming) in which a smaller fraction of people worked menial jobs than now?
By some definitions I would consider subsistence farming a much more meaningful job than what tens of millions of Americans are doing now - middle management, financial advisory, advertising, bureaucracy (medical, managerial, political, regulatory, etc), legal discovery, data entry, tax accountants (which only exist because Turbotax bribes the government to keep taxes broken), and many more.
There are tons and tons of bullshit jobs that don't produce anything valuable, don't fulfill anyones need to have a meaningful life, but somehow keep butts in seats often at keyboards getting paid to justify someone elses jobs existence.
There is a reason why job satisfaction is abysmal, why depression and opioid abuse is rampant, and why those weren't as large problems two centuries ago when people were almost universally subsistence farmers. The labor wasn't easy but it always justified itself to those doing the work (assuming it was your own farm, growing your own food, which was and has always been pretty rare). You knew why it had to be done, something lacking in many modern careers.
There are tons and tons of bullshit jobs that don't produce anything valuable, don't fulfill anyones need to have a meaningful life, but somehow keep butts in seats often at keyboards getting paid to justify someone elses jobs existence.
There is a reason why job satisfaction is abysmal, why depression and opioid abuse is rampant, and why those weren't as large problems two centuries ago when people were almost universally subsistence farmers. The labor wasn't easy but it always justified itself to those doing the work (assuming it was your own farm, growing your own food, which was and has always been pretty rare). You knew why it had to be done, something lacking in many modern careers.
This is where there's a kind of evolutionary gap that comes into play. Sitting in front of a screen for 40+ hours a week, and spending additional time at the screen for recreation doesn't seem conducive to good mental or physical health.
Shit jobs aren't synonymous to menial jobs. Shit jobs are ones where you suffer physically and mentally, and that suffering usually has little to do with actual job responsibilities, and more with a shitty boss (manager or entrepreneur) treating you like a consumable and trying to optimize you.
E.g. flipping burgers at McDonald's isn't a shitty job because you're flipping burgers; it's a shitty job because you are paid badly, made to work much faster than it's healthy, and the management is shitty to you both personally and structurally, in how they plan the shifts, etc.
I'd argue that any shitty job could have a non-shitty variant with mostly the same tasks and responsibilities, and only the conditions changed. Which leads me to the answer to your question: anywhere between invention of agriculture and the industrial revolution, or perhaps even up to XIX century. Even when people toiled on farms, to then give most of it away to some nobles with swords, at least they weren't micromanaged day-in, day-out by said nobles.
E.g. flipping burgers at McDonald's isn't a shitty job because you're flipping burgers; it's a shitty job because you are paid badly, made to work much faster than it's healthy, and the management is shitty to you both personally and structurally, in how they plan the shifts, etc.
I'd argue that any shitty job could have a non-shitty variant with mostly the same tasks and responsibilities, and only the conditions changed. Which leads me to the answer to your question: anywhere between invention of agriculture and the industrial revolution, or perhaps even up to XIX century. Even when people toiled on farms, to then give most of it away to some nobles with swords, at least they weren't micromanaged day-in, day-out by said nobles.
The uncomfortable truth here is that foodservice/retail managers are also relatively low paid low skilled jobs and therefore have a tendency towards being populated by people without the skills to humanely manage their employees and employer.
One step up, the corporate managers putting the pressure on the local managers are themselves pressured by market conditions to cut cost and drive efficiency. And who drives those market conditions? You and I, my friend. We like cheap stuff. The consequence is that others suffer.
One step up, the corporate managers putting the pressure on the local managers are themselves pressured by market conditions to cut cost and drive efficiency. And who drives those market conditions? You and I, my friend. We like cheap stuff. The consequence is that others suffer.
That's why I don't believe unregulated markets are be-all and end-all. These feedback loops are stronger than any one of us, the lowly worker and the lofty manager alike, they'll eventually grind us all to dust if we let them. Brakes must be put, because humans can't survive a perfectly efficient economy.
Menial or low skilled work doesn’t have to be a “shit job”. They are that way because society allows them to be.
I worked on a farm throwing hay. It’s literally backbreaking work, but I had an awesome employer who thought about safety and making for a better workplace. If Amazon were running that farm, I’d be crippled by debilitating pain today.
I worked on a farm throwing hay. It’s literally backbreaking work, but I had an awesome employer who thought about safety and making for a better workplace. If Amazon were running that farm, I’d be crippled by debilitating pain today.
They were saying that people complaining about their good job and how they were overworked had never worked a shit job. If you eliminate the shit jobs, people will still complain.
So are you saying that we shouldn’t have any jobs like the ones at McDonalds, the convenience store, etc?
It's pretty obvious that @freeflight mean these jobs don't necessarily have to be shit.
They can be low / lower pay and still be a fairly reasonable place to work with fairly reasonable people to work with.
But, if we accept that work conditions fit some kind of natural distribution / bell curve, it's probably unrealistic to believe there will be no shit jobs.
They can be low / lower pay and still be a fairly reasonable place to work with fairly reasonable people to work with.
But, if we accept that work conditions fit some kind of natural distribution / bell curve, it's probably unrealistic to believe there will be no shit jobs.
He's saying that those jobs at McDonalds etc should be made easier on the employees.
I believe they're saying that we, as a society, could make some effort to make those jobs less soul-sucking.
This is going to be fun when we realize that all jobs are shit jobs. :-)
Because people with &^%$ jobs have basically no say in or power over how production/"the economy" is run.
Recently I had to try to do a task using our software because the person that normally uses it was not available. The process sucked and I quickly made changes to make it much more useable. The person was nearly in tears after trying my fixes. I asked the person why they never said anything and they said they thought it would be too hard to fix (it wasn't) and that I always seemed busy so they didn't want to bother me.
...and imagine if the moonlighting software devs were only getting paid what the warehouse workers were receiving, instead of their normal developer pay.. the work becomes a lot "harder" / more thankless when your pay is 1/3 or 1/4 as much.
Add on the stress of wondering where your next meal is coming from, or how you're going to pay rent this month... every day, for the rest of your life, and your quality of life sinks dramatically.
Yeah this stuff literally changes your life in pretty much every aspect. I have personally observed the shift in peoples' way of living and thinking as they move from one financial situation to another, whether upward or downward. I try to regularly reflect on my situation and recognize how comparatively lucky I am to be in the position I am in, and how it's never "set in stone".
I've been in a weird variant of that for 16 years: I've had crippling anxiety that today might be the day that my computer dies. Try as I might, I cannot shake it - because it's not an irrational fear.
I simply look at eBay and see the $200-$400 price tags to replace my current machine (10-year old ThinkPad T400) and try not to cry. (This one was given to me by a friend)
I found an 800MHz AMD Duron with 128MB RAM on the side of the road in 2013. Browsing the web on that box was fun, even after maxing out the RAM with everything in the house and getting it up to 320MB.
In 2005 I was running a 66MHz 486DX2 with 8MB of free diskspace (oh and 4MB RAM).
The outlier was the Pentium 4 I used for a bit in 2006 - it had a crippled motherboard that couldn't do DMA to the HDD, only PIO, so the cursor would freeze if anything was accessing the HDD even for a fraction of a second. This was the Firefox 2.x era, so with 512MB of RAM I was mostly staring at "Task Manager (Not Responding)" instead of doing anything useful.
My point with all this: it has taken me about 20 years to realize that my general lack of success at mastering computer science wasn't entirely due to the learning difficulties and other mental health issues preventing me from holding down a traditional job - it was access to sane equipment.
I have had the ABSOLUTE HARDEST TIME EVER (emphasis appropriate and necessary) to FORCE myself to do ANYTHING with computers beyond what I'd describe "theoretical learning". "But what if I start this project and the computer dies tomorrow?????" is what a part of my head sort of screams/cries out anytime I have a new idea (with that many anxious questionmarks).
Unresolvable problem, currently. And an interesting one, too, since if I _could_ start a project, and hold it together, I might actually be able to get somewhere and move up.
...Except for the fact that the disability support I'm currently eligible for only recognizes casual/part time work payment structures, not bulk post-payment consulting/bug-bounty up-front types of remuneration, which is the type of thing I have any confidence in my abilities with. (Since I can cram and do the work in a sprint, then run away and have a break for a million years afterwards.)
So yeah, I am practically disabled because of how my mental health issues are classified, not directly because of the issues themselves (which have an impact but do leave me with some level of functionality which I am unable to effectively use).
I simply look at eBay and see the $200-$400 price tags to replace my current machine (10-year old ThinkPad T400) and try not to cry. (This one was given to me by a friend)
I found an 800MHz AMD Duron with 128MB RAM on the side of the road in 2013. Browsing the web on that box was fun, even after maxing out the RAM with everything in the house and getting it up to 320MB.
In 2005 I was running a 66MHz 486DX2 with 8MB of free diskspace (oh and 4MB RAM).
The outlier was the Pentium 4 I used for a bit in 2006 - it had a crippled motherboard that couldn't do DMA to the HDD, only PIO, so the cursor would freeze if anything was accessing the HDD even for a fraction of a second. This was the Firefox 2.x era, so with 512MB of RAM I was mostly staring at "Task Manager (Not Responding)" instead of doing anything useful.
My point with all this: it has taken me about 20 years to realize that my general lack of success at mastering computer science wasn't entirely due to the learning difficulties and other mental health issues preventing me from holding down a traditional job - it was access to sane equipment.
I have had the ABSOLUTE HARDEST TIME EVER (emphasis appropriate and necessary) to FORCE myself to do ANYTHING with computers beyond what I'd describe "theoretical learning". "But what if I start this project and the computer dies tomorrow?????" is what a part of my head sort of screams/cries out anytime I have a new idea (with that many anxious questionmarks).
Unresolvable problem, currently. And an interesting one, too, since if I _could_ start a project, and hold it together, I might actually be able to get somewhere and move up.
...Except for the fact that the disability support I'm currently eligible for only recognizes casual/part time work payment structures, not bulk post-payment consulting/bug-bounty up-front types of remuneration, which is the type of thing I have any confidence in my abilities with. (Since I can cram and do the work in a sprint, then run away and have a break for a million years afterwards.)
So yeah, I am practically disabled because of how my mental health issues are classified, not directly because of the issues themselves (which have an impact but do leave me with some level of functionality which I am unable to effectively use).
Guess you never tried upwork. Lucky to get warehouse worker salary.
Man I wish I could do the job for the software I wrote more often.
That probabbly explains why there are such great free development tools out there too ;)
That probabbly explains why there are such great free development tools out there too ;)
Working a shit job only produces empathy if the external consequences are similar: no savings, no disposable income, poverty, etc. You don’t need that extreme to have high empathy, such as understanding context and limitations. Some people just aren’t good at empathy and even that scenario wouldn’t help. This is also complicated in that many people cannot differentiate empathy from sympathy.
* empathy - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy
* sympathy - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathy
* empathy - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy
* sympathy - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathy
I did it in my first engineering job (mechanical) I would take training on all the manufacturing methods riveting, soldering, wire tracing. I was lucky that my group didn't want to train but we had a group average to hit, so I got to do all of it.
Definitely a good idea. Apparently some of the top architecture schools do this as well. They'll make students cook for everyone in a kitchen for a couple of weeks with the assumption that you won't be able to design a kitchen if you haven't really worked in one.
Same should apply for software as well imo.
Same should apply for software as well imo.
That's a great idea. Buffer, the social media automation tool, does (or did) something similar. IIRC, every new employee spent a week doing customer support. Doing customer support work is a really good way to figure out customers issues & pain points very quickly.
I work on software for datacenter server technicians and try and spend a week every quarter on the floor doing their job, honestly find it one of the most enjoyably aspects to my role
I love this. The best software is created by people who intimately understand and live the problem it’s trying to solve. A+
You can tell who was born with a silver spoon in their mouth by their response to this. The "why can't we just make all jobs great forever" responses crack me up. It's classic virtue signalling by liberal elites: demand that life be a perfect fantasy land for everyone, then put forward zero realistic proposals to achieve it. Doesn't matter that it will never happen because you've already gained your social capital with your circle of people who think and act just like you.
It seems to me like it used to be a lot more common for people to take up a "shitty" (e.g., low paying, menial, and hard) job when they were young, to help pay their way through school, for some extra pocket money, etc. You would do this during the summers, or part-time, or both. This was just considered an ordinary part of life and a character building experience.
It seems like this experience is a lot less common now. In part because we're coddling our children and our young adults (hard work increasingly seems to be a dirty word and something no one should ever have to do), in part because we're handing off all the worst jobs to illegal immigrant labor.
I'm sure this will prompt some "ok boomer" type responses (I'm not that old btw) but that's just how it was when and where I grew up. I was expected to work and make money as soon as I was able, because my family wasn't rich. They were also super clear with me that there was no free rent after I turned 18, and that if I wanted to go to college I needed to pay for it myself. So this fantasy land "we'll have only perfect jobs for everyone and work will always be a fulfilling endeavor" crap does not connect with me and I suspect does not connect with 90% of Americans. It is popular with techno-fantasists who went to Stanford and work in SV and drink the kool-aid from their employer about how they are changing the world by optimizing the profitability of some billionaire's advertising inventory.
(None of this is to suggest that Cierra Brown's situation is fine and we don't need to change anything about the system btw! Biggest practical issues I saw in that article were that she doesn't have healthcare and she walks away from 2 weeks of work with only $215, something is very wrong there.)
It seems to me like it used to be a lot more common for people to take up a "shitty" (e.g., low paying, menial, and hard) job when they were young, to help pay their way through school, for some extra pocket money, etc. You would do this during the summers, or part-time, or both. This was just considered an ordinary part of life and a character building experience.
It seems like this experience is a lot less common now. In part because we're coddling our children and our young adults (hard work increasingly seems to be a dirty word and something no one should ever have to do), in part because we're handing off all the worst jobs to illegal immigrant labor.
I'm sure this will prompt some "ok boomer" type responses (I'm not that old btw) but that's just how it was when and where I grew up. I was expected to work and make money as soon as I was able, because my family wasn't rich. They were also super clear with me that there was no free rent after I turned 18, and that if I wanted to go to college I needed to pay for it myself. So this fantasy land "we'll have only perfect jobs for everyone and work will always be a fulfilling endeavor" crap does not connect with me and I suspect does not connect with 90% of Americans. It is popular with techno-fantasists who went to Stanford and work in SV and drink the kool-aid from their employer about how they are changing the world by optimizing the profitability of some billionaire's advertising inventory.
(None of this is to suggest that Cierra Brown's situation is fine and we don't need to change anything about the system btw! Biggest practical issues I saw in that article were that she doesn't have healthcare and she walks away from 2 weeks of work with only $215, something is very wrong there.)
I'm suspecting that you're picking up the wrong attitude here. We're not saying that all jobs should be chill and easy and "great forever". We're saying that they should be compensated properly. As a CS engineer, I'm fine with my salary being close to that of a less educated person, if his job is really hard and physically taxing.
It is funny that the dog whistle for conservatism these days are the immigrants whom are supposedly taking peoples jobs.
When the Reagan administration changed the regulations around meatpacking to break the unions and ship the industry back to 1910 standards to rural places, none of the principled conservatives were complaining about cheap meat packing and illegal workers who didn’t collect workers compensation or have pesky demands for health insurance.
Likewise, none of the large apple growers around me were too concerned about guest worker visas when they were able to hire on Jamaicans for a few months, house them in onsite dormitories and pay below market rates. They love to bitch about Mexican construction guys though.
When I worked in the mall in the 90s, the struggle of unskilled workers was obvious and sad. At that time, most workers made $4.25, and the barrier to moving up for folks not in college was a car. Getting a $12/hr job as a line cook at Pizza Uno or $15/hr job cleaning offices meant freedom for those people.
If labor standards didn’t allow the abysmal working conditions that only desperate Latin American or other immigrants are willing to take, the market would take care of that problem. Instead of shipping in Apple pickers from 4,000 miles away, you could hire folks 10 miles away and bus them in.
When the Reagan administration changed the regulations around meatpacking to break the unions and ship the industry back to 1910 standards to rural places, none of the principled conservatives were complaining about cheap meat packing and illegal workers who didn’t collect workers compensation or have pesky demands for health insurance.
Likewise, none of the large apple growers around me were too concerned about guest worker visas when they were able to hire on Jamaicans for a few months, house them in onsite dormitories and pay below market rates. They love to bitch about Mexican construction guys though.
When I worked in the mall in the 90s, the struggle of unskilled workers was obvious and sad. At that time, most workers made $4.25, and the barrier to moving up for folks not in college was a car. Getting a $12/hr job as a line cook at Pizza Uno or $15/hr job cleaning offices meant freedom for those people.
If labor standards didn’t allow the abysmal working conditions that only desperate Latin American or other immigrants are willing to take, the market would take care of that problem. Instead of shipping in Apple pickers from 4,000 miles away, you could hire folks 10 miles away and bus them in.
> It is funny that the dog whistle for conservatism these days are the immigrants whom are supposedly taking peoples jobs.
You have this backwards. My point wasn't that immigrants are taking American jobs, it was that Americans are giving them these jobs because Americans are being lazy, soft and cheap.
The immigrant is not at fault. It seems like you're responding to Fox News talking points, not to me. I would suggest doing that on foxnews.com.
At no point did I suggest that better labor standards are a bad idea, but I did observe that anyone who thinks society will eliminate all the jobs Hacker News perceives as shitty is drinking a lot of kool-aid.
You have this backwards. My point wasn't that immigrants are taking American jobs, it was that Americans are giving them these jobs because Americans are being lazy, soft and cheap.
The immigrant is not at fault. It seems like you're responding to Fox News talking points, not to me. I would suggest doing that on foxnews.com.
At no point did I suggest that better labor standards are a bad idea, but I did observe that anyone who thinks society will eliminate all the jobs Hacker News perceives as shitty is drinking a lot of kool-aid.
> You have this backwards. My point wasn't that immigrants are taking American jobs, it was that Americans are giving them these jobs because Americans are being lazy, soft and cheap.
Don't blame the American who doesn't want to do back-breaking work for pennies. It's the same everywhere: for example, Finland imports seasonal berry pickers from Thailand.
No sane local wants to work on the rates the market is willing to pay; mechanised agriculture has pushed the prices low enough to make manual agricultural work simply unsustainable. To make local work profitable we'd need to radically raise the product prices or provide subsidies.
Don't blame the American who doesn't want to do back-breaking work for pennies. It's the same everywhere: for example, Finland imports seasonal berry pickers from Thailand.
No sane local wants to work on the rates the market is willing to pay; mechanised agriculture has pushed the prices low enough to make manual agricultural work simply unsustainable. To make local work profitable we'd need to radically raise the product prices or provide subsidies.
To the extent that America is still a representative democracy, Americans are responsible for importing workers who have limited rights and no representation (they can't vote, they can't contact law enforcement for help, etc).
These problems can be solved in other ways. A real world solution probably involves some workers getting paid less than they would like, and some businesses paying higher wages than they want to.
The least moral solution is to develop an illegal underclass and deny them human and political rights. This sort of thing is cancerous for a democracy and bears an unsettling resemblance to one of America's original sins, one which I'm sure I don't need to name directly, but which we knew was wrong from day one, and which we spent a lot of blood and treasure to abolish.
These problems can be solved in other ways. A real world solution probably involves some workers getting paid less than they would like, and some businesses paying higher wages than they want to.
The least moral solution is to develop an illegal underclass and deny them human and political rights. This sort of thing is cancerous for a democracy and bears an unsettling resemblance to one of America's original sins, one which I'm sure I don't need to name directly, but which we knew was wrong from day one, and which we spent a lot of blood and treasure to abolish.
On this I agree. In Finland the seasonal workers do have strong protections, and recently some witnesses were flown in from Thailand to testify in a court case against one of the exploiting employers. The rules and regulations are thankfully strong and enforced in most of Europe; they definitely can contact the police.
I'm not sure how to react to cases where this is true but the seasonal workers still see it as a good source of income. Would the market bear the increased cost? Likely not. Avocados would be imported in the US, and in Finland berries would disappear as an industry ingredient as there are no low-cost countries with climate suitable for cultivation.
I'm not sure how to react to cases where this is true but the seasonal workers still see it as a good source of income. Would the market bear the increased cost? Likely not. Avocados would be imported in the US, and in Finland berries would disappear as an industry ingredient as there are no low-cost countries with climate suitable for cultivation.
This is an excellent policy. I think people should also be forced to live in a dangerous ghetto before voting to take away my guns and capital punishment. I wasn’t a staunch supporter of either of those things until I had experience with situations that they are relevant to.
Wanting guns to protect yourself with seems like a position that could come from this experience. Why capital punishment? IIRC it hasn't been shown to reduce crimes of passion, and there are other ways to keep dangerous people off the street, so I don't see how it follows. I'm not fundamentally opposed to capital punishment (though I recognise that it's more expensive than life in prison given the current system), I just don't see how it relates to living in a shitty area. I have lived in neighborhoods where I was accosted by strangers on a fairly regular basis, and those experiences have made me glad to own a firearm, but they haven't moved my views on capital punishment in either direction.
I'm not so sure about that. I worked in a takeout place for a few years, and it just made me a lot more cynical. the privileged and the poor seem to enjoy abusing service workers at about the same rate in my experience.
> the privileged and the poor seem to enjoy abusing service workers at about the same rate in my experience.
Agreed. When I worked retail and waiting jobs, I got grief from both out-of-touch wealthy people, and bitter poor people (although there were also kind people from both of those categories).
Agreed. When I worked retail and waiting jobs, I got grief from both out-of-touch wealthy people, and bitter poor people (although there were also kind people from both of those categories).
interestingly, I did identify one group of people who were consistently great customers. every construction worker who walked through the door treated us with respect and always tipped, even for carry-out. not sure why exactly, but I appreciated it.
Then you were lucky.
Myself, and I suspect most people, I got grief from everyone.
Poor.
Middle Class.
Wealthy.
Those with accents.
Those without accents.
White.
Black.
Tall.
Short.
You name it. It's brutal if you have to work such jobs for a long time. (Like say, throughout high school and college.) A lot of people out there turn terrible as soon as they interact someone of lower status providing them a service. Even if you never make a mistake, you can't escape it. I remember a girl spilled a drink on the dress of some woman. Apparently the table was already bad, and it turned worse. Manager made me take the table. (Not proud about it, but I was the best doormat he had.) I don't even remember the rest of the night, but I remember that table. Remember every face. They didn't even look like bad people either. That's what was so surprising. Man, that has stayed with me.
So if you only got grief from a few people, then you should thank your lucky stars. You got off easy.
Myself, and I suspect most people, I got grief from everyone.
Poor.
Middle Class.
Wealthy.
Those with accents.
Those without accents.
White.
Black.
Tall.
Short.
You name it. It's brutal if you have to work such jobs for a long time. (Like say, throughout high school and college.) A lot of people out there turn terrible as soon as they interact someone of lower status providing them a service. Even if you never make a mistake, you can't escape it. I remember a girl spilled a drink on the dress of some woman. Apparently the table was already bad, and it turned worse. Manager made me take the table. (Not proud about it, but I was the best doormat he had.) I don't even remember the rest of the night, but I remember that table. Remember every face. They didn't even look like bad people either. That's what was so surprising. Man, that has stayed with me.
So if you only got grief from a few people, then you should thank your lucky stars. You got off easy.
Please re-read my comment, because your response came across quite poorly. I didn't say I only got grief from a few people (quite the contrary!). Clearly you read into it what you wanted. Here's the gist of your response, without knowing anything about me or my background:
- "you were lucky."
- "thank your lucky stars"
- "You got off easy"
- "It's brutal if you have to work such jobs for a long time"
I worked retail, bused tables, and waited for almost 3 years full-time, and I'm certainly not claiming to have only gotten grief from a few people. I never said anything even remotely close to "few people" in my comment. I suggested that there was a trend to the people I got grief from, in agreement to the GP comment. Note: a trend, not an absolute cut-off.
In addition to the comment I was responding to, there are other comments in this thread making similar assertions, so I'm not the outlier here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21717225
- "you were lucky."
- "thank your lucky stars"
- "You got off easy"
- "It's brutal if you have to work such jobs for a long time"
I worked retail, bused tables, and waited for almost 3 years full-time, and I'm certainly not claiming to have only gotten grief from a few people. I never said anything even remotely close to "few people" in my comment. I suggested that there was a trend to the people I got grief from, in agreement to the GP comment. Note: a trend, not an absolute cut-off.
In addition to the comment I was responding to, there are other comments in this thread making similar assertions, so I'm not the outlier here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21717225
You might be disappointed. Sometimes the least sympathetic people are the ones that have been there before. Shared experiences don't necessarily translate into compassion.
It is the hazing mentality. "I had to survive through it and so should you." In the end, some people are just unsympathetic assholes regardless of their experience.
As someone who spent years working service jobs, it's more like - I know that you don't have to be an incompetent asshole just because you're running a cash register or whatever.
> Shared experiences don't necessarily translate into compassion.
Good point, it explains why well-traveled people often end up being insufferable racists.
Good point, it explains why well-traveled people often end up being insufferable racists.
I don't know if I agree. The idea seems to be "shut up about your 1st world problems. Try living in Somalia". https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as
On the other hand Sony Japan apparently has a policy where new employees fresh out of college (vs employees with previous work experience) are made to work 2 weeks in retail at an electronic store to get a taste of what it's like for actual customers. I ask some employees if they got any thing useful out of the experience. Most said no, it was just like getting hazed.
On the other hand Sony Japan apparently has a policy where new employees fresh out of college (vs employees with previous work experience) are made to work 2 weeks in retail at an electronic store to get a taste of what it's like for actual customers. I ask some employees if they got any thing useful out of the experience. Most said no, it was just like getting hazed.
I bring this up often with friends. I believe everyone should have to work a food service/retail job. It puts a lot of things in perspective. I feel like I am a better human, having worked many.
Fewer jobs for teens, fewer parents willing to 'allow' their kids to take a part-time job rather than participate in that additional extracurricular to give them a "leg up" in college admissions, school that's too expensive to afford on a part time income, all probably creates a feedback loop here. Nobody wants their kid working a crap job for life, so they do everything they can to keep them from that life, including any opportunity to even have a taste of it.
[deleted]
I’ve always thought that working in a retail/fastfood/service job of some kind should be a necessary requirement for graduating from childhood to adulthood.
I found it annoying to work in retail but I appreciate where I am now 1000x more.
You learn a lot of little things you can do to make the cashier's job easier.
My local store had a good sale on 12-packs of soda and so I decided to stock up with a dozen packs (I like a variety). I loaded them into my cart upside-down so the barcodes were facing up. The cashier just had to take the hand scanner and zap each one super easy and didn't have to lift any of them. It saved both of us time and effort and the cashier was extremely appreciative.
My local store had a good sale on 12-packs of soda and so I decided to stock up with a dozen packs (I like a variety). I loaded them into my cart upside-down so the barcodes were facing up. The cashier just had to take the hand scanner and zap each one super easy and didn't have to lift any of them. It saved both of us time and effort and the cashier was extremely appreciative.
Why is it not realistic?
Having worked several years in both retail and waiting/busing tables (full-time, not just as a part-time college job), I have a great deal of empathy for folks stuck in these minimum wage jobs.
That said, if I could get a retail job that paid what I make as a dev, I’d definitely consider it. Retail was grueling, but at the same time much less psychological pressure, and much less mentally exhausting.
I always say I’m not going to let my next dev job take over my life, and maintain work/life balance, and things always start out well. But inevitably, pressure builds, I cave, and things get bad again. I realize that I share the blame for this situation, but at the same time, this situation seems to be more common than not among software devs.
I never faced this kind of pressure in retail jobs. Work was grueling and at time abusive, but when the work day was over, I was 100% able to relax and forget about work. I struggle to do that with a software job.
But at the same time, my compensation is considerably higher than most other jobs. So I’m both grateful for my job and yet still wish there were another way. Like a part-time software development job, which seem to be unusually rare.
That said, if I could get a retail job that paid what I make as a dev, I’d definitely consider it. Retail was grueling, but at the same time much less psychological pressure, and much less mentally exhausting.
I always say I’m not going to let my next dev job take over my life, and maintain work/life balance, and things always start out well. But inevitably, pressure builds, I cave, and things get bad again. I realize that I share the blame for this situation, but at the same time, this situation seems to be more common than not among software devs.
I never faced this kind of pressure in retail jobs. Work was grueling and at time abusive, but when the work day was over, I was 100% able to relax and forget about work. I struggle to do that with a software job.
But at the same time, my compensation is considerably higher than most other jobs. So I’m both grateful for my job and yet still wish there were another way. Like a part-time software development job, which seem to be unusually rare.
It seems like the struggle for people in these jobs is mostly around the consistency in hours, and the miserly low pay. Both of which are deliberate choices by the firms that employ them.
To some degree, serving the "customer" by cutting labour costs to the bare minimum (as a way to minimize the cost of everything), means we create an awful existence for the people who depend on these jobs for a living. The tyranny of their lives is dictated by a consumer base who constantly demand lower prices and will shop elsewhere to save a dollar or two.
I worked in a supermarket for four years, but it was part time, while I was in High School and in my first year of University. I didn't need the money in the way someone working full time needed it. I was given consistent hours every week.
Working retail for a modest wage (say $25 an hour), with consistent hours would be a really great career for a huge swathe of the population. Lots of people (myself included) enjoy interacting with people all day.
A lot of more traditional professions have a better balance between physical work and mental work (skilled crafts, engineering in the traditional sense, or being a doctor all come to mind). Modern knowledge work doesn't have enough physical movement involved.
I wouldn't like to do it full time, but sometimes I wish I could spend 20% of my time doing something enjoyable but menial like stacking shelves. I think I'd hate doing it full time, but one day a week? Practically sounds like fun!
To some degree, serving the "customer" by cutting labour costs to the bare minimum (as a way to minimize the cost of everything), means we create an awful existence for the people who depend on these jobs for a living. The tyranny of their lives is dictated by a consumer base who constantly demand lower prices and will shop elsewhere to save a dollar or two.
I worked in a supermarket for four years, but it was part time, while I was in High School and in my first year of University. I didn't need the money in the way someone working full time needed it. I was given consistent hours every week.
Working retail for a modest wage (say $25 an hour), with consistent hours would be a really great career for a huge swathe of the population. Lots of people (myself included) enjoy interacting with people all day.
A lot of more traditional professions have a better balance between physical work and mental work (skilled crafts, engineering in the traditional sense, or being a doctor all come to mind). Modern knowledge work doesn't have enough physical movement involved.
I wouldn't like to do it full time, but sometimes I wish I could spend 20% of my time doing something enjoyable but menial like stacking shelves. I think I'd hate doing it full time, but one day a week? Practically sounds like fun!
I am with you on:
* not having to cut labor to the minimum as a basic value
* sooo many jobs would be unobjectionable at 8 hours per week. Almost any job.
* professions should be designed to balance physical and mental labor, particularly to offer breaks from painful standing.
I am not with you on:
* Giving people 167% of the average hourly wage for an easy job like retail. As a society, we do not _want_ retail to be a great career. You don't develop the job skills or provide the same value as jobs that are more challenging, and the more valuable things you could have produced are lost. Retail should pay less than other jobs, _because_ it's more fun to interact with people all day than to work at a hot grill.
* not having to cut labor to the minimum as a basic value
* sooo many jobs would be unobjectionable at 8 hours per week. Almost any job.
* professions should be designed to balance physical and mental labor, particularly to offer breaks from painful standing.
I am not with you on:
* Giving people 167% of the average hourly wage for an easy job like retail. As a society, we do not _want_ retail to be a great career. You don't develop the job skills or provide the same value as jobs that are more challenging, and the more valuable things you could have produced are lost. Retail should pay less than other jobs, _because_ it's more fun to interact with people all day than to work at a hot grill.
A poverty wage like the one company's pay many people keeps people trapped in jobs like cashier at mcdonalds.
When you are that poor, you need every hour of work you can get to make rent, buy food etc. You can't take time off to interview for a better job, or to study for a new career. You are stressed from a thousand extra decisions about money that the cushion of a little extra cash could save you. Also you are one emergency or injury or illness away from losing your apartment, or going hungry.
That's why advocates call for a living wage, a wage that people can make enough to live on. If they have the capability to do more, then that gives them a better chance to achieve it.
Though there will still need to be people working retail.
As for how fun it is to interact with people... that definitely depends on who you are and who you are interacting with. If you know someone working retail, ask them how it is.
When you are that poor, you need every hour of work you can get to make rent, buy food etc. You can't take time off to interview for a better job, or to study for a new career. You are stressed from a thousand extra decisions about money that the cushion of a little extra cash could save you. Also you are one emergency or injury or illness away from losing your apartment, or going hungry.
That's why advocates call for a living wage, a wage that people can make enough to live on. If they have the capability to do more, then that gives them a better chance to achieve it.
Though there will still need to be people working retail.
As for how fun it is to interact with people... that definitely depends on who you are and who you are interacting with. If you know someone working retail, ask them how it is.
100%. One of the things you that happens when you have an emergency fund is that emergencies don't happen so often. This isn't the case when you're trying to get $3.50 to last till payday.
I'm not advocating for any specific policy change (although I think minimum wage should be raised and indexed to inflation), but rather am talking about cultural changes that need to be addressed.
Broadly, as a society, we want people to have jobs that pay them enough to survive, and with enough margin to do other stuff. Not everything can (or should) tie back to economic value. Otherwise we end up cutting off our noses to spite our own faces, as we focus on the short term rather than the long term health of a wider community.
More than anything, we want to reward diligence, professionalism and effort, in whatever form that might take.
Broadly, as a society, we want people to have jobs that pay them enough to survive, and with enough margin to do other stuff. Not everything can (or should) tie back to economic value. Otherwise we end up cutting off our noses to spite our own faces, as we focus on the short term rather than the long term health of a wider community.
More than anything, we want to reward diligence, professionalism and effort, in whatever form that might take.
I'm increasingly of the view that we should have brakes on economic efficiency. The basic human values - friendliness, compassion, fairness, kindness, justice - they all wither and die when a business gets too efficient. They get optimized away in pursuit of that little extra margin.
Part of the reason software jobs are nice and comfortable is of course the pay and the agency, both coming from demand exceeding supply. But a big part of it is also, IMO, that it's impossible to tell how much contribution to the bottomline a developer has on a day-to-day, or hour-to-hour basis. When my coworker and I start talking shit on the job, does that contribute positively or negatively to the ultimate productivity? By how much? Nobody can tell, which is why we can get away with it.
Conversely, in retail or fast-food joints, you can track people's contribution to the bottom line at minute resolution. Which is why they're being treated like slave labor.
Part of the reason software jobs are nice and comfortable is of course the pay and the agency, both coming from demand exceeding supply. But a big part of it is also, IMO, that it's impossible to tell how much contribution to the bottomline a developer has on a day-to-day, or hour-to-hour basis. When my coworker and I start talking shit on the job, does that contribute positively or negatively to the ultimate productivity? By how much? Nobody can tell, which is why we can get away with it.
Conversely, in retail or fast-food joints, you can track people's contribution to the bottom line at minute resolution. Which is why they're being treated like slave labor.
Actually, we do want retail to be a great career. Lots of great careers pay little: Pre-K teachers usually make just over minimum wage in the US, despite needing a 2-year degree to do the job. But it is rewarding and fufilling.
And everyone needs to shop. Retail isn't just interacting with people all day: You are filing shelves. Sometimes you are a pharmacist or a pharmacy tech. Sometimes you are doing payroll or managing. Sometimes you are ordering product.
You are also cleaning up the shit someone smeared on the wall of the bathroom and the puke the kid left in the isle. There is no real way around that.
Not everyone thinks it is more fun to interact with people all day long. I'd argue that most factory work - lots of which is paid fairly well, comparatively - takes no more intelligence or training or knowledge than retail. In both, once you have experience, you can get another job. Same for call centers... which again, are usually paid better than retail or fast food (yet still treated poorly). I don't know why retail should pay less than these sorts of jobs. Most folks just wind up with retail jobs because that's what they started with and it is hard to get out of the cycle.
And everyone needs to shop. Retail isn't just interacting with people all day: You are filing shelves. Sometimes you are a pharmacist or a pharmacy tech. Sometimes you are doing payroll or managing. Sometimes you are ordering product.
You are also cleaning up the shit someone smeared on the wall of the bathroom and the puke the kid left in the isle. There is no real way around that.
Not everyone thinks it is more fun to interact with people all day long. I'd argue that most factory work - lots of which is paid fairly well, comparatively - takes no more intelligence or training or knowledge than retail. In both, once you have experience, you can get another job. Same for call centers... which again, are usually paid better than retail or fast food (yet still treated poorly). I don't know why retail should pay less than these sorts of jobs. Most folks just wind up with retail jobs because that's what they started with and it is hard to get out of the cycle.
I do want retail to be rewarding and fulfilling, just not a smart career move that makes you lots of money. I want ambitious, motivated people becoming my coworkers and bosses, not doing retail for fun.
I don't like interacting with people but it is way more cushy than the factory work I did for fifteen years. I guess you're right about not taking more intelligence or training, but it takes so much more physical stamina and risk of accident.
I don't like interacting with people but it is way more cushy than the factory work I did for fifteen years. I guess you're right about not taking more intelligence or training, but it takes so much more physical stamina and risk of accident.
No, it doesn't take more or less physical stamina. Like factory work, it varies depending on location and the job for the day. Factory work is hardly ambitious either - most folks know that is a dead end job that isn't going to go anywhere. I've found more chances for this stuff in retail.
Most folks don't do retail for fun. Those that do will also do a number of other part-time jobs for fun or whatever reason. Most folks working retail, though, are doing it to eat and pay rent. Sometimes having a flexible schedule is necessary. A great number of places have chances to move into management, sometimes moving out of poverty wages.
None of this means the folks aren't ambitious or motivated. You simply don't recognise it as such because they are doing what you consider to be a "lower" job or not doing enough to meet your personal criteria.
Most folks don't do retail for fun. Those that do will also do a number of other part-time jobs for fun or whatever reason. Most folks working retail, though, are doing it to eat and pay rent. Sometimes having a flexible schedule is necessary. A great number of places have chances to move into management, sometimes moving out of poverty wages.
None of this means the folks aren't ambitious or motivated. You simply don't recognise it as such because they are doing what you consider to be a "lower" job or not doing enough to meet your personal criteria.
I didn't work in an assembly-line kind of factory, I worked in light manufacturing. That builds a ton of interpersonal and "conflict-with-reality" type skills, such as disagreements over quality and wrangling cranky machines. Retail was not nearly as challenging.
I will grant you that selling garden soil might be as physically demanding as working in a factory, and miles walked could add up too. But I never woke up in retail wondering if I'd be physically able to continue working my job much longer because of the wear and tear.
There's a reason every rich country got there by manufacturing and not retail, and in part it's that you don't build human capital by sitting in a chair scanning price tags. Manufacturing productivity increases steadily so workers have to become steadily more skillful to keep up. It's also far from a dead-end job, as productivity is easily measured and the cream can rise.
People in retail can be ambitious and talented, but their talents are wasted there. We can't get every ambitious, motivated person out of retail and into the job where they would do the most good just by offering them money, because money isn't everything. But we can avoid screwing things up by _pushing_ those people into jobs where their talents are wasted, by offering them too much money. I've worked lots of mandatory overtime because people wouldn't come work for my employer, so I feel the pain of jobs that need good people but can't get them.
I will grant you that selling garden soil might be as physically demanding as working in a factory, and miles walked could add up too. But I never woke up in retail wondering if I'd be physically able to continue working my job much longer because of the wear and tear.
There's a reason every rich country got there by manufacturing and not retail, and in part it's that you don't build human capital by sitting in a chair scanning price tags. Manufacturing productivity increases steadily so workers have to become steadily more skillful to keep up. It's also far from a dead-end job, as productivity is easily measured and the cream can rise.
People in retail can be ambitious and talented, but their talents are wasted there. We can't get every ambitious, motivated person out of retail and into the job where they would do the most good just by offering them money, because money isn't everything. But we can avoid screwing things up by _pushing_ those people into jobs where their talents are wasted, by offering them too much money. I've worked lots of mandatory overtime because people wouldn't come work for my employer, so I feel the pain of jobs that need good people but can't get them.
> ...an easy job like retail....Retail should pay less than other jobs, _because_ it's more fun to interact with people all day than to work at a hot grill.
Your response screams, "I've never worked a retail job in my life!!". There's nothing easy about working retail in the United States, and interacting with the majority of retail customers is far from "fun".
Your response screams, "I've never worked a retail job in my life!!". There's nothing easy about working retail in the United States, and interacting with the majority of retail customers is far from "fun".
I stocked shelves in a drugstore. I imagine cashier is a bit worse and customer service is a lot worse.
My favorite job ever was when I made glasses at LensCrafters. So much so I’ve considered leaving my software job and going back. It was like stacking shelves but just a bit more involved and pretty interesting. Most prescriptions you can just knock out in your sleep but you also get some unusual ones that take more thought. You’d get in a zen like groove and next thing you know your shift is over. Paid better than traditional retail to boot.
I share this view myself, neat to see someone else feels the same way.
I'm a CS student and I've been working at a Panera for about a year now. I love my particular store and the work environment is great; I genuinely look forward to going to work every day. I'll miss my coworkers when I have to quit soon to start my programming career.
That being said, I understand why those jobs could never realistically pay anything near what a good software dev job can. If you could make the same amount of money working a job like that, why would anyone put in the effort to get stressed out as a programmer? It wouldn't make sense.
The solution is to fix dev jobs so they're more balanced and less stressful :)
I'm a CS student and I've been working at a Panera for about a year now. I love my particular store and the work environment is great; I genuinely look forward to going to work every day. I'll miss my coworkers when I have to quit soon to start my programming career.
That being said, I understand why those jobs could never realistically pay anything near what a good software dev job can. If you could make the same amount of money working a job like that, why would anyone put in the effort to get stressed out as a programmer? It wouldn't make sense.
The solution is to fix dev jobs so they're more balanced and less stressful :)
I work in cybersecurity now, but worked retail for 7 years, fast food (Subway) for 6 years, and a ride op at a major theme park (Cedar Point) for 2 summers.
If I could work the ride op or fast food jobs at my current salary, I'd take them in a heart beat. Hell, I might even take the ride op job for half the salary because the job could sometimes be a lot of fun.
But retail? Hell no. You could offer me double my salary and I'd still hesitate before accepting it. People treat retail employees like utter garbage. We once had a customer berate a cashier to tears, yelling at her and literally calling her an "incompetent stupid bitch", because his credit card was being declined and he was insisting she was just entering his card wrong.
If I could work the ride op or fast food jobs at my current salary, I'd take them in a heart beat. Hell, I might even take the ride op job for half the salary because the job could sometimes be a lot of fun.
But retail? Hell no. You could offer me double my salary and I'd still hesitate before accepting it. People treat retail employees like utter garbage. We once had a customer berate a cashier to tears, yelling at her and literally calling her an "incompetent stupid bitch", because his credit card was being declined and he was insisting she was just entering his card wrong.
What if, to make it more interesting, we throw in the perk of having a cool boss that allows you to be rude back to customers?
I worked for a mom and pop hot dog/Italian beef joint in the Chicago suburbs in the 90s and that’s exactly what it was. A totally un-PC Italian family that didn’t take any shit and insisted you didn’t take any shit either.
It was a blast.
It was a blast.
That...I might really consider.
There are a lot of dev jobs that are balanced and not stressful at all. Some dev can even come here during work hours ;)
I worked as a welder in a shipyard for a couple of years after the .com crash.
No complaints, I actually enjoyed the work, but it was exhausting in a way that no office job can compare. The experience also makes me want to throttle folks who have never lifted anything heavier than a pen as I hear them whine about utter trivial things.
I don't, because it is considered rude to throttle one's co-workers.
The urge remains.
No complaints, I actually enjoyed the work, but it was exhausting in a way that no office job can compare. The experience also makes me want to throttle folks who have never lifted anything heavier than a pen as I hear them whine about utter trivial things.
I don't, because it is considered rude to throttle one's co-workers.
The urge remains.
Can we stop acting like work is a competition? People with shittier jobs don’t have a monopoly on complaining. Otherwise, I could say “oh yeah? What about people who worked with asbestos and died? You think welding is hard? What about dying from lung cancer, HMMM?”
Just because your work isn’t as grueling as someone else’s doesn’t mean you don’t get to be unhappy or dissatisfied with it.
Just because your work isn’t as grueling as someone else’s doesn’t mean you don’t get to be unhappy or dissatisfied with it.
That's not the point I'm after. I liked my welding job. A lot, actually. I never felt it was a 'shitty job'. But I also like not dying by industrial accident or poisoning my body with metal fume. And the stresses of a career in tech are much more tolerable when you have other work to compare it to.
Having a wider perspective leads to a greater appreciation for what one has, after all. And that is a good thing.
Having a wider perspective leads to a greater appreciation for what one has, after all. And that is a good thing.
There is no bigger lie than hard work = prosperity. It is literally the exact opposite. Think of the hardest shittiest jobs and they are almost always the least paying. The richer you get the less hard work is, until you're able to reach the pinnacle of doing absolutely nothing but managing your money and taking advantage of discounted cap gains taxes. I grew up rich with every opportunity and never had one of these jobs, but it's clear as day.
To get more money you have to pry it from people's hands. You have to have something they can't resist not paying you for. That's it.
The suffering of low minimum wage is supposed to "encourage" people to move up the value chain, as the conservative doctrine goes, but it just doesn't work when all your time and energy is spent surviving.
To get more money you have to pry it from people's hands. You have to have something they can't resist not paying you for. That's it.
The suffering of low minimum wage is supposed to "encourage" people to move up the value chain, as the conservative doctrine goes, but it just doesn't work when all your time and energy is spent surviving.
This is a damn good point. Whenever my friends, or kids of my friends, start talking about taking some foodservice or other really hard, low-paying job, I roundly encourage them to avoid it if remotely practical and build marketable skills and connections instead.
Another bad thing about those types of jobs is that they can start to warp your mind after a while, to the effect that you start unconsciously considering your superiors / managers as role models, and start trying to 'move up the ladder' because the pay is marginally better, when in reality most of the time the _top_ of the "ladder" at such organizations are compensated less than entry-level positions for in-demand skilled workers --
I've been continuously employed [out of what I _thought_ was necessity] since I was 16, and until I was about 26 the majority of my jobs were in the foodservice / warehouse / gofer / etc hard-work-long-hours-very-low-pay category. If I had to do over again, I would have stayed away from those situations by any means available and used that time to build valuable skills [as I later did], which would almost certainly have resulted in better outcomes, sooner.
Another bad thing about those types of jobs is that they can start to warp your mind after a while, to the effect that you start unconsciously considering your superiors / managers as role models, and start trying to 'move up the ladder' because the pay is marginally better, when in reality most of the time the _top_ of the "ladder" at such organizations are compensated less than entry-level positions for in-demand skilled workers --
I've been continuously employed [out of what I _thought_ was necessity] since I was 16, and until I was about 26 the majority of my jobs were in the foodservice / warehouse / gofer / etc hard-work-long-hours-very-low-pay category. If I had to do over again, I would have stayed away from those situations by any means available and used that time to build valuable skills [as I later did], which would almost certainly have resulted in better outcomes, sooner.
>There is no bigger lie than hard work = prosperity. It is literally the exact opposite.
Hard work leads to prosperity. That's not the same as equating prosperity to hard work.
Most prosperous people achieved prosperity due to earlier hard work and sacrifice of themselves (or their immediate ancestors.)
Clearly, the 'value chain', as you put it, exists as evidenced by the numerous posts on this thread of describing the previous fast-food-type jobs they held that led them to more 'prosperous' positions (at least, affording enough prosperity to spend time posting messages to the internet instead of digging ditches or flipping burgers.)
Hard work leads to prosperity. That's not the same as equating prosperity to hard work.
Most prosperous people achieved prosperity due to earlier hard work and sacrifice of themselves (or their immediate ancestors.)
Clearly, the 'value chain', as you put it, exists as evidenced by the numerous posts on this thread of describing the previous fast-food-type jobs they held that led them to more 'prosperous' positions (at least, affording enough prosperity to spend time posting messages to the internet instead of digging ditches or flipping burgers.)
> Hard work leads to prosperity.
Sometimes it does. Other times, it's barely enough to achieve survival.
> Most prosperous people achieved prosperity due to earlier hard work and sacrifice of themselves (or their immediate ancestors.)
Or their distant ancestors. Or due to their -- or their ancestors' -- criminal activities or exploitative behavior or sheer luck.
Sometimes it does. Other times, it's barely enough to achieve survival.
> Most prosperous people achieved prosperity due to earlier hard work and sacrifice of themselves (or their immediate ancestors.)
Or their distant ancestors. Or due to their -- or their ancestors' -- criminal activities or exploitative behavior or sheer luck.
It's odd how the same people who are prone to excuse criminals on the basis of the criminal's poverty, so frequently accuse rich people of having obtained their wealth through illicit means.
Eh not really. The idea that stealing because you need to in order to eat/have a place to sleep being a lesser crime than stealing to be wealthy makes a lot of sense to me.
By this logic, dead end jobs that do not lead to prosperity, should be among the easiest ones. No one has ever said, "I don't want to have to work hard, so I'm going to go into retail."
At least for me, the one retail sales associate job I had wasn't terribly difficult or stressful except the week before Christmas and Black Friday. And on those days I was so busy that it was always over before I realized it. If I got paid as much as I do now to go back to that I would probably switch jobs to that again.
Every single office job I've had, except my first (which was a data entry job, not programming), has been a lot more stressful a lot more often, and I'm including the job where the first thing my coworkers and I did each morning was play a video game to determine who was going to go pick up coffee (Carcassonne on Xbox Live Arcade, if you're curious, took about 20 minutes).
Every single office job I've had, except my first (which was a data entry job, not programming), has been a lot more stressful a lot more often, and I'm including the job where the first thing my coworkers and I did each morning was play a video game to determine who was going to go pick up coffee (Carcassonne on Xbox Live Arcade, if you're curious, took about 20 minutes).
The best predictor of income, more then academic performance, more then having married parents or educated parents or going to pre school, is parental wealth.
And this is true whether your folks won the lottery or earned their money through hard work.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/29/study-to-succeed-in-america-...
And this is true whether your folks won the lottery or earned their money through hard work.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/29/study-to-succeed-in-america-...
> And this is true whether your folks won the lottery or earned their money through hard work.
This part wasn't in your link, I don't believe this is true.
This part wasn't in your link, I don't believe this is true.
The problem with this discussion is the definition of "hard". Is pushing a rock up and down a mountain easier or harder than getting a degree in computers? For me it's the former, studying cool stuff in cafes seems "easier".
Other things being equal, hard work is more likely to lead to prosperity.
> Hard work leads to prosperity.
Any guesses on when the people working hard at a fast food restaurant will have prosperity arrive?
Any guesses on when the people working hard at a fast food restaurant will have prosperity arrive?
the lie is working :)
So true.
Honestly, I only made it out (I was probabbly not going to make it through college due to all the work and my own personality when I was young was NOT ready for college) because I got lucky, had some mild technical skills and the .com era came along and companies wanted warm bodies.
I picked some aged old company and they hired me. That company stuck around for a long enough time to establish a career.
Working pizza ... could easily have kept me down due to that and other challenges.
Honestly, I only made it out (I was probabbly not going to make it through college due to all the work and my own personality when I was young was NOT ready for college) because I got lucky, had some mild technical skills and the .com era came along and companies wanted warm bodies.
I picked some aged old company and they hired me. That company stuck around for a long enough time to establish a career.
Working pizza ... could easily have kept me down due to that and other challenges.
hard work = prosperity, I don't think I have ever seen or heard that without further advice or instruction. Hard work is only one component toward advancement. You have to have a plan to advance and make good choices as well.
The hard work part is studying so you have a skillset.
My first job was working in a supermarket, on the register and collecting the trolleys. You got a break roughly 90-120 minutes. You REALLY miss one / notice when you're running late.
Now I work in an office. It's nothing to go 4-6 hours without stopping. But of course I can stop and pop out for a coffee or a snack, or lunch whenever I want.
$4 extra an hour would change this woman's life (and a lot of other people like her). $4 extra an hour.. I don't think I'd notice it.
Many of us are SO SO fortunate, we can't even begin to imagine how good we have it.
Now I work in an office. It's nothing to go 4-6 hours without stopping. But of course I can stop and pop out for a coffee or a snack, or lunch whenever I want.
$4 extra an hour would change this woman's life (and a lot of other people like her). $4 extra an hour.. I don't think I'd notice it.
Many of us are SO SO fortunate, we can't even begin to imagine how good we have it.
When I was 14 I worked as a busboy at a BBQ place. For like 2 weeks, before they found out I was underaged and fired me. I was never so exhausted in my entire life, before or after. And I was a strong swimmer when I started that job, and was quite fit.
I worked at gas stations after that, before college, and while it was tiring, nothing at the same level.
I can totally imagine a pizza job would be draining.
I worked at gas stations after that, before college, and while it was tiring, nothing at the same level.
I can totally imagine a pizza job would be draining.
working in heat, whether from ovens/fryer, engines, or something else is so incredibly draining that its hard for people to understand unless they've done it.
At the end of the day you just want a room temperature shower and a cold drink, the mental capacity isn't really there for much else.
At the end of the day you just want a room temperature shower and a cold drink, the mental capacity isn't really there for much else.
It's like everyday work is an endurance sport.
This is why I feel so much for those building the stadiums for the next football(/soccer) world cup. What's even worse is they're being worked to death as slaves in all but name.
If you don't have enough downtime/nutrition to recover between shifts you slowly fall apart.
This is why I feel so much for those building the stadiums for the next football(/soccer) world cup. What's even worse is they're being worked to death as slaves in all but name.
If you don't have enough downtime/nutrition to recover between shifts you slowly fall apart.
Everyone is different, I have plenty of friend who work in food service, they wouldn't want to trade for my developer job.
Perhaps you have some interesting friends, but to me this sounds like it is based in no real-life experience.
It's a very stressful job for little reward that leaves you completely depleted at the end of the day to do anything to dig yourself out.
From their perspective, my job is the stressful job. Sure that physically my job is easy but to them my job is stressful because it requires a lot of thinking, not to mention a lot of learning and studying. Its a different kind of stress.
Plenty of people have no desire to apply creative thought or take further responsibility at their workplace. My best friend's boyfriend, for example. Has a university degree, works at a gas station. Was a manager at that gas station, didn't enjoy it, went back to being a team member. Leaves his work at work, checks off the boxes on the checklist while he's there.
He does have the relative security that comes with having a long term partner that does make a professional salary, but I don't think that diminishes the motivational piece. Not everyone is as ambitious as every one else. Of those that are, not everyone's ambition is pointed in the same direction. Some people just want to rock up at work for 8 hours a day, go home, watch some shit TV that they enjoy and then go to bed. Frankly, that's ok. There's not enough programmer/marketing professional/CEO/Founder roles for everyone to have them.
He does have the relative security that comes with having a long term partner that does make a professional salary, but I don't think that diminishes the motivational piece. Not everyone is as ambitious as every one else. Of those that are, not everyone's ambition is pointed in the same direction. Some people just want to rock up at work for 8 hours a day, go home, watch some shit TV that they enjoy and then go to bed. Frankly, that's ok. There's not enough programmer/marketing professional/CEO/Founder roles for everyone to have them.
I think this is the biggest problem America has as a country now. People dying in the streets due to lack of healthcare/homelessness, and being stuck delivering pizza with no real routes to get out other than to “learn to code”...
Agreed. Plus so many opportunities for people bypass the working poor. Sure, a full time bootcamp might be tuition free or offer a scholarship, but it doesn't pay rent or buy food.
This is exactly my thoughts when I hear people complaining that they pay more tax as high earners because they're "worked hard" for the money and to get there.
Hard work is relative and people are working very hard at all salary levels. There are many other constructs which are the true reasons behind how much people earn.
Hard work is relative and people are working very hard at all salary levels. There are many other constructs which are the true reasons behind how much people earn.
[deleted]
Yes. Before college, I worked two years as a night shift machine operator in a cup factory. Try taking the SAT the morning after a full night of work.
I started my career working the night shift stocking shelves at Home Depot and riding the bus. I now own a 180 full time employee agency and am on the other side. The solution here must come from the government... McDonald's and no other single employer can raise wages as their competitors will not and they will go out of business due to being too expensive.
I agree with the Fight for $15... But I think they need to attach this to inflation or somehow as a percentage of the highest incomes in the economy. Otherwise Trump will just keep pressuring the Fed to print more money and $15 will only be worth $5 in today's money.
I agree with the Fight for $15... But I think they need to attach this to inflation or somehow as a percentage of the highest incomes in the economy. Otherwise Trump will just keep pressuring the Fed to print more money and $15 will only be worth $5 in today's money.
I heard they even have toilets at workplace.
Coming from Norway, this article is horrendous. I can never understand the mentality that lies behind all of the arguments most you guys are presenting here - defending the employers shit salary and rights.
You guys know that McDonalds manages to run in countries with decent wages as well, right? And that maybe a company with a yearly global profit of over 10 billion dollars might be able to afford giving their employees a livable wage. Hell, just the fact that it`s possible to have a full time job in the US, and still need food stamps should be a massive, red flag about your situation. But for some reason you prefer to (by extension) defend the extremely rich owners of these companies.
You guys know that McDonalds manages to run in countries with decent wages as well, right? And that maybe a company with a yearly global profit of over 10 billion dollars might be able to afford giving their employees a livable wage. Hell, just the fact that it`s possible to have a full time job in the US, and still need food stamps should be a massive, red flag about your situation. But for some reason you prefer to (by extension) defend the extremely rich owners of these companies.
I'm not from Norway but the Netherlands. If you have a fulltime job at McDonalds, the only way to live on that wage is with heavy subsidies from the government. You will need healthcare subsidy, rent subsidy, social housing, various municipal arrangements and perhaps even go to the "voedselbank" (food bank, free food charity).
So while you can live on a McDonalds income, it's only because your fellow citizens are chipping in. Effectively we are subsidising McDonalds as they can now give you a lower income and get away with it.
I'm not sure if that is the best way to go.
So while you can live on a McDonalds income, it's only because your fellow citizens are chipping in. Effectively we are subsidising McDonalds as they can now give you a lower income and get away with it.
I'm not sure if that is the best way to go.
> So while you can live on a McDonalds income, it's only because your fellow citizens are chipping in. Effectively we are subsidising McDonalds as they can now give you a lower income and get away with it.
No, before social support networks of the modern mixed economy companies paid worse for basically unskilled jobs. The surplus of people desperate for work meant that if the pay was better than no job but inadequate for survival in the long term, people would still take it, and if the inadequate pay meant they died or became unable to work, well, there were always more people in the surplus labor pool to replace them.
Decreasing the desperate need for employment puts more power in the hands of labor, not capital.
No, before social support networks of the modern mixed economy companies paid worse for basically unskilled jobs. The surplus of people desperate for work meant that if the pay was better than no job but inadequate for survival in the long term, people would still take it, and if the inadequate pay meant they died or became unable to work, well, there were always more people in the surplus labor pool to replace them.
Decreasing the desperate need for employment puts more power in the hands of labor, not capital.
Dutch here, too. While everyone below a certain income gets benefits like healthcare subsidy you can still live okay on a McDonalds salary. If you make €10 an hour you get €1600 a month. And at that level you pay almost no income tax. While not a lot, you don't necessarily need the foodbank or other subsidies than the regular ones to make ends meet.
The parallels to the Roman Grain Dole[0] cannot be missed. The Cura Annonae warped Rome from top to bottom, from calories, to shipping, to politics, to military; nearly every aspect of Rome was touched by it. Heck, it likely outlasted Rome herself.
Those subsidies, like the current ones, run deep.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cura_Annonae#Politics_and_the_...
Those subsidies, like the current ones, run deep.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cura_Annonae#Politics_and_the_...
Just 5 years ago, I would've considered 1600 Euros or the pound equivalent a month to be plenty of money. At the time, I was a student living in the UK. Some years earlier still, whilst back in my native baltic state, that kind of a monthly income would seem super comfortable.
The biggest difference is that housing is a lot more expensive in western cities - it is likely that even a modest 2-room (1-bedroom) apartment in a major city like Amsterdam would cost the majority of that wage to rent (and we're not talking about just students, but older people who can't get better jobs).
You say it like you just grabbed a random example, but Amsterdam is one of the most expensive places to rent in NL. It's also generally not at all representative for the Netherlands as a whole.
Ok, you may replace it with London, Paris, Zürich, Munich, Copenhagen, Stockholm and probably a dozen other western european cities (not to mention major American cities, which are sometimes even more extreme).
[deleted]
Rent is the main problem. We are not subsidising McDonalds, we are subsidising landlords. If rent price would stay the same, the minimum wage job wouldn't need subsidies from the state.
The problem is that all powerful people own properties and they want to keep prices high. Main voters base also owns properties. It's an unsolvable problem.
The problem is that all powerful people own properties and they want to keep prices high. Main voters base also owns properties. It's an unsolvable problem.
> Rent is the main problem
London. The problem is the same in all large cities/capitals. I was listening on a BBC podcast a couple of years back discussing how the "not living where they work" is the main thing holding them back in progressing with their lives as much/fast as they could.
Especially in London, where near the center you can't get a decent studio for less than 1000-1300 pounds per month (just the rent now add council tax, utilities, etc.). The only way to make it is live on a flat with 3-5-7 more people.
There are some "maps vs rent" for London. I assume you can find some for other cities as well.
https://d36tnp772eyphs.cloudfront.net/blogs/1/2018/05/london...
https://static.homesandproperty.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails...
https://www.thrillist.com/lifestyle/london/london-undergroun...
If you see prices below 1k, it's per week.
London. The problem is the same in all large cities/capitals. I was listening on a BBC podcast a couple of years back discussing how the "not living where they work" is the main thing holding them back in progressing with their lives as much/fast as they could.
Especially in London, where near the center you can't get a decent studio for less than 1000-1300 pounds per month (just the rent now add council tax, utilities, etc.). The only way to make it is live on a flat with 3-5-7 more people.
There are some "maps vs rent" for London. I assume you can find some for other cities as well.
https://d36tnp772eyphs.cloudfront.net/blogs/1/2018/05/london...
https://static.homesandproperty.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails...
https://www.thrillist.com/lifestyle/london/london-undergroun...
If you see prices below 1k, it's per week.
Dutchie in NYC here. Dude(ette), I hear you, things aren't perfect back home. But frankly, you have no idea how much better things are for the low age earners in the Netherlands compared to the US. Working at a FAANG company here in NYC, you get 200-400k/year, and you use that money to pay thousands of dollars to live in a nice area in a building without rats and cockroaches and with proper sound proofing, which qualifies as luxury here.
And then you go to stand in line at the local wholefoods to buy $2.5 local chocolate croissants and $2 kombuchas from a teller who earns $15/hour.
Tip well, my friends, tip well.
And then you go to stand in line at the local wholefoods to buy $2.5 local chocolate croissants and $2 kombuchas from a teller who earns $15/hour.
Tip well, my friends, tip well.
I checked and in Sweden a low level employee in McDonalds would earn 21930 sek (2300 dollars), or 17593 sek after taxes, which might be just enough to live from if you live outside of big cities.
This is the same problem in America. The corporations already get tax breaks and subsidies, but then they underpay their employees to make the taxpayers subsidize an effectively living wage by providing welfare. It's not the employee's fault, but communities and employees could organize and press for living wages in order for the corporation to pay a living wage.
It's the same in the U.S. except you have to qualify and jump through a bunch of hoops to get assistance. And the pay is shit that you can't live off of.
i.e. in the u.s. you get fucked from both ends.
i.e. in the u.s. you get fucked from both ends.
Second that for Germany (though we are well known for our low-wage-sector allowing us to export a lot for a developed country). In addition a good lot of people working there are kids, which (like in most services) is quite an unfair competition for people having to earn their living wage with those jobs...
It's a bit odd to think that fast food is indirectly sustained through national funding.
One tiny benefit of these kind of jobs, if you ever need something to do to earn money, they'll most probably hire you.
But it's not a great thing.
One tiny benefit of these kind of jobs, if you ever need something to do to earn money, they'll most probably hire you.
But it's not a great thing.
Americans are generally reluctant to allow rich social benefits that aren't "earned". People who don't earn are called "lazy". In reality they're unable. They're unable because they lack access to good education starting very early in life. They lack access because their parents also lacked access, and nobody with access is willing to give these "lazy" people a "handout". This sharp (and sharpening) class divide is the modern American tragedy and it has pretty much nothing to do with political affiliation. It's core culture.
Stockholm syndrome meets conditions tantamount to slavery. Americans don't know how bad they have it. And what's worse, the pervasive American fallacy of "suffering equals merit equals reward." Too many suffering slaves accuse the slaves in the house of being lazy, and vice-versa. A divided-and-conquered people who will also buy into partisan right/left nonsense rather than see their true, common enemy who has systematically cheated them: the very rich - the ones who own the same corporations they work for.
In my view the divide is more subtle, something like the enlightened vs. the unenlightened. The general fallacy is that all poor people can rise to riches. But in reality only the "enlightened poor" are capable of doing this. The enlightened poor come from lineages that don't focus on money but maintain high standards for knowledge and ethics. The potential to rise is there. The unenlightened poor have fallen into vicious generational cycles where incapable parents breed incapable parents, simply because it's beyond their ability to see outside their box. To me, if there's any meaning to "social welfare", it's to break these cycles that breed incapable adults but there's little being done. Even Bernie, who makes a big fuss about education, is focusing on putting more kids in college. But by that time, for many people, it's way too late.
I think this ties in nicely right here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21714138
and
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21715246
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21714138
and
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21715246
Some (most) are unable because they just prefer to spend life on other things than chasing “success” or compete to be better than others. Why exclude and punish these people too?
That's true but the real problem is for people who had no access to education and are truly unable. It's a privilege to have the choice to not chase success.
I'm from the UK and I'm shocked at the discussion going on here. Most people commenting here are in vastly different situations to the person written about - probably both in terms of natural ability as well as education, not to mention actual salary or opportunity. Do we agree as a society we need people to work these jobs? Because if we do, it is not an argument to point out ways an intelligent person can manuveure themselves out of it. How can people be so callous and selfish?
America, a nation of temporarily embarrased millionaires. If you are currently poor, you just aren't working hard enough / smart enough and need to pull yourself up by your boot straps!
Anyone can get ahead, get the American dream! If you're poor, well, you must be lazy or stupid.
“America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, but its people are mainly poor, and poor Americans are urged to hate themselves. To quote the American humorist Kin Hubbard, 'It ain’t no disgrace to be poor, but it might as well be.' It is in fact a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters. The meanest eating or drinking establishment, owned by a man who is himself poor, is very likely to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question: 'if you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?' There will also be an American flag no larger than a child’s hand – glued to a lollipop stick and flying from the cash register.
Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue. Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money. They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say Napoleonic times. Many novelties have come from America. The most startling of these, a thing without precedent, is a mass of undignified poor. They do not love one another because they do not love themselves.” -- Vonnegut.
Anyone can get ahead, get the American dream! If you're poor, well, you must be lazy or stupid.
“America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, but its people are mainly poor, and poor Americans are urged to hate themselves. To quote the American humorist Kin Hubbard, 'It ain’t no disgrace to be poor, but it might as well be.' It is in fact a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters. The meanest eating or drinking establishment, owned by a man who is himself poor, is very likely to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question: 'if you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?' There will also be an American flag no larger than a child’s hand – glued to a lollipop stick and flying from the cash register.
Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue. Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money. They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say Napoleonic times. Many novelties have come from America. The most startling of these, a thing without precedent, is a mass of undignified poor. They do not love one another because they do not love themselves.” -- Vonnegut.
Yes. The bootstraps metaphor was originally intended to indicate a completely impossible feat, like going from homeless to successful unaided.[0] It's impossible.
For example, I've been vehicle dwelling and very poor in Silicon Valley for about 10 years as I've been unable to hold a job (ADD/Aspergers/speech impediment). I get called names and dirty looks all the time. I'd like to make some money, but only in a worker-owned co-op because slaving away while others reap the rewards seems like prostitution for nothing.
0. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pull-yourself-up-by-your-boot...
For example, I've been vehicle dwelling and very poor in Silicon Valley for about 10 years as I've been unable to hold a job (ADD/Aspergers/speech impediment). I get called names and dirty looks all the time. I'd like to make some money, but only in a worker-owned co-op because slaving away while others reap the rewards seems like prostitution for nothing.
0. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pull-yourself-up-by-your-boot...
What is it that you do (i.e. write software)?
People grow up with a silver spoon thinking they feed themselves every time they put it in their mouth.
>How can people be so callous and selfish?
Quite easily when they've spent their entire lives being told poor people are evil. That's American's for you. There's too much of "I've got mine, so fuck anyone else" going on.
Quite easily when they've spent their entire lives being told poor people are evil. That's American's for you. There's too much of "I've got mine, so fuck anyone else" going on.
I've been a Libertarian since long before I started programming, back when I used to earn next to nothing at the Army and realized the shortcomings of regulation. In fact, I started from the lower class, never had robots, computers, consoles or cellphones like my friends growing up. So no silver spoon here. You can keep telling yourself I'm a "temporarily embarrassed billionaire" but I have my opinions on economics.
I am now convinced that a free market is the best way for everyone, particularly the poorest. There are many who think likewise and we are not callous or selfish. To me, you're the selfish person by keeping us from having better lives. Money does not grow on trees and everything the State does is another opportunity to slow us down and make our poor poorer.
I am always ready to be convinced otherwise, but so far every bit of data I have seen points that way, with ease of doing business, deregulation and a low tax burden being major factors towards a more prosperous society.
I am now convinced that a free market is the best way for everyone, particularly the poorest. There are many who think likewise and we are not callous or selfish. To me, you're the selfish person by keeping us from having better lives. Money does not grow on trees and everything the State does is another opportunity to slow us down and make our poor poorer.
I am always ready to be convinced otherwise, but so far every bit of data I have seen points that way, with ease of doing business, deregulation and a low tax burden being major factors towards a more prosperous society.
The obvious answer is that the facts prove you wrong. The market reigns supreme in the USA compared to Northern Europe, and yet it is USA that looks like a third world country. Collapsing infrastructure, untold poverty and homelessness for huge chunks of the population, shrinking middle class, world leader in putting people behind bars and antidepressant prescriptions...
Not exactly the picture of a prosperous society.
Not exactly the picture of a prosperous society.
How would a minimum wage slow Ms. Brown down and make her poorer? To be serious, I would really like an anecdotal example on how medicare for all, minimum wage and a better social support system would be negative.
devcpp is probably conflating circumstantial luck with personal skill, assuming they are implying they bootstrapped themselves. The evidence for luck is ubiquitous: most people stay poor, regardless of ability.
[deleted]
In America, people in charge of policy love to talk about "personal responsibility" as if that by itself can overcome structural issues in our economic system, Texas is pretty proud of itself for low taxes and making people fend for themselves, including pregnant women
https://www.texastribune.org/2019/12/06/extraordinary-danger...
It's also postulated in a recent book that a primary belief held by supreme court justice Clarence Thomas that the best way to improve the lot of African Americans is to make life as difficult as possible politically for them so they work harder(!) - this aligns his views on a lot of subjects with the conservative side of interpreting the Constitution but he's not really consistent on the latter as much as his belief. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/books/review-enigma-clare...
It's also postulated in a recent book that a primary belief held by supreme court justice Clarence Thomas that the best way to improve the lot of African Americans is to make life as difficult as possible politically for them so they work harder(!) - this aligns his views on a lot of subjects with the conservative side of interpreting the Constitution but he's not really consistent on the latter as much as his belief. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/books/review-enigma-clare...
You have to realize that Norway is swimming in oil, so quite easy to subsidize all that you want. Then McDonald's net income is about USD 6bn not USD10bn. Which divided by its 1.7 million employees would make an extra USD 294 per month, which as someone already pointed out would go straight into the landlord's pockets. By comparison McDonald's is also quite profitable (net income margins close to 30%), unlike most competitors with margins closer to 2-3% and that also pay low salaries. Just pointing out economics.
Unless McDonalds has done an incredible job of increasing their margins threefold since I worked there (left in 1995), there's no way their net margins are so high. Our best store made 10% net, and that paid for a lot of the crappier stores.
I looked at 2018's annual report. Net income divided by total revenues. Google should that show that in a quick search.
That's the parent company's financial figures, which include profits from franchisee's. This inflates their earnings. A typical store (franchisee or McOpCo) clears about 10% net of their sales. For a McOpCo store (one owned directly by McDonalds), this is not bad at all, since they don't have to pay a franchise fee. This means they're clearing 5-8% more. But for a franchisee, they pay a franchise fee of around that amount. So take home is not as extravagant. 90% of McDonalds are franchised, so the parent company's earnings are largely composed of franchise fees, not sales margins.
Yeah, we have a comfortable cushion in our pension fund, but other scandinavian and european countries have a similar solution.
But what do you mean "would go straight into the landlords pockets". Are you saying that rent would immediately rise to eat the difference if McD increased their salaries?
But what do you mean "would go straight into the landlords pockets". Are you saying that rent would immediately rise to eat the difference if McD increased their salaries?
In the case of cities like NY, London, Amsterdam, San Francisco and the like yes, but not necessary overnight, maybe take a year or so. My point is not that if Mcdonalds only where to raise its wages, but all Mcdonalds like companies. Also,it is not the case either that McDonald is a monopolist in fast food. If it were I could understand that they could have room to maneuver and pay lower salaries. But is not the case for them and neither for the overwhelming share of companies.
With regards to the rent: yes, the rent might rise somewhat over time, but not to completely fill that wage gap. There are so many other things influencing rent and economics, so I don't see that as a probable consequence. Also, giving the poor better wages might increase some of their costs (like fast food), but it will move their personal economy closer to more expensive things they might need occasionally, like new appliances etc, which are currently a huge source of headache.
As for the maneuverability on raising wages, that's what a minimum wage would be for. No need for companies to let the competition ahead of them because they increase the wages - everybody else would have to do the same.
As for the maneuverability on raising wages, that's what a minimum wage would be for. No need for companies to let the competition ahead of them because they increase the wages - everybody else would have to do the same.
I guess that we disagree on the relative merits of minimum wage laws. I tend to see them as a very blunt tool. In the short term might work, but long run no impact (nothing changes) or negative side effects.
In the case of your example, if all companies increase wages all at the same time, then you end up pretty much in the same spot you started. Goods and services' prices adjust, companies make less profits, rents increase -- i.e. no actual increase in production (or housing) in the economy that might help the poorest the most. Some industries might be able to pass on the wage bill entirely to customers, others will get squeezed and stop investment and entry of new companies. It all depends on elasticities and the studies that we usually see trying to measure that show that shareholders are not the ones that get hit the most.
If we want the poor to be able to afford more appliances, we need to make those appliances cheaper to produce. And to get there we might need many industries paying people very little, so that we can get off the ground somehow. This example is easy to visualize when looking at China or Bangladesh. But even looking at Europe as a whole it is very clear in my mind that countries like Greece or Portugal still need to cover at lot of ground in this manner. Former communist Eastern Europe countries are already surpassing GE and PT by following broadly that scrip. And even UK and Germany would only be bottom five if they were considered US states (in GDP per capita adjusted by purchasing power). And inside the US there is a massive gap between NY and Alabama. And NY itself is plagued by super high rents because we don't build anymore.
It sounds cruel to imply that a $15/h wage for the lady in the article is not going to help her. It will, but in the short run only. It also sounds impolite to mention that many people in her situation managed to turn their lives around out of that kind of precarity. Many will on account of their smarts, resilience or luck, but many will not. For these the only true hope is that we manage to increase the number of companies and productivity of all companies in the economy. So that we end up with very high productivity industries (read, than produce a lot for low prices) such as oil and gas, car industry, food production, appliances industry, hopefully home-building, “subsidizing” the rest through low cost products and competition of all those low wage, and unskilled jobs. Mandating minimum salaries is like chasing a unicorn.
Side note. In the article she mentions that she is trying to save for a car. Cars in the US are much cheaper than in Europe, and if you go to e.g. Argentina you would be surprised by how much a pile to junk is worth in the second hand car market.
In the case of your example, if all companies increase wages all at the same time, then you end up pretty much in the same spot you started. Goods and services' prices adjust, companies make less profits, rents increase -- i.e. no actual increase in production (or housing) in the economy that might help the poorest the most. Some industries might be able to pass on the wage bill entirely to customers, others will get squeezed and stop investment and entry of new companies. It all depends on elasticities and the studies that we usually see trying to measure that show that shareholders are not the ones that get hit the most.
If we want the poor to be able to afford more appliances, we need to make those appliances cheaper to produce. And to get there we might need many industries paying people very little, so that we can get off the ground somehow. This example is easy to visualize when looking at China or Bangladesh. But even looking at Europe as a whole it is very clear in my mind that countries like Greece or Portugal still need to cover at lot of ground in this manner. Former communist Eastern Europe countries are already surpassing GE and PT by following broadly that scrip. And even UK and Germany would only be bottom five if they were considered US states (in GDP per capita adjusted by purchasing power). And inside the US there is a massive gap between NY and Alabama. And NY itself is plagued by super high rents because we don't build anymore.
It sounds cruel to imply that a $15/h wage for the lady in the article is not going to help her. It will, but in the short run only. It also sounds impolite to mention that many people in her situation managed to turn their lives around out of that kind of precarity. Many will on account of their smarts, resilience or luck, but many will not. For these the only true hope is that we manage to increase the number of companies and productivity of all companies in the economy. So that we end up with very high productivity industries (read, than produce a lot for low prices) such as oil and gas, car industry, food production, appliances industry, hopefully home-building, “subsidizing” the rest through low cost products and competition of all those low wage, and unskilled jobs. Mandating minimum salaries is like chasing a unicorn.
Side note. In the article she mentions that she is trying to save for a car. Cars in the US are much cheaper than in Europe, and if you go to e.g. Argentina you would be surprised by how much a pile to junk is worth in the second hand car market.
I haven't read the article and have no opinion either way, but I want to make it clear McDonalds are franchises (at least in the US). I'm not positive but the local owner can pay what they want. McDonalds making 10 billion a year has nothing to do with it. You'd have to see how much the franchise owner makes. You of course can argue McDonald's charges the franchises too much leaving little room for higher wages.
Franchising is also a contractual process. If McDonald's Corp decided to, they could dictate a wage floor to their franchisees.
Many Americans who use this site are wealthy urbanites from upper-class families. They were born so far ahead of everyone else, they can't relate.
I’ve worked in the fast food industry for 14 years—about half my life
Can someone give me an anecdotal example of how this could come to be without some fault in Brown's decision-making process?
For starters, I've always heard that commute time is inversely proportional to career mobility. I made it a rule not to work anywhere farther than half an hour away. And that is the absolute maximum which was necessary when I lived rural area. Currently, I work remote, which has indeed provided more time for further career training.
My mother has worked at the same minimum-wage food joint for almost eight years. She tells me it's because she's "comfortable" and friends with everyone there. Personally, I think it affords her the time and lack of responsibility needed in order to engage in non-moderated drug use. This was certainly the reason she was usually unemployed and unable to provide the most basic resources for me as a child. If I bring up this or her other time-sucking addictions such as mobile gaming / simulated gambling, she becomes very defensive.
Regardless of the reason, comfort breeds complacency. Complacency leads to not making a meaningful change to your career trajectory in a 15-year period. As someone who grew up in relatively abject poverty, most of the positive things in my life have only come from within, due to my determination to succeed despite numerous setbacks. Sometimes I find myself having difficulty empathizing with people who seem reasonably intelligent but have been in the same situation for 10-20 years.
Can someone give me an anecdotal example of how this could come to be without some fault in Brown's decision-making process?
For starters, I've always heard that commute time is inversely proportional to career mobility. I made it a rule not to work anywhere farther than half an hour away. And that is the absolute maximum which was necessary when I lived rural area. Currently, I work remote, which has indeed provided more time for further career training.
My mother has worked at the same minimum-wage food joint for almost eight years. She tells me it's because she's "comfortable" and friends with everyone there. Personally, I think it affords her the time and lack of responsibility needed in order to engage in non-moderated drug use. This was certainly the reason she was usually unemployed and unable to provide the most basic resources for me as a child. If I bring up this or her other time-sucking addictions such as mobile gaming / simulated gambling, she becomes very defensive.
Regardless of the reason, comfort breeds complacency. Complacency leads to not making a meaningful change to your career trajectory in a 15-year period. As someone who grew up in relatively abject poverty, most of the positive things in my life have only come from within, due to my determination to succeed despite numerous setbacks. Sometimes I find myself having difficulty empathizing with people who seem reasonably intelligent but have been in the same situation for 10-20 years.
> My mother has worked at the same minimum-wage food joint for almost eight years. She tells me it's because she's "comfortable" and friends with everyone there. Personally, I think it affords her the time and lack of responsibility needed in order to engage in non-moderated drug use. This was certainly the reason she was usually unemployed and unable to provide the most basic resources for me as a child. If I bring up this or her other time-sucking addictions such as mobile gaming / simulated gambling, she becomes very defensi
a lot of society's problems come from people in power and/or wealth projecting their anecdotal, perhaps personally bitter experiences (like yours with your mother) onto everyone that isn't making a healthy wage. It's over 40 million people, we are not all like your mother.
a lot of society's problems come from people in power and/or wealth projecting their anecdotal, perhaps personally bitter experiences (like yours with your mother) onto everyone that isn't making a healthy wage. It's over 40 million people, we are not all like your mother.
I hope I don't come across as projecting. I am just sharing my own experience in poverty. I am still not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination and I have no support network.
Obviously everyone is different. This is why I asked for other points of view for a better sample size.
Obviously everyone is different. This is why I asked for other points of view for a better sample size.
I come from a poor family. My parents made a point of never spending any more than the bare minimum amount of money on me, and both had to work full time jobs. I would make my own way home from school every day from the age of 7. I would make my own way to school from the age of 11. School was a 90min bus ride one way, or a 30 min drive (60 min round trip, x2 for start+end of day).
That doesn't change that I had both parents and teachers who cared about me, educated me, disciplined me, and enabled me to succeed.
> As someone who grew up in relatively abject poverty, most of the positive things in my life have only come from within, due to my determination to succeed despite numerous setbacks.
There is nothing about my success in my adult life that has only come from within. Even my determination isn't mine and mine alone. Everything about my success is down to the opportunities that were afforded to me, to enable me to have that determination and outlook. My parents, my teachers, and my peers throughout my upbringing and adult life have all played a part. Nobody exists in a vacuum.
I am immensely privileged to have had the amount of support I have had. I expect the vast majority of commentators on this board have had similarly privileged lives. The people stuck (either by 'choice' or by 'circumstance') most likely have not.
At the risk of sounding like a <insert pejorative du jour here>, check your privilege, appreciate it for what it is, and try not to look down on those that didn't have the same opportunities that you did.
That doesn't change that I had both parents and teachers who cared about me, educated me, disciplined me, and enabled me to succeed.
> As someone who grew up in relatively abject poverty, most of the positive things in my life have only come from within, due to my determination to succeed despite numerous setbacks.
There is nothing about my success in my adult life that has only come from within. Even my determination isn't mine and mine alone. Everything about my success is down to the opportunities that were afforded to me, to enable me to have that determination and outlook. My parents, my teachers, and my peers throughout my upbringing and adult life have all played a part. Nobody exists in a vacuum.
I am immensely privileged to have had the amount of support I have had. I expect the vast majority of commentators on this board have had similarly privileged lives. The people stuck (either by 'choice' or by 'circumstance') most likely have not.
At the risk of sounding like a <insert pejorative du jour here>, check your privilege, appreciate it for what it is, and try not to look down on those that didn't have the same opportunities that you did.
Nobody exists in a vacuum.
You're arguing a strawman. You are introducing absolutes into a conversation which was purposefully framed as fluid. For example, I said most of the positive things. Your post is built upon the premise that I believe all positive things in my life came only from within, however you said the word only, not me.
I am immensely privileged to have had the amount of support I have had.
That's great... almost comes off as bragging, but okay...
check your privilege, appreciate it for what it is, and try not to look down on those that didn't have the same opportunities that you did.
...Seriously? You are literally coming from a place of higher privilege and looking down on me. You are projecting your own fortune onto me and consequently expecting the same attitude. I have not had such fortune as you, in fact most people haven't.
I don't need to check my privilege, I am aware of everything I have and wake up every day thankful I don't live in a place like Saudi Arabia. But we aren't talking about Saudi Arabia. We are talking about America, and our conversation about privilege is relative to America. And relative to America, I have lived in abject poverty for most of my life.
You're arguing a strawman. You are introducing absolutes into a conversation which was purposefully framed as fluid. For example, I said most of the positive things. Your post is built upon the premise that I believe all positive things in my life came only from within, however you said the word only, not me.
I am immensely privileged to have had the amount of support I have had.
That's great... almost comes off as bragging, but okay...
check your privilege, appreciate it for what it is, and try not to look down on those that didn't have the same opportunities that you did.
...Seriously? You are literally coming from a place of higher privilege and looking down on me. You are projecting your own fortune onto me and consequently expecting the same attitude. I have not had such fortune as you, in fact most people haven't.
I don't need to check my privilege, I am aware of everything I have and wake up every day thankful I don't live in a place like Saudi Arabia. But we aren't talking about Saudi Arabia. We are talking about America, and our conversation about privilege is relative to America. And relative to America, I have lived in abject poverty for most of my life.
Apologies, I misread your statement, and my response was overly broad. This is my mistake.
I may also have not been sufficiently clear in my messaging. I am talking from the perspective of someone born and raised in a "first world" western developed democracy similar in many ways to the USA (in this instance, the UK).
> I am immensely privileged to have had the amount of support I have had.
The intent here is to drive the point that the support I have received is not financial, and while coming from a financially wealthy family is hugely advantageous to future financial success, there are many other variables in play that are not financial.
When I talk about the support I have, I am recognising the time and effort other people have given me.
Having good parents isn't a right. It's entirely luck of the draw. The same largely applies to your teachers. It really shouldn't, but that's what the situation looks like today. If you're in a good school district, your chances of success are significantly better than if you're not.
I'm not talking about Saudi Arabia, I'm talking about being immensely grateful that not only were my parents incredible, hard working people, who did the best they could with what little they had; and that my teachers, overworked and underpaid, never gave up on me, even when I was a total shit in school, and persevered to ensure that I actually got a good education.
My relative financial poverty during my upbringing doesn't change any of that. I still attribute my success to my upbringing. Not the (lack of) money, and not myself.
I may also have not been sufficiently clear in my messaging. I am talking from the perspective of someone born and raised in a "first world" western developed democracy similar in many ways to the USA (in this instance, the UK).
> I am immensely privileged to have had the amount of support I have had.
The intent here is to drive the point that the support I have received is not financial, and while coming from a financially wealthy family is hugely advantageous to future financial success, there are many other variables in play that are not financial.
When I talk about the support I have, I am recognising the time and effort other people have given me.
Having good parents isn't a right. It's entirely luck of the draw. The same largely applies to your teachers. It really shouldn't, but that's what the situation looks like today. If you're in a good school district, your chances of success are significantly better than if you're not.
I'm not talking about Saudi Arabia, I'm talking about being immensely grateful that not only were my parents incredible, hard working people, who did the best they could with what little they had; and that my teachers, overworked and underpaid, never gave up on me, even when I was a total shit in school, and persevered to ensure that I actually got a good education.
My relative financial poverty during my upbringing doesn't change any of that. I still attribute my success to my upbringing. Not the (lack of) money, and not myself.
> My relative financial poverty during my upbringing doesn't change any of that. I still attribute my success to my upbringing. Not the (lack of) money, and not myself.
And some have neither money or the good upbringing. I was privileged enough to have parents who were able to keep a full-time job (even if it was a minimum wage one) most of my life. However, I would say mine were wildly poor on every other front. In terms of their own education, ability to parent, and most every other front beyond managing a positive bank account balance - they were poor. (Didn't stop my mother from racking up over $10,000 in credit card debt because she didn't know how they worked I guess)
I would align myself with soulofmischief in terms of the view on determination. It was purely my determination more than anything that lead me to getting to where I am now. (Beyond the basics like how I didn't grow in a war torn country where clean water was a scarcity) I've hit pretty much every setback a person in a first world country could give and persevered through it. Sometimes it taking years of incredible pain for any kind of payoff. I wouldn't attribute my success to my upbringing at all and neither would anyone who knows me even a little. Not being in abject poverty probably had some minor benefits for me but considering I had lived near that for the first 8-10 years of my life, I wouldn't consider it a huge amount of consequence. In fact - I thought those years were probably more pleasant than the later years! The only difference from going from near poverty to lower middle class was the age of the house since my parents didn't have any addictions besides nicotine and alcohol. (Alcoholism is ?probably? easier to deal with than an opioid addiction - but I only know the experience of dealing with the former combined with PTSD)
A little quote from a text I recently received: "You are exceptional to be where you are given where you came from. That said, the working class chip on your shoulder will hold you back from achieving what these people can achieve. You gotta get rid of that chip. (It's that chip and the behavior it causes that puts you on the edge of being fired. You aren't behaving the way these one percenters are behaving and they want to punish you for it.)"
My point is this: Don't underestimate determination. Upbringing in all forms is very important but a person with exceptional determination can overcome so much. It doesn't mean that it's fair or that it's even worth it but it's amazing how far someone can get with the refusal to give up. Something that I'd think people here on HN would be all about since this is owned by a startup incubator...
And some have neither money or the good upbringing. I was privileged enough to have parents who were able to keep a full-time job (even if it was a minimum wage one) most of my life. However, I would say mine were wildly poor on every other front. In terms of their own education, ability to parent, and most every other front beyond managing a positive bank account balance - they were poor. (Didn't stop my mother from racking up over $10,000 in credit card debt because she didn't know how they worked I guess)
I would align myself with soulofmischief in terms of the view on determination. It was purely my determination more than anything that lead me to getting to where I am now. (Beyond the basics like how I didn't grow in a war torn country where clean water was a scarcity) I've hit pretty much every setback a person in a first world country could give and persevered through it. Sometimes it taking years of incredible pain for any kind of payoff. I wouldn't attribute my success to my upbringing at all and neither would anyone who knows me even a little. Not being in abject poverty probably had some minor benefits for me but considering I had lived near that for the first 8-10 years of my life, I wouldn't consider it a huge amount of consequence. In fact - I thought those years were probably more pleasant than the later years! The only difference from going from near poverty to lower middle class was the age of the house since my parents didn't have any addictions besides nicotine and alcohol. (Alcoholism is ?probably? easier to deal with than an opioid addiction - but I only know the experience of dealing with the former combined with PTSD)
A little quote from a text I recently received: "You are exceptional to be where you are given where you came from. That said, the working class chip on your shoulder will hold you back from achieving what these people can achieve. You gotta get rid of that chip. (It's that chip and the behavior it causes that puts you on the edge of being fired. You aren't behaving the way these one percenters are behaving and they want to punish you for it.)"
My point is this: Don't underestimate determination. Upbringing in all forms is very important but a person with exceptional determination can overcome so much. It doesn't mean that it's fair or that it's even worth it but it's amazing how far someone can get with the refusal to give up. Something that I'd think people here on HN would be all about since this is owned by a startup incubator...
I think one large motivator for me has been organizational theory: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
I am either a bargainer, a clueless, or a sociopath (in the context of organization). I will never be a bargainer, life is too short! I'm not clueless and middle management is not for me. Only one path left.
I reached this decision through information like this. Perhaps Ms. Brown needed something similar.
I am either a bargainer, a clueless, or a sociopath (in the context of organization). I will never be a bargainer, life is too short! I'm not clueless and middle management is not for me. Only one path left.
I reached this decision through information like this. Perhaps Ms. Brown needed something similar.
Success is a powerful drug that can cause very convincing delusions.
The same can be argued for anybody. For example, Engineers who don't start their own companies are at fault when the company they work for goes tits up and they are unemployed at an advanced age and unemployable because of their outdated skillset.
The truth is, I think, nobody perfectly optimizes their prospects. People are people and people like to be in their social groups and compete in their social groups, which puts you on a track to a specific future.
Kids from middle-class families don't have to abandon their social circle to become white-collar workers, they can just be comfortable with their friends and "fail" and become a depressed white-collar worker in a not so cool company with only O.K. salary. There are numerous movies about people on this path.
When kids from an affluent background choose to stay comfortable with their friends, they "fail" and become spoiled brats. Usually portrayed as d-bags who don't live a fulfilling life and simply spend their daddies money on drugs and luxury.
When a kid from a lower-income background chooses to stay comfortable with their friends, they end up just as miserable but they also have survivability issues.
This is why "going to college" is such a monumental part in life: It gives you an option to change social circles and if you still fail, at least you can fail in a bit more comfortable house and car.
I hear that college is inaccessible for many Americans, maybe they should fix that. Equal social comfort opportunity can create a much more just society.
The truth is, I think, nobody perfectly optimizes their prospects. People are people and people like to be in their social groups and compete in their social groups, which puts you on a track to a specific future.
Kids from middle-class families don't have to abandon their social circle to become white-collar workers, they can just be comfortable with their friends and "fail" and become a depressed white-collar worker in a not so cool company with only O.K. salary. There are numerous movies about people on this path.
When kids from an affluent background choose to stay comfortable with their friends, they "fail" and become spoiled brats. Usually portrayed as d-bags who don't live a fulfilling life and simply spend their daddies money on drugs and luxury.
When a kid from a lower-income background chooses to stay comfortable with their friends, they end up just as miserable but they also have survivability issues.
This is why "going to college" is such a monumental part in life: It gives you an option to change social circles and if you still fail, at least you can fail in a bit more comfortable house and car.
I hear that college is inaccessible for many Americans, maybe they should fix that. Equal social comfort opportunity can create a much more just society.
The truth is, I think, nobody perfectly optimizes their prospects. People are people and people like to be in their social groups and compete in their social groups, which puts you on a track to a specific future.
I'm not asking for perfect optimization. Getting out of a minimum wage salary in a 15-year span doesn't require much optimization for most people. So I am asking about the cases where it does.
I hear that college is inaccessible for many Americans, maybe they should fix that. Equal social comfort opportunity can create a much more just society.
Some states offer free tuition. However in the state I grew up in, we had to get scholarships based on scholastic merit.
I worked hard and aced my tests which lead to a full 4-year scholarship along with room and board and an on-campus job, plus I qualified for government aid due to my situation (living on my own since 16 due to homeless parents).
Right before graduation a vindictive teacher changed my final project grade from a 100 to a 0, ignored school policies as well as ignored a doctor's note for excused absences, and the school administration promised they would follow up.
Well, they didn't, and on the day I received my final report card I had an F in a class I should have received a B in, and had to forfeit all of my state scholarship money. I ended up not being able to afford college and was homeless and very sick for a year after high school until I was able to get on my feet and pursue my own education online.
This is an example where working hard was not enough, and I got completely railroaded by a system designed to keep the impoverished as such. If I or a family member could have afforded a lawyer, I would have gotten my grade fixed and been able to attend college.
I'm not asking for perfect optimization. Getting out of a minimum wage salary in a 15-year span doesn't require much optimization for most people. So I am asking about the cases where it does.
I hear that college is inaccessible for many Americans, maybe they should fix that. Equal social comfort opportunity can create a much more just society.
Some states offer free tuition. However in the state I grew up in, we had to get scholarships based on scholastic merit.
I worked hard and aced my tests which lead to a full 4-year scholarship along with room and board and an on-campus job, plus I qualified for government aid due to my situation (living on my own since 16 due to homeless parents).
Right before graduation a vindictive teacher changed my final project grade from a 100 to a 0, ignored school policies as well as ignored a doctor's note for excused absences, and the school administration promised they would follow up.
Well, they didn't, and on the day I received my final report card I had an F in a class I should have received a B in, and had to forfeit all of my state scholarship money. I ended up not being able to afford college and was homeless and very sick for a year after high school until I was able to get on my feet and pursue my own education online.
This is an example where working hard was not enough, and I got completely railroaded by a system designed to keep the impoverished as such. If I or a family member could have afforded a lawyer, I would have gotten my grade fixed and been able to attend college.
That is real tough hand. Everything done right, then the rug pulled under you.
How are you now ?
How are you now ?
I'm doing well enough, working remote for a startup and having all of my basic needs met while being able to save and go out with friends. Thanks for asking. How are you?
Not sure why you’re being downvoted as this is pretty accurate. American success has been predicated on the availability of these social goods which can change peoples lives.
Perhaps because of arguing that people choose this state. Some do, but many (most) are thrust into a particular direction.
Some support for this:
1. Brain development of teenagers is not complete.
2. Information available to sub college age kids is not perfect.
If you don't believe in free will, the only question is what combination of mechanics and information serves to produce the observed outcome.
1. Brain development of teenagers is not complete.
2. Information available to sub college age kids is not perfect.
If you don't believe in free will, the only question is what combination of mechanics and information serves to produce the observed outcome.
Interesting, but I don't think that I said they choose it as if they choose fries over nuggets when asked.
What people choose is how comfortable they would like to be against their odds and people who choose to have nice social lives in their current circle end up staying in this circle.
Each circle have different failure modes, I won't argue that the lady in the article failed in her circle, she just didn't move up in the ladder. Failing in the low-income circle doesn't look like that, failing in that circle is overdosing in a meth den or ending up in jail. She actually seems to be doing fine but probably could have been doing much better if she had chosen to abandon her original social environment.
The life might give you fries but you can refuse that, stay hungry for a bit more and demand nuggets if that's what you want, ignoring your friends rolling their eyes for you being a drama queen. You may have to endure sitting on another table, being left alone by your friends who had their launch and left. This is the price you pay for jumping social circles and eating in a college cafeteria usually eases the pain.
What people choose is how comfortable they would like to be against their odds and people who choose to have nice social lives in their current circle end up staying in this circle.
Each circle have different failure modes, I won't argue that the lady in the article failed in her circle, she just didn't move up in the ladder. Failing in the low-income circle doesn't look like that, failing in that circle is overdosing in a meth den or ending up in jail. She actually seems to be doing fine but probably could have been doing much better if she had chosen to abandon her original social environment.
The life might give you fries but you can refuse that, stay hungry for a bit more and demand nuggets if that's what you want, ignoring your friends rolling their eyes for you being a drama queen. You may have to endure sitting on another table, being left alone by your friends who had their launch and left. This is the price you pay for jumping social circles and eating in a college cafeteria usually eases the pain.
The woman in question seems neither comfortable or complacent. She needs the money to pay for her day-to-day expenses and has a long commute. With her type of work experience, it would be difficult to find a more lucrative job. I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with her decision making process. She's simply been doing what is necessary to get by under difficult circumstances. I've met some capable and hardworking people who are like her. The sad truth is that some people simply just start off in a tough situation, work hard, and never get a lucky break.
On the other side of the coin, I've seen people who have worked at a small company because nobody else will hire them, the company gets aquired and the old boss retires, and they end up in a cushy situation a the big company. In fact, I've seen this happen multiple times and it was definitely not the master plan of these individuals. It was just a lucky break.
On the other side of the coin, I've seen people who have worked at a small company because nobody else will hire them, the company gets aquired and the old boss retires, and they end up in a cushy situation a the big company. In fact, I've seen this happen multiple times and it was definitely not the master plan of these individuals. It was just a lucky break.
The sad truth is that some people simply just start off in a tough situation, work hard, and never get a lucky break.
Your tone implies that I don't understand the disparity of the human condition. I lived my entire life very impoverished and at times homeless. I come from a very abusive household and grew up in a rural area with little prospects. I've never caught a break. I saw a way out, computers, and I took it. I was able to pivot to a better career by building skills in my free time.
Your tone implies that I don't understand the disparity of the human condition. I lived my entire life very impoverished and at times homeless. I come from a very abusive household and grew up in a rural area with little prospects. I've never caught a break. I saw a way out, computers, and I took it. I was able to pivot to a better career by building skills in my free time.
> Your tone implies that I don't understand the disparity of the human condition.
I wasn't implying that at all.
> I saw a way out, computers, and I took it. I was able to pivot to a better career by building skills in my free time. To be able to pull that off requires a certain amount of natural aptitude that is not a given for most people.
I respect people who have been able to find a way out of tough situations, but I also respect those who keep pushing through tough circumstances even when they haven't been able to find a way out.
> I saw a way out, computers, and I took it. I was able to pivot to a better career by building skills in my free time. To be able to pull that off requires a certain amount of natural aptitude that is not a given for most people.
I respect people who have been able to find a way out of tough situations, but I also respect those who keep pushing through tough circumstances even when they haven't been able to find a way out.
You're right about that. Me too. And especially retail.
As the poet warrior Lil B The BasedGod once stated, "I'd rather be a broke rapper than wash some dishes."
Well, I ignored that advice once because I figured my dish-washing skills were more employable than my street cred, and ended up having to quit that job because I developed carpal tunnel from being overworked. Several years later, I still suffer from the consequences and have to be vary careful not to injure myself at my desk job. I don't think physical or mental burnout gets anyone anywhere good. At least my former boss ended up having to get surgery for carpal tunnel himself sometime later.
As the poet warrior Lil B The BasedGod once stated, "I'd rather be a broke rapper than wash some dishes."
Well, I ignored that advice once because I figured my dish-washing skills were more employable than my street cred, and ended up having to quit that job because I developed carpal tunnel from being overworked. Several years later, I still suffer from the consequences and have to be vary careful not to injure myself at my desk job. I don't think physical or mental burnout gets anyone anywhere good. At least my former boss ended up having to get surgery for carpal tunnel himself sometime later.
But should it really have been that hard for you? Massive creds for managing to pull yourself out, but it seems unfair and petty to wish upon others the same hardship you've had.
soulofmischief wished no kind of hardship, he is preaching an idea of taking responsibility for improving your life. I personally have not read any moral judgment in his comments; just a simple fact that, in many cases, if you want to improve your life you need to do it yourself.
This together with a conjecture that in most cases the average person has indeed the possibility of upward mobility. A conjecture that was posed with an invite to hear opposing view.
A discussion of how much we should expect help from outside is important (and I believe soulofmischief would agree), but it is not relevant to how to improve your own life in the situation that help does not exist yet.
Personally I think we should separate the morality issue of being poor/rich from the mechanics of how people become/remain poor.
This together with a conjecture that in most cases the average person has indeed the possibility of upward mobility. A conjecture that was posed with an invite to hear opposing view.
A discussion of how much we should expect help from outside is important (and I believe soulofmischief would agree), but it is not relevant to how to improve your own life in the situation that help does not exist yet.
Personally I think we should separate the morality issue of being poor/rich from the mechanics of how people become/remain poor.
No moral judgement? He's literally stating that he thinks people who can't get out of poverty within 10-20 years are not worth his empathy. It's clear as day that he considers her to a large degree responsible for her situation.
The anectotal example he is asking for is in the very article we're discussing. Not that she has made no mistakes, but that (as has been stated several times in these comments) such mistakes are extremely punishing when you are this poor.
As for the discussion on societal help, I think it's very relevant, because the very definition of working yourself up from poverty means climbing the societal ladder. As such, the society you're in is intrinsic to improving your situation. It's a fallacy to say that you are completely in control of your own destiny and luck - the society around you is always helping and/or harming your efforts.
Every person has an obligation to themselves to improve their life as best they can, but a society that ensures basic needs are met is the best springboard for being able to do so.
The anectotal example he is asking for is in the very article we're discussing. Not that she has made no mistakes, but that (as has been stated several times in these comments) such mistakes are extremely punishing when you are this poor.
As for the discussion on societal help, I think it's very relevant, because the very definition of working yourself up from poverty means climbing the societal ladder. As such, the society you're in is intrinsic to improving your situation. It's a fallacy to say that you are completely in control of your own destiny and luck - the society around you is always helping and/or harming your efforts.
Every person has an obligation to themselves to improve their life as best they can, but a society that ensures basic needs are met is the best springboard for being able to do so.
Actually, no, that's not what I said. I said that sometimes I have trouble empathizing with reasonably intelligent individuals who have not made a meaningful change to their prospects after 20 years, and I made a post requesting different points of view.
The truth is that you're being way overcritical. Nothing about my post is clear as day, the only comments I made regarding Ms. Brown were in the form of questions. Are you going to help answer those questions or just light me up with your virtue signalling?
The truth is that you're being way overcritical. Nothing about my post is clear as day, the only comments I made regarding Ms. Brown were in the form of questions. Are you going to help answer those questions or just light me up with your virtue signalling?
You're right, I did extrapolate your statement - sorry about that.
It's clear we're approaching this issue from completely different fundamental positions. To me, your question is uninteresting because my underlying belief is that all human beings that live in a society deserve a life where they don't have to worry about fundamental needs, such as food, shelter and hygiene.
I think everyone should receive enough money from their jobs to afford decent, nutritional food, a small apartment, and hygiene articles. Even if they are hard-working or complacent, stupid or intelligent.
It's clear we're approaching this issue from completely different fundamental positions. To me, your question is uninteresting because my underlying belief is that all human beings that live in a society deserve a life where they don't have to worry about fundamental needs, such as food, shelter and hygiene.
I think everyone should receive enough money from their jobs to afford decent, nutritional food, a small apartment, and hygiene articles. Even if they are hard-working or complacent, stupid or intelligent.
In an ideal world, we would all be on UBI. But we aren't, and so we have the duty to ourselves, each other, and our posterity to do everything we can to reverse the authoritarian plague ripping through this planet.
We have to learn how we can take personal agency despite hardships, and instill this agency in others, so that we can stand our ground and ensure a better economic outcome for our children.
We have to learn how we can take personal agency despite hardships, and instill this agency in others, so that we can stand our ground and ensure a better economic outcome for our children.
Thank you for your comment. This is the discussion I wish to have.
I can say that one thing which did help me was that even though I grew up impoverished, I still had a few middle-class friends whose relative wealth "rubbed off on me", if you will. And I had a handful of teachers whose participation extended past the obligations of their jobs and who were ready to write letters of recommendations at a moment's notice to any institution and give me space to learn in my own way.
But these bonds were formed with the express intention of networking and while I am thankful for the help I've received from these people, I also recognize that I would have not received this help if I were generally a dick to people around me and didn't seek out friendships with useful people.
If we can discuss these kinds of things and reach a general consensus on what the obstacles are and how to overcome them, this information could be critical to others in their struggle. What information is Ms. Brown missing?
I can say that one thing which did help me was that even though I grew up impoverished, I still had a few middle-class friends whose relative wealth "rubbed off on me", if you will. And I had a handful of teachers whose participation extended past the obligations of their jobs and who were ready to write letters of recommendations at a moment's notice to any institution and give me space to learn in my own way.
But these bonds were formed with the express intention of networking and while I am thankful for the help I've received from these people, I also recognize that I would have not received this help if I were generally a dick to people around me and didn't seek out friendships with useful people.
If we can discuss these kinds of things and reach a general consensus on what the obstacles are and how to overcome them, this information could be critical to others in their struggle. What information is Ms. Brown missing?
"I saw a way out, computers, and I took it. I was able to pivot to a better career by building skills in my free time."
So clearly, everyone can follow that same path, right?
So clearly, everyone can follow that same path, right?
No. You're presenting a false dichotomy. There is a spectrum of careers to choose from. However, I do think the average person can get into a tech career provided they pursue the right education. They better, as entry-level tech becomes the new blue collar.
It is a failure on society's part that free career counseling and mentoring isn't mandatory, however as individual agents we must also take personal agency and make up for the shortfalls of society.
It is a failure on society's part that free career counseling and mentoring isn't mandatory, however as individual agents we must also take personal agency and make up for the shortfalls of society.
Well see the just world theory says that if they have spent 10 years in a low wage job then they obviously have a character flaw that makes them unsuitable for any higher position in society so certainly we don't need to look at any other factors apart from that to know that we won't employ her for anything else.
/s
One time I was trying to put up a picture frame. I lost my measuring tape so I was just kinda eyeballing it. I put up a nail, then the frame. It wasn't right, so I pulled it out and redid it. When I pulled out the nail I bent it a little. I'm not very good at this so it took me a few times, especially since it wouldn't go in straight now (I straightened it out as much as I could). On my third try the nail broke. So I grabbed a new nail and finally got the frame up. Luckily it is large enough to hide my mistakes haha.
Personal agency isn't all that there is. It wasn't the nail's fault that it broke. I bent it and kept hammering it down. I pushed it beyond what it was supposed to be used for. Sure, a different nail would have survived, but in the end it was my fault. A roofing or masonry nails would have probably been able to put up with the abuse (but caused bigger holes), but I was using a drywall nail. Was it the right nail for the job? Eh, in the end it worked out and my picture hasn't fallen down. I mean I don't have any expensive pictures or frames, so I'm still just going to grab whatever nail looks like it will work from my box. But I also have two measuring tapes now.
Personal agency isn't all that there is. It wasn't the nail's fault that it broke. I bent it and kept hammering it down. I pushed it beyond what it was supposed to be used for. Sure, a different nail would have survived, but in the end it was my fault. A roofing or masonry nails would have probably been able to put up with the abuse (but caused bigger holes), but I was using a drywall nail. Was it the right nail for the job? Eh, in the end it worked out and my picture hasn't fallen down. I mean I don't have any expensive pictures or frames, so I'm still just going to grab whatever nail looks like it will work from my box. But I also have two measuring tapes now.
Genuinely curious: given that you grew up in abject poverty, how did you end up with a great education? That to me is the crux of this whole issue at hand. Kids who grow up in real abject poverty have negligent parents, go to bad schools early on, get pulled out of school, etc., setting them up for failure beyond their reasonable ability as adults.
Haven't you seen Matilda?
:D
I taught myself to read around age three by reading the same book every single day and recalling the memorized sounds from when it was read to me and fitting them to the letters. I taught myself arithmetic at the same age from playing video games. I was reading novels before public school.
I didn't go to preschool, but I did go to a local Head Start after qualifying.
I went to 5 kindergartens because I kept getting handed around relatives, and at one point I was even kidnapped by a relative before again being rescued and changed schools. After finally staying in one place for more than a few weeks, teachers saw that I had arithmetic down and put me in a mathathon. I came in second because I was a brat and didn't want to use counting blocks, preferring to rely on mental math. This planted the seed for the person who beat me to become a childhood rival, which helped immensely in my extra-curricular pursuit of education. We were always neck to neck in scores for everything. We each read 2-3 books a week to compete in Accelerated Reader scores. I think having a rival really made a difference in my motivation.
One issue with children is they often lack motivation of any kind, and if you look towards their parents you will see the same thing. The motivation to best my rival was really an internal motivation to prove to myself that I could be great at anything I put my mind to. I don't know where this internal motivation comes from. Is it something that can be consistently instilled in others?
I went to a similarly large number of middle and high schools, bouncing around a lot between family members, my atheism being a point of contention among my relatives. I actually attended both the worst-ranked high school in my state which is often ranked worst in education in the country, so basically one of the worst high schools in the country, and I also attended one of the top dozen elite high schools of the country.
The disparity is indescribable. On the bad end, half of my classes were a revolving door of substitute teachers with no curriculum given to them, the other half were just the teacher yelling over students who were yelling over each other, throwing things, smoking cigarettes, and playing music on their phones in the middle of class. Regular police raids and schoolwide body searches. Massive school board corruption. And I do have sympathy. I want them all to succeed and be happy. The heat map for high test scores very often conspicuously radiated from my position in the classroom.
In the end, it really came down to the desire to learn. I was not allowed to use the computer for anything not school related for most of my childhood (it's the devil's silicon), and so I learned how to hack computers, sideload applications, circumvent firewalls, gain root access, etc. so that I could sneak out in the middle of the night and learn about things that interested me like 3D modeling, graphic design, music, programming, and general web geek culture. After school, my idea of a fun time was hanging out at the library. I even had dates there. My entry into an elite boarding school was entirely merit-based and paid for by the state. The school is open up to anyone in the country however and there are other schools just like it.
I didn't go to preschool, but I did go to a local Head Start after qualifying.
I went to 5 kindergartens because I kept getting handed around relatives, and at one point I was even kidnapped by a relative before again being rescued and changed schools. After finally staying in one place for more than a few weeks, teachers saw that I had arithmetic down and put me in a mathathon. I came in second because I was a brat and didn't want to use counting blocks, preferring to rely on mental math. This planted the seed for the person who beat me to become a childhood rival, which helped immensely in my extra-curricular pursuit of education. We were always neck to neck in scores for everything. We each read 2-3 books a week to compete in Accelerated Reader scores. I think having a rival really made a difference in my motivation.
One issue with children is they often lack motivation of any kind, and if you look towards their parents you will see the same thing. The motivation to best my rival was really an internal motivation to prove to myself that I could be great at anything I put my mind to. I don't know where this internal motivation comes from. Is it something that can be consistently instilled in others?
I went to a similarly large number of middle and high schools, bouncing around a lot between family members, my atheism being a point of contention among my relatives. I actually attended both the worst-ranked high school in my state which is often ranked worst in education in the country, so basically one of the worst high schools in the country, and I also attended one of the top dozen elite high schools of the country.
The disparity is indescribable. On the bad end, half of my classes were a revolving door of substitute teachers with no curriculum given to them, the other half were just the teacher yelling over students who were yelling over each other, throwing things, smoking cigarettes, and playing music on their phones in the middle of class. Regular police raids and schoolwide body searches. Massive school board corruption. And I do have sympathy. I want them all to succeed and be happy. The heat map for high test scores very often conspicuously radiated from my position in the classroom.
In the end, it really came down to the desire to learn. I was not allowed to use the computer for anything not school related for most of my childhood (it's the devil's silicon), and so I learned how to hack computers, sideload applications, circumvent firewalls, gain root access, etc. so that I could sneak out in the middle of the night and learn about things that interested me like 3D modeling, graphic design, music, programming, and general web geek culture. After school, my idea of a fun time was hanging out at the library. I even had dates there. My entry into an elite boarding school was entirely merit-based and paid for by the state. The school is open up to anyone in the country however and there are other schools just like it.
The dominating terms in the calculus of a person's economic circumstances aren't intelligence, will, or moral righteousness.
If you don't start out with wealthy family or relatives to bail you out of emergencies, unexpected expenses of just a couple hundred dollars are devastating and can take months to recover from. Not to mention all the more subtle network driven benefits like getting your foot in the door somewhere or training in professional culture norms and lessons in navigating bureaucracy
When you work a physically demanding low wage job without that fallback, thinking about anything but survival (literally feeding yourself and loved ones -- sometimes including parents) at the end of the day is unlikely. And the smallest lapses in judgement end up being far more catastrophic.
This was my reality for about a decade. I worked in the San Francisco Bay area in grocery stores and restaurants, and held multiple full time minimum wage jobs concurrently.
I had PTSD from a young age, didn't prioritize my formal education after high school (let alone during school), self medicated with drugs and alcohol. Certainly made bad decisions.
I randomly picked up a trigonometry book in my early 20s, was excited by the fact that, given some agency in how I approached the material I could, in fact, understand it -- and eventually self taught up to calculus before deciding to go back to school. I was accepted to UC Berkeley as a transfer student when I was about 26, transferred and studied pure math... While still working two jobs to survive, dealing with housing insecurity as my landlord started aggressively raising my rent, and figuring out how to best allocate the $300 or so leftover after rent and bills were paid.
So yeah, I ended up dropping out. I spent a couple years coming home from my very physical near min wage jobs exhausted but still stayed up late into the night teaching myself to code by building shit in Python and Node, learning SQL and CS concepts.
Doing this was not the cake walk the manic learn-to-code survival bias narratives on Medium might have you think. It took years and involved significant sacrifice to my health to forgo the sleep that I did, and ultimately my success boiled down to someone taking a chance on me. Now my financial calculus is drastically different. Make no mistake though: if I were much older, had a child, were non-white, non-male, had a more severe disability, or had any more unexpected critical expenses over a few hundred dollars, it's entirely possible I would still be broke and toiling away in kitchens
I was able to change my circumstances, but it took many, many years, and a lot of backtracking whenever circumstances (even plenty beyond my control) shifted.
And it required me to effectively make the best possible decision at all times. One thing I find interesting about your question is the implication that fallibility in someone's decision making process means they deserve poverty, and all the horrible shit that comes with it (like housing and food insecurity, and even bring forced to contend with dangerous conditions during pregnancy).
I am no less fallible in my judgement today than I was when I was broke, the difference is that today I can afford to make bigger mistakes.
Anyway, I hope if anything my story helps you re-evaluate that particular point.
If you don't start out with wealthy family or relatives to bail you out of emergencies, unexpected expenses of just a couple hundred dollars are devastating and can take months to recover from. Not to mention all the more subtle network driven benefits like getting your foot in the door somewhere or training in professional culture norms and lessons in navigating bureaucracy
When you work a physically demanding low wage job without that fallback, thinking about anything but survival (literally feeding yourself and loved ones -- sometimes including parents) at the end of the day is unlikely. And the smallest lapses in judgement end up being far more catastrophic.
This was my reality for about a decade. I worked in the San Francisco Bay area in grocery stores and restaurants, and held multiple full time minimum wage jobs concurrently.
I had PTSD from a young age, didn't prioritize my formal education after high school (let alone during school), self medicated with drugs and alcohol. Certainly made bad decisions.
I randomly picked up a trigonometry book in my early 20s, was excited by the fact that, given some agency in how I approached the material I could, in fact, understand it -- and eventually self taught up to calculus before deciding to go back to school. I was accepted to UC Berkeley as a transfer student when I was about 26, transferred and studied pure math... While still working two jobs to survive, dealing with housing insecurity as my landlord started aggressively raising my rent, and figuring out how to best allocate the $300 or so leftover after rent and bills were paid.
So yeah, I ended up dropping out. I spent a couple years coming home from my very physical near min wage jobs exhausted but still stayed up late into the night teaching myself to code by building shit in Python and Node, learning SQL and CS concepts.
Doing this was not the cake walk the manic learn-to-code survival bias narratives on Medium might have you think. It took years and involved significant sacrifice to my health to forgo the sleep that I did, and ultimately my success boiled down to someone taking a chance on me. Now my financial calculus is drastically different. Make no mistake though: if I were much older, had a child, were non-white, non-male, had a more severe disability, or had any more unexpected critical expenses over a few hundred dollars, it's entirely possible I would still be broke and toiling away in kitchens
I was able to change my circumstances, but it took many, many years, and a lot of backtracking whenever circumstances (even plenty beyond my control) shifted.
And it required me to effectively make the best possible decision at all times. One thing I find interesting about your question is the implication that fallibility in someone's decision making process means they deserve poverty, and all the horrible shit that comes with it (like housing and food insecurity, and even bring forced to contend with dangerous conditions during pregnancy).
I am no less fallible in my judgement today than I was when I was broke, the difference is that today I can afford to make bigger mistakes.
Anyway, I hope if anything my story helps you re-evaluate that particular point.
> And it required me to effectively make the best possible decision at all times. One thing I find interesting about your question is the implication that fallibility in someone's decision making process means they deserve poverty, and all the horrible shit that comes with it (like housing and food insecurity, and even bring forced to contend with dangerous conditions during pregnancy).
> I am no less fallible in my judgement today than I was when I was broke, the difference is that today I can afford to make bigger mistakes.
Nail on the head. People with money make just as many (if not more) mistakes with their cash than people who are struggling on minimum wage. They just don't feel it the same. Most people posting on HN aren't going to struggle to pay their bills if they go for coffee today, or even everyday this month.
> I am no less fallible in my judgement today than I was when I was broke, the difference is that today I can afford to make bigger mistakes.
Nail on the head. People with money make just as many (if not more) mistakes with their cash than people who are struggling on minimum wage. They just don't feel it the same. Most people posting on HN aren't going to struggle to pay their bills if they go for coffee today, or even everyday this month.
> anecdotal example of how this could come to be without some fault in Brown's decision-making process?
You've really never made 1 bad decision, or 10, in your life?
I have plenty of bad decisions, total screwups even, in my history. Some of them were from being petulant, or naive. Some because I was depressed. Yet I'm a white collar educated professional, I'm part because I made some good decisions, and also because that's the environment I was born into, so I was taught how to succeed in that world.
Why do we expect the poor to be paragons of perfect decision making, when the more privileged can make a normal human level of mistakes and still retain their position?
You've really never made 1 bad decision, or 10, in your life?
I have plenty of bad decisions, total screwups even, in my history. Some of them were from being petulant, or naive. Some because I was depressed. Yet I'm a white collar educated professional, I'm part because I made some good decisions, and also because that's the environment I was born into, so I was taught how to succeed in that world.
Why do we expect the poor to be paragons of perfect decision making, when the more privileged can make a normal human level of mistakes and still retain their position?
I make bad decisions every day. How does that have to do with anything? Ms. Brown has had 14 years to come up with a career trajectory. I don't think she has ever bothered in that time to visit a career consultant after realizing she couldn't figure it out on her own.
Random fluctuations in decision quality average out over time to reveal a smooth function of decision-making prowess.
Random fluctuations in decision quality average out over time to reveal a smooth function of decision-making prowess.
When would she have time to do this? Also (and I feel like I'm grasping at straws getting this point across), when your whole existence revolves around just getting to work and back, is it fair of us to require people to have the horizon and insight to understand how to progress their situation? The underlying problem is that exploitation of poor people by these massive corporations lines the pockets of the already extremely wealthy, while it keeps people like Ms. Brown in a constant struggle to keep her head above water.
when your whole existence revolves around just getting to work and back, is it fair of us to require people to have the horizon and insight to understand how to progress their situation?
The implication is that I expect people of reasonable intelligence to do whatever, and I mean whatever, they have to do within ethical boundaries in order to increase their economic opportunities. I don't need a crash course in the history of racial socioeconomic exploitation in the US.
Ask any successful black entrepreneur in the US if they agree with me.
The implication is that I expect people of reasonable intelligence to do whatever, and I mean whatever, they have to do within ethical boundaries in order to increase their economic opportunities. I don't need a crash course in the history of racial socioeconomic exploitation in the US.
Ask any successful black entrepreneur in the US if they agree with me.
How about people without "reasonable intelligence"? Do they deserve the hardships of perpetual poverty? Why should genes and a genetic lottery decide if you can live a decent life or not?
It is up to successful people and organizations to care for those who cannot provide for themselves, and up to our government to enforce this. I am not a free market capitalist and I believe in UBI.
But we're only here to discuss those who are capable, and why it is they might not be taking advantage of upward mobility.
But we're only here to discuss those who are capable, and why it is they might not be taking advantage of upward mobility.
I'm not sure I understand. How can you believe in UBI and still believe that it's up to private initiatives to care for those who can't provide for themselves?
As for your second point: I wasnt aware we're only here for that? That's in any case not my agenda.
As for your second point: I wasnt aware we're only here for that? That's in any case not my agenda.
I wasnt aware we're only here for that? That's in any case not my agenda.
That was the discussion my post opened up. So if we're going to discuss anything here together, it's going to be that.
How can you believe in UBI and still believe that it's up to private initiatives to care for those who can't provide for themselves?
UBI does not currently exist, and the only reason it will ever come to exist is if we all take personal agency and revolt against the current status quo maintained by CorpGov.
Until people like Ms. Brown are provided the education and motivation they need in order to fight for a secured future for posterity, these problems will continue to get worse.
It's not easy. It's not fun. It's not ideal. But life and liberty come at a cost, sweat and blood, and if you are not willing to pay those costs or assist others in paying them, you do not necessarily deserve life and liberty.
That was the discussion my post opened up. So if we're going to discuss anything here together, it's going to be that.
How can you believe in UBI and still believe that it's up to private initiatives to care for those who can't provide for themselves?
UBI does not currently exist, and the only reason it will ever come to exist is if we all take personal agency and revolt against the current status quo maintained by CorpGov.
Until people like Ms. Brown are provided the education and motivation they need in order to fight for a secured future for posterity, these problems will continue to get worse.
It's not easy. It's not fun. It's not ideal. But life and liberty come at a cost, sweat and blood, and if you are not willing to pay those costs or assist others in paying them, you do not necessarily deserve life and liberty.
> I make bad decisions every day.
I'm not talking about daily bad decisions. I'm talking about things like: failing a college course needed for my degree program because of a bout of depression, but having parents who would pay for me to take the class again to pass it. I did that. A lot of people with professional parents have done that.
The poor and the working poor don't have that kind of safety net. The personal consequences of failure are far greater for them, and they experience those consequences at high rates, which one way they can get stuck in the rut of poverty for a long time.
I'm not talking about daily bad decisions. I'm talking about things like: failing a college course needed for my degree program because of a bout of depression, but having parents who would pay for me to take the class again to pass it. I did that. A lot of people with professional parents have done that.
The poor and the working poor don't have that kind of safety net. The personal consequences of failure are far greater for them, and they experience those consequences at high rates, which one way they can get stuck in the rut of poverty for a long time.
If you are poor, you don't have the option to fail. That's the reality. So you simply don't. You rise above the rest with determination. You don't drop out if you're determined because dips in your mental health come second to your success.
Just last week I had someone explode on me Thanksgiving night and physically assault me for a prolonged period of time, while saying things about my poverty and how I was born in poverty and would die in poverty, and trying to blame me for every bad thing that has happened in my life.
This is a person who has been to jail twice for federal property damage and a DUI, who has had several cars given to him by his parents, and who had to resort to a contract with the military in order to straighten himself out. He couldn't hold a job for the longest time and would steal from everyone around him. His parents have helped him again, and again, and again, while mine were just not there.
When a meth-dealing police officer who often stalked my friends and I planted drugs on me at the scene of an accident, I didn't have parents to back me up. Probably a dozen friends who had a parent that was a lawyer, but no one offered to help. I was railroaded by the system and received the maximum possible incarceration time. It didn't matter that I had witness testimony; I didn't have money.
So I am aware of how a socioeconomic safety net works. I am aware of the classist mentalities which keep these systems in place. If you aren't going to provide meaningful anecdotal data or answer my question, then please refrain from giving me a crash course in socioeconomics like the other couple dozen posters who beat you to the punch.
Just last week I had someone explode on me Thanksgiving night and physically assault me for a prolonged period of time, while saying things about my poverty and how I was born in poverty and would die in poverty, and trying to blame me for every bad thing that has happened in my life.
This is a person who has been to jail twice for federal property damage and a DUI, who has had several cars given to him by his parents, and who had to resort to a contract with the military in order to straighten himself out. He couldn't hold a job for the longest time and would steal from everyone around him. His parents have helped him again, and again, and again, while mine were just not there.
When a meth-dealing police officer who often stalked my friends and I planted drugs on me at the scene of an accident, I didn't have parents to back me up. Probably a dozen friends who had a parent that was a lawyer, but no one offered to help. I was railroaded by the system and received the maximum possible incarceration time. It didn't matter that I had witness testimony; I didn't have money.
So I am aware of how a socioeconomic safety net works. I am aware of the classist mentalities which keep these systems in place. If you aren't going to provide meaningful anecdotal data or answer my question, then please refrain from giving me a crash course in socioeconomics like the other couple dozen posters who beat you to the punch.
Without examples, it's impossible to imagine something different for many people. We tech workers job hop because our experience is valuable and we make more money, but in crappy jobs the only way to more money is to put in more time. It makes sense for people in these sectors to stay at the same job.
> I made it a rule not to work anywhere farther than half an hour away. And that is the absolute maximum which was necessary when I lived rural area.
To me it sounds like you're saying, "why doesn't she live closer to her workplace?" which carries with it a kind of subtext of blame. Reading the article a few possible explanations for her choice come to mind.
The author mentions she lives with her boyfriend's parents. Probably this is the cheapest possible living arrangement available to her. Living closer would probably require her to live independently, which tends to be more expensive. This may be compounded by more expensive rents closer to her place of work, which turns out to be a common problem for the working poor and an age-old cruelty of capitalism: Poor people have higher transportation costs -- both in terms of time and money -- because they can only afford to live far from urban centers where their jobs usually are. It's just one of the many ways the old saying "it's expensive to be poor" turns out to be objectively, measurably true.
It's also totally possible that none of the above applies and the author is not being smart with her money, or may have a drug habit, or may be "complacent". But we certainly shouldn't assume these things about her, because we just don't know her circumstances.
Apologies if this comes across as pedantic, but I think the mistake you may be making is projecting your narrow personal experience of your mother's problems onto a complete stranger, whose circumstances seem quite different than your mother's based on the article (the admittedly limited information we have about the author's situation).
It's heartening to see that you recognize your perspective may stem from your own problems with empathy. The author David Foster Wallace has written much (an understatement) about empathy and awareness, but probably the best short work of his about these subjects is this speech. I still find it to be a really good reminder of all kinds of things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI
To me it sounds like you're saying, "why doesn't she live closer to her workplace?" which carries with it a kind of subtext of blame. Reading the article a few possible explanations for her choice come to mind.
The author mentions she lives with her boyfriend's parents. Probably this is the cheapest possible living arrangement available to her. Living closer would probably require her to live independently, which tends to be more expensive. This may be compounded by more expensive rents closer to her place of work, which turns out to be a common problem for the working poor and an age-old cruelty of capitalism: Poor people have higher transportation costs -- both in terms of time and money -- because they can only afford to live far from urban centers where their jobs usually are. It's just one of the many ways the old saying "it's expensive to be poor" turns out to be objectively, measurably true.
It's also totally possible that none of the above applies and the author is not being smart with her money, or may have a drug habit, or may be "complacent". But we certainly shouldn't assume these things about her, because we just don't know her circumstances.
Apologies if this comes across as pedantic, but I think the mistake you may be making is projecting your narrow personal experience of your mother's problems onto a complete stranger, whose circumstances seem quite different than your mother's based on the article (the admittedly limited information we have about the author's situation).
It's heartening to see that you recognize your perspective may stem from your own problems with empathy. The author David Foster Wallace has written much (an understatement) about empathy and awareness, but probably the best short work of his about these subjects is this speech. I still find it to be a really good reminder of all kinds of things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI
> But we certainly shouldn't assume these things about her, because we just don't know her circumstances.
That was not what happened; an anecdote was offered as an example and other anecdotes were requested as counterexamples.
That was not what happened; an anecdote was offered as an example and other anecdotes were requested as counterexamples.
Apologies if this comes across as pedantic, but I think the mistake you may be making is projecting your narrow personal experience of your mother's problems onto a complete stranger, whose circumstances seem quite different than your mother's based on the article
I'm confused by the tendency of you and other users to call a post which is literally asking for other anecdotes of economic struggle to be projecting and indicative of a narrow mindset. I was simply providing my own data point to start. The very act of asking for other perspectives is not what I would call narrow-minded. This kind of response is why people are afraid to open up to others.
In fact, in this entire reply thread only one user bothered to actually share a story of economic strife, which even acknowledged fault on their part (no one is perfect). Meanwhile, tons of comments criticizing me for my point of view when I am literally asking people to change it. One user even called me sociopathic and then proceeded to offer an even more callous point of view while relating that they do not come from a position of poverty at all.
It's heartening to see that you recognize your perspective may stem from your own problems with empathy.
No, that is not what I said. I do not have problems empathizing with others, and I do not appreciate that extrapolation. This is a very specific situation I have trouble empathizing with. David Foster Wallace was a great author and the world misses him.
I'm confused by the tendency of you and other users to call a post which is literally asking for other anecdotes of economic struggle to be projecting and indicative of a narrow mindset. I was simply providing my own data point to start. The very act of asking for other perspectives is not what I would call narrow-minded. This kind of response is why people are afraid to open up to others.
In fact, in this entire reply thread only one user bothered to actually share a story of economic strife, which even acknowledged fault on their part (no one is perfect). Meanwhile, tons of comments criticizing me for my point of view when I am literally asking people to change it. One user even called me sociopathic and then proceeded to offer an even more callous point of view while relating that they do not come from a position of poverty at all.
It's heartening to see that you recognize your perspective may stem from your own problems with empathy.
No, that is not what I said. I do not have problems empathizing with others, and I do not appreciate that extrapolation. This is a very specific situation I have trouble empathizing with. David Foster Wallace was a great author and the world misses him.
She's likely not too bright. Of course there's going to be problems with her decision making process. Can she be blamed for it? Not really, because intelligence is mostly genetic.
You're going to get downvoted for saying something objectively true.
I, on the other hand, desire social accolades. The emperor's new clothes are beautiful.
I, on the other hand, desire social accolades. The emperor's new clothes are beautiful.
It doesn't matter how many people downvote if I get a reaction like this. Have a great day, sir.
How do we increase intelligence over time? Purely mutational, or do you believe it can be passed down epigenetically similarly to weight?
I don't know whether we do increase in intelligence anymore there are problems that increase in the most intelligent populations that might put a limit on it. As to whether some part of intelligence can be accounted for with epigenetics I'd bet on it as it's a complex trait but you'd have to ask a researcher.
At least for now, we can still optimize information density and distribution. We stand on the shoulders of giants, but we need a way to get more people onto their shoulders so that someone else might stand on ours.
The danger with this type of response is that it’s perfectly reasonable, but it’s also sociopathic.
I’m an emergency room doctor (part of the time). Due to the advantages I had of birth, gender, country of origin etc, I live a great life, most of which has been because I took every advantage; cf. many of my peers from school who squandered it.
I also work in emergency departments, in a country where anyone can come to the emergency department for treatment, and I am continually frustrated by the lack of agency many people display in changing their circumstances.
Many, many problems in many people’s lives could be solved by slicing the Gordian Knot - but neither society or you benefit from such a pessimistic view of others
I’m an emergency room doctor (part of the time). Due to the advantages I had of birth, gender, country of origin etc, I live a great life, most of which has been because I took every advantage; cf. many of my peers from school who squandered it.
I also work in emergency departments, in a country where anyone can come to the emergency department for treatment, and I am continually frustrated by the lack of agency many people display in changing their circumstances.
Many, many problems in many people’s lives could be solved by slicing the Gordian Knot - but neither society or you benefit from such a pessimistic view of others
When you say slicing the Gordian Knot (and fixing the lack of agency), what would be some examples?
You may have experienced this but being an outsider sometimes allows ‘clear’ perspectives on optier people’s issues.
Ie a person in a relationship with someone clearly toxic. Or experiencing domestic abuse. The external answer is ‘leave’, the person doesn’t.
The obese patient - walk, change diet.
The representing twenty year old with third presentation cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome - pretty much every time you smoke pot you are going to experience abdominal pain and vomiting, you cannot smoke! How are you not getting the message!
The person spending 5 hours on a bus to work 2 shifts... ?? Is this a rational choice?
Ie a person in a relationship with someone clearly toxic. Or experiencing domestic abuse. The external answer is ‘leave’, the person doesn’t.
The obese patient - walk, change diet.
The representing twenty year old with third presentation cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome - pretty much every time you smoke pot you are going to experience abdominal pain and vomiting, you cannot smoke! How are you not getting the message!
The person spending 5 hours on a bus to work 2 shifts... ?? Is this a rational choice?
It's not a rational choice. There has to be some level of personal agency in this decision. Ms. Brown is only 28.
This whole thread was started as a discussion on personal agency.
Everybody seems to be latching on to the McDonald's part of her story, the author included. But it's the hospital part I find mortifying. McDonald's is pinching pennies left and right, it's their key to success. The hospital is not. How much would you guess they're charging per day for the average patient to stay there? I bet it's enough money to cover full-time employment and benefits for their food service workers.
I find it very interesting that most people assume it should be the employer's responsibility to provide for the employee's wellbeing. Call me naive, but I think it should be society's responsibility. What about Hedge Funds, Technology companies, Law Firms and every other company that hires primarily 6-figure white collar employees. Should they be completely off the hook, just because their business model only requires small numbers of white collar workers? What about yuppies and millionaires who eat at nice restaurants, shop at Whole Foods and cook our own meals, instead of buying from McDonalds. Should we be immune from minimum wage increases just because we can afford to pay for the finer things in life?
Minimum wage laws are fundamentally a tax on low-margin businesses and the low-wage workers who frequent them. There's a better option available. The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). It can ensure that workers take home $15/hour, while also ensuring that the cost is borne by the entire society. Not just a few specific industries and the specific demographics that rely on them.
Minimum wage laws are fundamentally a tax on low-margin businesses and the low-wage workers who frequent them. There's a better option available. The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). It can ensure that workers take home $15/hour, while also ensuring that the cost is borne by the entire society. Not just a few specific industries and the specific demographics that rely on them.
Yes, it should be society's responsibility, but until we all accept it as a group the onus remains on employers.
I haven't qualified for the Earned Income Credit in quite a few years, but I have nonetheless claimed it a number of times. I experienced none of the magical properties you seem to think it has.
I haven't qualified for the Earned Income Credit in quite a few years, but I have nonetheless claimed it a number of times. I experienced none of the magical properties you seem to think it has.
The only "magical property" I claimed, is cash in your wallet, funded by taxes. I'm not sure what other magical properties you were expecting. My proposal is that instead of increasing the minimum wage, we beef up the amount of support provided by EITC
You suggested that this existing tax credit that we've all been accustomed to since the '70s was a suitable replacement for a decent wage. Completely aside from the SUBSTANTIAL increase in cost it would take to make the numbers fit, what leads you to believe that an annual tax refund is an appropriate substitute for a regular paycheck? Do you expect them all to save it all in a bank account and only spend a set weekly amount? If they were in a financially stable enough position to pull that off, they wouldn't be working at McDonald's.
He stated that it _could_ give workers $15/hour, not that it does. (It maxes out adding a little over $3/hour.)
You can get a Notice of Withholding to get the credit in your paychecks instead of at the end of the year. I don't know how well it works.
It's clearly possible in theory to get $15,000 on April 15 and $15,000 from McDonald's and live the same lifestyle as someone who makes $30,000 from paychecks. I could manage it easily, it's basic consumption smoothing. Should be able to borrow against the credit if necessary, too, since it's guaranteed.
You can get a Notice of Withholding to get the credit in your paychecks instead of at the end of the year. I don't know how well it works.
It's clearly possible in theory to get $15,000 on April 15 and $15,000 from McDonald's and live the same lifestyle as someone who makes $30,000 from paychecks. I could manage it easily, it's basic consumption smoothing. Should be able to borrow against the credit if necessary, too, since it's guaranteed.
It doesn't have to take the form of an annual tax refund. It could take the form of lower, or negative, paycheck withholdings. The hard part is making sure that people don't end up owing a bunch of money at tax time, of course, because they're not going to have it lying around.
Looks like we’re all talking about essentially UBI (Universal Basic Income) here... which I at least think is the solution to a lot of this!
There's a difference between UBI and something like EITC, in that UBI applies to all adults, whether working or not, whereas EITC is explicitly targeted at people who are employed but do not make what one would consider a "living wage" based on their situation (number of kids, etc).
Depending on the structure of the rest of the tax system and on whether the UBI phases out or not, the effective marginal tax rates can also be quite different, though this part can be massaged to make the two options look identical, I suspect.
But the core of the difference is whether employment is explicitly encouraged (EITC) or not (UBI).
Depending on the structure of the rest of the tax system and on whether the UBI phases out or not, the effective marginal tax rates can also be quite different, though this part can be massaged to make the two options look identical, I suspect.
But the core of the difference is whether employment is explicitly encouraged (EITC) or not (UBI).
> Should we be completely immune from minimum wage increases just because we can afford to pay for the finer things in life?
You aren't immune.
Minimum wage laws impact the supply chain that feeds Whole Foods and nice restaurants by increasing the cost of rural labor.
https://www.indeed.com/salaries/farm-worker-Salaries
A quick google will show you that farm workers are well below the $15/hour goal most progressives are touting.
The argument that "society should carry the cost" is based on your opinion that is in error. Society carries the cost of minimum wage increases because we all have to eat. We all have to patronize low margin businesses to some degree (even if it is indirect).
You can argue the EITC is a better "solution" than a minimum wage but if you are trying to ensure $15/hour for people paid $10/hour, you are really talking a negative income tax or UBI. At which point, you are probably better off supporting those proposals instead of pushing the EITC.
Personally, I'm not a fan of subsidizing low margin businesses that from a Capitalist perspective should probably be allowed to die if their workers can't afford to live on what they pay.
You aren't immune.
Minimum wage laws impact the supply chain that feeds Whole Foods and nice restaurants by increasing the cost of rural labor.
https://www.indeed.com/salaries/farm-worker-Salaries
A quick google will show you that farm workers are well below the $15/hour goal most progressives are touting.
The argument that "society should carry the cost" is based on your opinion that is in error. Society carries the cost of minimum wage increases because we all have to eat. We all have to patronize low margin businesses to some degree (even if it is indirect).
You can argue the EITC is a better "solution" than a minimum wage but if you are trying to ensure $15/hour for people paid $10/hour, you are really talking a negative income tax or UBI. At which point, you are probably better off supporting those proposals instead of pushing the EITC.
Personally, I'm not a fan of subsidizing low margin businesses that from a Capitalist perspective should probably be allowed to die if their workers can't afford to live on what they pay.
So if you aren’t a fan of subsidizing low margin businesses - like the mom and pop shops - are you also not willing to allow public pensions to invest in VC funds that subsidize money losing tech companies?
I think it’s kind of rich that the same people who are probably working for money losing companies backed by VCs think that small low margin businesses owners don’t deserve to make a living.
I think it’s kind of rich that the same people who are probably working for money losing companies backed by VCs think that small low margin businesses owners don’t deserve to make a living.
You're right that the "trickle down" effects of minimum wage laws will impact everyone in society to some extent. But it seems like a fairly obvious conclusion that people eating at McDonalds and shopping at Walmart, will be impacted more than someone who only buys premium organic food and spends the majority of his income on other luxuries.
> you are really talking a negative income tax or UBI. At which point, you are probably better off supporting those proposals instead of pushing the EITC.
I do support UBI too but it seems like an extreme stretch to say that is easier to sell than EITC. Especially when you consider that EITC already exists today as a federal law, and UBI does not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit
> Personally, I'm not a fan of subsidizing low margin businesses that from a Capitalist perspective should probably be allowed to die if their workers can't afford to live on what they pay.
Allowing McDonalds to hire workers at wages set by supply-and-demand, is the very opposite of a subsidy. Killing off profitable low-margin businesses, will by definition, lower the nation's GDP and tax base. Everyone, especially the workers like the one featured in the article, will be far better off in a world where profitable low-margin businesses aren't killed off by government regulation. It's far more effective to tax McDonalds, as well as every other profitable company, in order to fund the safety net that every citizen deserves.
> you are really talking a negative income tax or UBI. At which point, you are probably better off supporting those proposals instead of pushing the EITC.
I do support UBI too but it seems like an extreme stretch to say that is easier to sell than EITC. Especially when you consider that EITC already exists today as a federal law, and UBI does not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit
> Personally, I'm not a fan of subsidizing low margin businesses that from a Capitalist perspective should probably be allowed to die if their workers can't afford to live on what they pay.
Allowing McDonalds to hire workers at wages set by supply-and-demand, is the very opposite of a subsidy. Killing off profitable low-margin businesses, will by definition, lower the nation's GDP and tax base. Everyone, especially the workers like the one featured in the article, will be far better off in a world where profitable low-margin businesses aren't killed off by government regulation. It's far more effective to tax McDonalds, as well as every other profitable company, in order to fund the safety net that every citizen deserves.
> I do support UBI too but it seems like an extreme stretch to say that is easier to sell than EITC. Especially when you consider that EITC already exists today as a federal law, and UBI does not.
To do what the person I'm replying to wants, it would be on the scale of UBI/negative income tax. Otherwise, its not the equivalent to $15/hour when they are being paid $10/hour.
To do what the person I'm replying to wants, it would be on the scale of UBI/negative income tax. Otherwise, its not the equivalent to $15/hour when they are being paid $10/hour.
I'm baffled that no one has suggested that an individual is responsible for himself. Corporate health insurance, for instance, started due to wage & price controls. This shielded consumers from direct price increases. Instead of increasing wages, employers silently absorbed most of the costs, as evinced by the data [0] [1] [2].
Consumers almost certainly have more elastic purchasing preferences for insurance as a group, as they are much more granular. Insurance companies love negotiating with companies, because fewer, larger customers with greater inertia and specially-negotiated deals enable greater price discrimination than a mass-market product compared directly to others. This has further enabled the rise in prices.
I firmly believe that the individual is better-equipped to make his own decisions than any central planner or procurement department. We've messed things up enough with centralization; it's time to shift back to letting consumers make their own choices. Rather than taking even more choice by further centralizing from an oligopoly to a government monopoly, give people a chance to make their own decisions. I picked health insurance as it is a particularly hot topic, but this reasoning applies to many other areas.
[0]: https://fm-static.cnbc.com/awsmedia/chart/2019/8/19/image%20...
[1]: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/10/08/50...
[2]: https://www.insurancejournal.com/app/uploads/2018/10/2018-eh...
Consumers almost certainly have more elastic purchasing preferences for insurance as a group, as they are much more granular. Insurance companies love negotiating with companies, because fewer, larger customers with greater inertia and specially-negotiated deals enable greater price discrimination than a mass-market product compared directly to others. This has further enabled the rise in prices.
I firmly believe that the individual is better-equipped to make his own decisions than any central planner or procurement department. We've messed things up enough with centralization; it's time to shift back to letting consumers make their own choices. Rather than taking even more choice by further centralizing from an oligopoly to a government monopoly, give people a chance to make their own decisions. I picked health insurance as it is a particularly hot topic, but this reasoning applies to many other areas.
[0]: https://fm-static.cnbc.com/awsmedia/chart/2019/8/19/image%20...
.1566239610216.png){kind=link}
[1]: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/10/08/50...
[2]: https://www.insurancejournal.com/app/uploads/2018/10/2018-eh...
> I find it very interesting that most people assume it should be the employer's responsibility to provide for the employee's wellbeing. Call me naive, but I think it should be society's responsibility.
You're right, but then we have the employer class generally lobbying against society actually providing these things.
You're right, but then we have the employer class generally lobbying against society actually providing these things.
Corporations are a part and a result of our society. The government should not be in the business of subsidizing companies who aren't profitable enough to pay a living wage, it should just mandate a living wage and companies who aren't able to meet it go out of business. 'Creative destruction' and all that.
How many YC funded companies have ever been profitable? VC backed tech companies “aren’t profitable enough” to pay a living wage.
Small businesses outside of the tech sector don’t have the access to capital that tech bro’s have.
Small businesses outside of the tech sector don’t have the access to capital that tech bro’s have.
I don't think access to capital is a mitigating factor. It doesn't really matter why you can't pay a wage that a worker can live on. If you can't do it you should go out of business.
So now people who are trying to make a living with a small business don’t deserve to be in business but tech bro’s who can convince people to invest billions in companies that will probably never be profitable should stay in business?
Especially since we know that most venture funding goes to people who “pattern match” with Zuckerburg not the people who are running small businesses.
Yeah that’s going to make the poor better off while people in tech shake their finger at them - or in other words let them eat cake!
If low margin companies don’t deserve to be in business then why do money losing companies deserve to be in business? What if we made it against the law for public pensions to invest in VC funds or made it illegal for companies that don’t show that they can be profitable to be listed on the public market?
Especially since we know that most venture funding goes to people who “pattern match” with Zuckerburg not the people who are running small businesses.
Yeah that’s going to make the poor better off while people in tech shake their finger at them - or in other words let them eat cake!
If low margin companies don’t deserve to be in business then why do money losing companies deserve to be in business? What if we made it against the law for public pensions to invest in VC funds or made it illegal for companies that don’t show that they can be profitable to be listed on the public market?
This is whataboutism. Believing that businesses who can’t afford to pay their staff a living wage shouldn’t exist doesn’t entail any position on the issue of unprofitable tech companies.
Why not? Left to their own devices they couldn’t afford to pay their employees anything.
The mom and pop shop can’t get millions of dollars thrown at them because they “pattern match” what a successful founder “looks like” without a business plan. They actually have to be profitable.
The mom and pop shop can’t get millions of dollars thrown at them because they “pattern match” what a successful founder “looks like” without a business plan. They actually have to be profitable.
Suppose that this was fixed, and tech companies had to be profitable to stay in business, like mom and pop shops. Would that do anything to improve the circumstances of the McDonald’s worker described in this article?
Would it do the worker or the franchise owner (who on average makes between $65K and $150K a year) any good if the company was out of business?
What if capital wasn’t chasing after money losing startups where the VC partners take 20% management fees no matter how badly the fund performs - much of that money coming from public pensions?
What if capital wasn’t chasing after money losing startups where the VC partners take 20% management fees no matter how badly the fund performs - much of that money coming from public pensions?
Low margin businesses fundamentally operate by exploiting low paid workers. What's wrong with making the playing field even by taxing them? The prices of food will go up, but that's okay. We do it here in Australia and nobody is crying over having to pay 12 AUD for McDonald's vs 9 AUD in the US.
> What's wrong with making the playing field even by taxing them?
This turns the low paid workers into unemployed workers.
I'm fascinated that people honestly think it's better that people make $0/h than $10/h while "exploited".
This turns the low paid workers into unemployed workers.
I'm fascinated that people honestly think it's better that people make $0/h than $10/h while "exploited".
Yes according to classical economics it'd result in a decrease in demand. But the reality is that these shops need the workers regardless. Moreover with a minimum wage people have more disposable income to spend at these shops, which can sometimes create more jobs than the increased salary destroyed.
Most studies that have been done on minimum wage found no correlation to unemployment rate. The economics you learned in high school can rarely be applied perfectly to reality. There are plenty of countries with minimum wages with no significantly different unemployment rates in the service industries.
Most studies that have been done on minimum wage found no correlation to unemployment rate. The economics you learned in high school can rarely be applied perfectly to reality. There are plenty of countries with minimum wages with no significantly different unemployment rates in the service industries.
Pretty much all changes in minimum wages are small.
This makes it very hard to measure the effect with any precision. You have to remember that wages are not 100% of the compensation for employees. So if MW increases from $10 to $10:50, fringe benefits may be cut from $2 to $1:50, and you end up with no measurable effect.
> But the reality is that these shops need the workers regardless.
If their expenses become higher than their earnings, the shops will close. Maybe that at least is an economic fact we can agree on?
This makes it very hard to measure the effect with any precision. You have to remember that wages are not 100% of the compensation for employees. So if MW increases from $10 to $10:50, fringe benefits may be cut from $2 to $1:50, and you end up with no measurable effect.
> But the reality is that these shops need the workers regardless.
If their expenses become higher than their earnings, the shops will close. Maybe that at least is an economic fact we can agree on?
Then why not implement it that way? Make the minimum wage small and bump it up a bit ahead of inflation every year. If things go south (this hasn't happened in any other country that has done it) it can always be reversed.
For what it's worth, here in Australia there's only around 10% less McDonald's stores per capita to the US, despite a $20 minimum wage. All these workers can afford to eat and live in some of the most expensive cities in the world and the country isn't collapsing under unemployment.
For what it's worth, here in Australia there's only around 10% less McDonald's stores per capita to the US, despite a $20 minimum wage. All these workers can afford to eat and live in some of the most expensive cities in the world and the country isn't collapsing under unemployment.
You might miss my point. I'm saying MW does hurt low skilled workers quite a lot, but adjusting it for inflation every few years doesn't make it worse.
If I was emperor, abolishing MW would be my first and most obvious reform to help the poor.
> All these workers can afford to eat and live...
But the problem is the people who can't get work because on MW!
If I was emperor, abolishing MW would be my first and most obvious reform to help the poor.
> All these workers can afford to eat and live...
But the problem is the people who can't get work because on MW!
>I'm saying MW does hurt low skilled workers quite a lot
Citation needed. In fact, I did a quick Google search and found out that several US cities/states have increased minimum wage this year and they've seen NO significant job losses. In fact, in some cases these states have seen more growth in low-income jobs than states with lower minimum wages.
Minimum wage takes money out of the pockets of the rich and puts it in the pockets of the poor. Half the time the rich people would have spent this money on luxury goods instead of spending this money on everyday things anyway. As such, in many cases you end up seeing increases (or at least no impact) in the numbers of low wage jobs because of the increase in demand of the products of said workers.
Citation needed. In fact, I did a quick Google search and found out that several US cities/states have increased minimum wage this year and they've seen NO significant job losses. In fact, in some cases these states have seen more growth in low-income jobs than states with lower minimum wages.
Minimum wage takes money out of the pockets of the rich and puts it in the pockets of the poor. Half the time the rich people would have spent this money on luxury goods instead of spending this money on everyday things anyway. As such, in many cases you end up seeing increases (or at least no impact) in the numbers of low wage jobs because of the increase in demand of the products of said workers.
> If their expenses become higher than their earnings, the shops will close. Maybe that at least is an economic fact we can agree on?
Or they could raise their prices. That’s what normally happens in my experience when a small business faces an unavoidable and significant increase in one of its input costs.
Or they could raise their prices. That’s what normally happens in my experience when a small business faces an unavoidable and significant increase in one of its input costs.
Its not that simple, higher wages also mean that people spends more, that could actually be significant in places like McDonald's
I'm fascinated that people honestly think that increasing the minimum wage will result in a large amount of job loss. Here's a thread from last month on a story about why this isn't true. A comment from jjoonathan links to an interesting study about how jobs negatively affected by minimum wage increases are disproportionately reported on when compared to jobs benefited by minimum wage increases.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21630679
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21630679
Low margin businesses are also franchise owners and mom and pop shops. Who do you think is hurt the most if prices go up on fast food and at Walmart?
You think the countries with minimum wages don't have these mom and pop shops? Hint: I live in such a country, and they're doing just fine. The prices are higher across the board, including the prices they sell their products for. The margin shifts, it doesn't disappear.
I bet your country also has universal healthcare and a better safety net.
Sure, and there's nothing stopping your country from doing the same. I mean healthcare is basically irrelevant since minimum wage workers can't afford to look after health conditions regardless of whether or not they have a job. Regardless, there's no observed correlation between minimum wage and unemployment if that's what you're getting at.
Well, the unemployment rate in most European countries is twice that of the US....
What about all the many years before 2014 that the US unemployment rate was significantly more than almost all of the European countries? Did the lack of minimum wage help in 2010 when the unemployment rate was 10%?
Also, that's a flat out lie. Greece, Spain, and Italy are pulling up the average with their huge unemployment rates, and the vast majority of unemployment rates besides that are almost the same as the US and in some cases lower.
Also, that's a flat out lie. Greece, Spain, and Italy are pulling up the average with their huge unemployment rates, and the vast majority of unemployment rates besides that are almost the same as the US and in some cases lower.
Every country in the EU has a higher rate than the EU.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/268830/unemployment-rate...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/268830/unemployment-rate...
I'm assuming you mean than the US. The Netherlands, Hungary, Poland, Malta, Germany and Czech Republic aren't in the EU? Last time I checked they were.
Germany and the Netherlands have some of the highest minimum wages in the world, and yet they have unemployment rates that are lower than the US.
Moreover, your claim was that most of the countries have twice the unemployment rate of the US. Your very own source shows that only 5 of the 28 nations have double or more, and less than half have an unemployment rate 50% greater than the US. Are you going to admit to your lie or are you going to change the story?
Germany and the Netherlands have some of the highest minimum wages in the world, and yet they have unemployment rates that are lower than the US.
Moreover, your claim was that most of the countries have twice the unemployment rate of the US. Your very own source shows that only 5 of the 28 nations have double or more, and less than half have an unemployment rate 50% greater than the US. Are you going to admit to your lie or are you going to change the story?
[deleted]
> Minimum wage laws are fundamentally a tax on low-margin businesses
"For the fiscal year 2017, McDonalds reported earnings of US$5.2 billion"
Why are you making this sound like a bad thing? What's with the EITC drum-beating in this thread?
"For the fiscal year 2017, McDonalds reported earnings of US$5.2 billion"
Why are you making this sound like a bad thing? What's with the EITC drum-beating in this thread?
You realize there is a difference between revenue and profit?
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mcdonalds-reports-f...
Their net income was less than $700 million and it’s not corporate McDonalds that pays the employees in the stores - it’s the franchise owners.
Franchise owners make less than $70K a year per store.
https://work.chron.com/average-income-fast-food-franchise-ow...
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mcdonalds-reports-f...
Their net income was less than $700 million and it’s not corporate McDonalds that pays the employees in the stores - it’s the franchise owners.
Franchise owners make less than $70K a year per store.
https://work.chron.com/average-income-fast-food-franchise-ow...
McDonalds franchise owners make 3x that. The average is dragged down by low rent chains like Subway or Wendy’s
Keep in mind that the owners make that after leasing the building from McDonalds. It’s a turnkey business and there are many, many people who have gotten pretty rich on operating these places.
Keep in mind that the owners make that after leasing the building from McDonalds. It’s a turnkey business and there are many, many people who have gotten pretty rich on operating these places.
From the cited article. So after investing $1-$3 million dollars, a McDonalds franchise owner makes about the same as a software engineer in a major US city and the software engineer didn’t have to spend $1 to $3 million and has a lot less risk.
Most franchise owners aren’t “starting a business” they are “buying a job”.
But a 2013 report from Franchise Business Review dug down into the numbers and came up with a net profit of $66,000 per franchise. McDonald's did much better with an average of around $150,000 per restaurant. But when you consider that a McDonald's franchise costs more than $1 million and can easily run more than $2 million, even McDonald's doesn't generate excellent average returns on investment. The fast-food franchise business is tough, and success doesn't come easy.
Most franchise owners aren’t “starting a business” they are “buying a job”.
But a 2013 report from Franchise Business Review dug down into the numbers and came up with a net profit of $66,000 per franchise. McDonald's did much better with an average of around $150,000 per restaurant. But when you consider that a McDonald's franchise costs more than $1 million and can easily run more than $2 million, even McDonald's doesn't generate excellent average returns on investment. The fast-food franchise business is tough, and success doesn't come easy.
Remember with a global system, average doesn’t mean major city. It’s apples and oranges to compare to a SWE.
With Chick-Fil-A, operators just get one store. They are buying a job. McDonalds franchisees usually own multiple stores and have different business interests.
With Chick-Fil-A, operators just get one store. They are buying a job. McDonalds franchisees usually own multiple stores and have different business interests.
And wouldn’t a McDonalds store in the middle of nowhere also make less money than a major city? But even at $150K net income, there isn’t much room to raise salaries.
McDonalds is the place where you can get something like a cheeseburger for a dollar without getting food poisoning. McDonalds was a high quality product at one time.
There’s no regulatory environment that prevents exploitation of the workforce, so doing so is the low risk choice. The company chose a low quality bar and competitive pressure forces them to mercilessly attack cost.
There’s no regulatory environment that prevents exploitation of the workforce, so doing so is the low risk choice. The company chose a low quality bar and competitive pressure forces them to mercilessly attack cost.
Back of the napkin math. If we assume that a McDonalds is open 16 hours a day and they have an average of 4 people every hour.
16 hours x 4 people x 7 days x 52 weeks Equals about 2400 hours a year.
How much could they raise the hourly rate of their employees and raise prices before the demand went down and still be profitable if they are only making $150K now? At what point does it not make sense to invest $1 - $3 million a year to make meager returns?
16 hours x 4 people x 7 days x 52 weeks Equals about 2400 hours a year.
How much could they raise the hourly rate of their employees and raise prices before the demand went down and still be profitable if they are only making $150K now? At what point does it not make sense to invest $1 - $3 million a year to make meager returns?
That is McDonald's problem.
They may need to look at the business and franchise model. They have a fubar business with hundreds of SKUs. 5 Guys is able to make money on a freshly cooked burger, higher standards for quality and higher cost. Make a "McDonald's Classic" concept that cooks real food at higher prices.
Again, McDonald's makes a business decision to have a system that encourages franchisees to utilize labor at the lowest cost possible because it is the lowest risk decision for them. For the larger company, the profitability struggles of the operators aren't a world-ending problem -- they own the real estate assets, and get to be an exclusive supplier and pull their percentage of gross sales first.
From my POV, I don't care a whit about McDonald's -- as a human it's awful that people are treated the way that they are, and as a taxpayer it's awful that society as a whole gets to pick up the pieces when hard working people fail and end up dependent on social services for survival. If McDonald's business can't deliver, that's their problem. The demand for food isn't going anywhere and a competitor will fill the void.
They may need to look at the business and franchise model. They have a fubar business with hundreds of SKUs. 5 Guys is able to make money on a freshly cooked burger, higher standards for quality and higher cost. Make a "McDonald's Classic" concept that cooks real food at higher prices.
Again, McDonald's makes a business decision to have a system that encourages franchisees to utilize labor at the lowest cost possible because it is the lowest risk decision for them. For the larger company, the profitability struggles of the operators aren't a world-ending problem -- they own the real estate assets, and get to be an exclusive supplier and pull their percentage of gross sales first.
From my POV, I don't care a whit about McDonald's -- as a human it's awful that people are treated the way that they are, and as a taxpayer it's awful that society as a whole gets to pick up the pieces when hard working people fail and end up dependent on social services for survival. If McDonald's business can't deliver, that's their problem. The demand for food isn't going anywhere and a competitor will fill the void.
So the people working for minimum wage would be better off if they didn’t have a job at all? If all of McDonalds employees all of the sudden were out of work - taxpayers would pay more.
What’s the percentage of people that work at McDonalds are working there as a primary income?
Isn’t kind of hypocritical that you criticize McDonald’s profitable business model but you’re okay with all of the startups - including ones that are backed by YC who are losing millions of dollars but are able to access capital?
Five Guys also costs a lot more. The people who eat at McDonalds every day couldn’t afford Five Guys.
And if the magical competitor becomes available, are they going to be able to sell food as cheaply as McDonalds?
What’s the percentage of people that work at McDonalds are working there as a primary income?
Isn’t kind of hypocritical that you criticize McDonald’s profitable business model but you’re okay with all of the startups - including ones that are backed by YC who are losing millions of dollars but are able to access capital?
Five Guys also costs a lot more. The people who eat at McDonalds every day couldn’t afford Five Guys.
And if the magical competitor becomes available, are they going to be able to sell food as cheaply as McDonalds?
Just a reminder that revenue != profit. McDonald's net income for 2017 was US$698.7 million [EDIT] which is only 13% the number cited in the above post.
Don't be misled by people unintentionally (we hope) citing revenue numbers to bolster their case.
Don't be misled by people unintentionally (we hope) citing revenue numbers to bolster their case.
The level of control employers exert on society essentially equivocates the two.
At least the hospital could provide health care at a discount?
Wack that a hospital doesn't insure health insurance... bet it's a non profit at that.
Criminal.
Criminal.
Hopefully Trump's new federal policy of requiring hospital groups to disclose prices will help answer these questions and put pressure on that industry.
Hopefully it will be enacted in 2021 as planned. My money is on Hospitals making it a constitutional issue and dragging it out for a decade though.
"Hospitals could be fined $300 a day by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services if they don’t comply with the new disclosure rule, officials said."
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/15/trump-releases-rule-requirin...
The stick is not big enough.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/15/trump-releases-rule-requirin...
The stick is not big enough.
Clearly it is. The hospitals are suing the government to prevent the rule.
A massive amount is about to be spent on lawyers, so clearly they see this as a huge threat.
[0] - https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2019/12/04/55...
A massive amount is about to be spent on lawyers, so clearly they see this as a huge threat.
[0] - https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2019/12/04/55...
Of course - the fine can be increased or changed if they don't challenge it. Doesn't mean it's enough now.
Is that per non-disclosure event?
Other than the low salaries, there are two compounding issues here:
– Transportation. The US is very unfriendly to forms of transportation that are not cars. There are a few exceptions, but these are exceptions. Good public transport or even bike lanes would massively improve conditions for a lot of people.
– Health care. Private companies are overcharging people and have made health care(hospitals and medication) unreachable if you don't have your costs subsidized by your employer.
– Education. Higher education would likely help this person. But how could she afford it?
– Transportation. The US is very unfriendly to forms of transportation that are not cars. There are a few exceptions, but these are exceptions. Good public transport or even bike lanes would massively improve conditions for a lot of people.
– Health care. Private companies are overcharging people and have made health care(hospitals and medication) unreachable if you don't have your costs subsidized by your employer.
– Education. Higher education would likely help this person. But how could she afford it?
> Good public transport or even bike lanes would massively improve conditions for a lot of people.
Bring up public transit or bicycling to people in nearly every non-urban part of the United States and you'll get a million reasons why it won't work.
Car culture is so engrained in America that people have convinced themselves there is no alternative. "I'd get sweaty", "Oh but I have to carry...", "Walking to the stop would take...", "My kids...", "I don't want to sit next to people..." . Even the rare people who actually have to drive refuse to understand why they should be among the strongest proponents of alternative and public transit.
Bring up public transit or bicycling to people in nearly every non-urban part of the United States and you'll get a million reasons why it won't work.
Car culture is so engrained in America that people have convinced themselves there is no alternative. "I'd get sweaty", "Oh but I have to carry...", "Walking to the stop would take...", "My kids...", "I don't want to sit next to people..." . Even the rare people who actually have to drive refuse to understand why they should be among the strongest proponents of alternative and public transit.
A 80 year old man was remarking how Gen Z (and late millennials) aren't even getting their licenses as teens anymore.
It's amazing to think that he was the first generation of the ubiquitous automobile in the US and now can't comprehend how the generation before him got around.
It's amazing to think that he was the first generation of the ubiquitous automobile in the US and now can't comprehend how the generation before him got around.
> now can't comprehend how the generation before him got around.
The generation before him _didn’t_ get around, relatively speaking. Widespread use of the automobile changed transportation patterns dramatically.
The generation before him _didn’t_ get around, relatively speaking. Widespread use of the automobile changed transportation patterns dramatically.
Trains, busses, and street cars were much more common in my city until the 50s. Every major town around me (within 4 hours), and my city was established by because they were a rail stop.
I feel this is most pronounced when I go to the mountains 2 hours North; which was a popular summer destination at the turn of the 20th century to the mid century. Now it's a long drive away and no longer has the visitors it used to have.
I feel this is most pronounced when I go to the mountains 2 hours North; which was a popular summer destination at the turn of the 20th century to the mid century. Now it's a long drive away and no longer has the visitors it used to have.
The streetcar to longbeach was faster in 1925 than the light rail train following the same right of way today. The redcar in LA county was larger than the nyc subway system today.
Ripped out 60 years ago and only now are the same right of ways being reconstructed at the cost of billions.
Ripped out 60 years ago and only now are the same right of ways being reconstructed at the cost of billions.
The automobile also changed land use patterns dramatically, and the truism is that transportation is land use. See eg Cleveland, Ohio, which now has roughly the same population as it did in I think 1940, but takes something like 4 times the land. So people in 1900 didn't have to travel as much to access a similar amount of opportunity, because things were closer together.
I remember some pictures of Pittsburgh from the 1940's. With the steel mills belching smoke. You can imagine why people fled to the Suburbs. Seems like considering environmental regulations and the resulting clean up that that was ultimately a mistake.
Yep, look at the incredibly limited streetcar and trolley system in Portland in the early 1900s. Really wonder how people survived.
http://myplace.frontier.com/~trolley503/HistMaps.html
http://myplace.frontier.com/~trolley503/HistMaps.html
A friend found an old San Francisco bus schedule from the 1920s. I just remember it was faster to get from downtown to the Outer Richmond in 1925 by bus than it now. And actually faster than it is by car too.
Also remember San Francisco to Yosemite was I think 6-7 hours by train at one time.
Also remember San Francisco to Yosemite was I think 6-7 hours by train at one time.
> Health care. Private companies are overcharging people and have made health care(hospitals and medication) unreachable if you don't have your costs subsidized by your employer.
Medicare for all is one of the most important policies to alleviate pressure on lower-income people. Even for the middle class, the freedom to change jobs or take time off without fear of disaster will take such a load off of society.
Medicare for all is one of the most important policies to alleviate pressure on lower-income people. Even for the middle class, the freedom to change jobs or take time off without fear of disaster will take such a load off of society.
If we implement it like the Scandinavian countries, the average poor family would still have to pay 600-700 per month. I believe that would be about 2/3 of her monthly income.
The Scandinavian implementation is not the only option; although it would still be an improvement. ~$700 is about what people pay for 'Bronze' plans before their deductible. For someone with a chronic condition, the average out-of-pocket would be much higher to access any amount of care.
Alternatively, the Canadian system does not require any sort of insurance-like payment to access all but a few parts of the healthcare system. While wait times are a bit of a problem for non-emergency care, Canada pays ~1/3rd of what America pays for healthcare. That leaves significant funding available to improve on that system simply through more doctors and and better equipment availability, while still being much more cost-effective than the current system. It should also be extended to dental and drug insurance, but again, there is ample funding available to accomplish that and still remain cheaper than the current system.
Medicare For All is most similar to the Canadian 'insurance', and the best candidate for healthcare reform. There are some important conditions for it's success however---the restrictions on price negotiation must be removed; equivalent private insurance must not be allowed; and taxes must be increased to appropriately fund the system. Ignoring any of these will allow the system to be corrupted by wealthy interests (of HN includes many), and could result in a system deliberately designed to fail. Rich people _must_ use the same healthcare service as poor people, aligning incentives among all socio-economic classes, ensuring the system remains effective and well-funded.
Alternatively, the Canadian system does not require any sort of insurance-like payment to access all but a few parts of the healthcare system. While wait times are a bit of a problem for non-emergency care, Canada pays ~1/3rd of what America pays for healthcare. That leaves significant funding available to improve on that system simply through more doctors and and better equipment availability, while still being much more cost-effective than the current system. It should also be extended to dental and drug insurance, but again, there is ample funding available to accomplish that and still remain cheaper than the current system.
Medicare For All is most similar to the Canadian 'insurance', and the best candidate for healthcare reform. There are some important conditions for it's success however---the restrictions on price negotiation must be removed; equivalent private insurance must not be allowed; and taxes must be increased to appropriately fund the system. Ignoring any of these will allow the system to be corrupted by wealthy interests (of HN includes many), and could result in a system deliberately designed to fail. Rich people _must_ use the same healthcare service as poor people, aligning incentives among all socio-economic classes, ensuring the system remains effective and well-funded.
No they wouldn't, taxes don't just pay for healthcare in Scandinavia it also pays for free daycare, free college and a year of state paid parental leave.
While not Scandinavian that is about what Germany pays per house hold.
McDonald, bless them, gives some education aid to employees, up to $5000.
http://www.archwaystoopportunity.com/tuition_assistance.html
Seems like giving up your best employees who are motivated to improve themselves.
Unfortunately the women in this article probably lacks the free hours to pursue this benefit.
http://www.archwaystoopportunity.com/tuition_assistance.html
Seems like giving up your best employees who are motivated to improve themselves.
Unfortunately the women in this article probably lacks the free hours to pursue this benefit.
This is why I get annoyed when people praise the successes of the economy (aka artificially manipulated stock market) and our low unemployment rate. $9, $10, $11 may be a _survivable_ wage in Durham, SC, but prices and costs of living keep going up, and wages remain stagnant. In real wages this woman is probably bringing home only $6-$7 an hour, effectively making _less_ than she would have in, say, 2005 or 2010. I don't have any charts or tables to back this up, but I sure pay a lot of attention to prices at the grocery store.
> effectively making _less_ than she would have in, say, 2005 or 2010
I started working in 1998 at 16-years-old. I could make $9.50/hr washing dishes or more as a bus boy on a busy night. Shit's whack.
Of course as a suburban kid I had reliable transportation. The constantly rotating cast of dishwashers virtually never had this access.
I started working in 1998 at 16-years-old. I could make $9.50/hr washing dishes or more as a bus boy on a busy night. Shit's whack.
Of course as a suburban kid I had reliable transportation. The constantly rotating cast of dishwashers virtually never had this access.
How? I made $6.25 bagging groceries in 2002
Busy restaurant next to an amusement park (Hersheypark). They couldn't keep anyone in the job. I didn't even want it because I was "bad at doing my taxes" and could make more as a busser making $5.50/hour plus cash tips. But they worked out a deal where I would bus tables and do just enough dishes to keep things moving, then when it died down I'd clock in as a dishwasher at the higher rate and close down.
Housing in town I guess was relatively expensive (not as much as now). And it wasn't under the table, though I was responsible for claiming tips and they didn't follow child labor laws. Built a studio with that money!
Housing in town I guess was relatively expensive (not as much as now). And it wasn't under the table, though I was responsible for claiming tips and they didn't follow child labor laws. Built a studio with that money!
Probably a high Cost or Living area where cheap labour is hard to get.
Probably under the table. I made $4/Hr in 1988 as a bus boy, etc. The entire kitchen staff, but one, was paid directly from the cash register at the end of the night.
The couple that owned that restaurant sold it for several $M.
The couple that owned that restaurant sold it for several $M.
There was a recession in 2001
Durham is in North Carolina.
Even though it seems like she lives in an urban area (or urban enough to be squeezed by rising home prices), the public transit is so poor that she spends 3-5x more time getting to work without a car than with one. Sometimes she can't even get home. That's crazy, the car dependence of America means that you need to pay for insurance + a car to even function in society. That is the opposite of freedom
It’s pretty awful. I ride light rail to university because the parking costs are insane. Choosing to ride the train doubles my commute time and often leaves me in a terrible mood because of the trains awful service. It’s even worse because they recently increased the cost significantly with no improvement in quality.
>127. A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced, they appeared to increase man's freedom. They took no freedom away from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn't want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster and farther than a walking man. But the introduction of motorized transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly man's freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car, especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one likes at one's own pace one's movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration, insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport, the arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less control over their own movement than when driving a car. Even the walker's freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop to wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note this important point that we have just illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.)
Makes me think there is a business opportunity in urban areas?
The economics of public transit essentially ask for government involvement: operational costs are almost never paid for by fare prices, but instead are essentially subsidized. If the bus/train lines are doing well, you often get huge clusters of malls/retail/commercial buildings surrounding them, and they of course reap the benefits without paying any extra costs.
However, there are things like the Dollar Vans in New York that do actually fulfill the niche. They're also sometimes illegal.
However, there are things like the Dollar Vans in New York that do actually fulfill the niche. They're also sometimes illegal.
You'd have to come in hard to withstand NIMBY lawsuits and outright bans from the councilmen they solely elect.
Hey, don't knock it, it boosts our GDP!
If you use a single metric for success it will stop being useful as people will optimize for that number, it will be an end unto its self.
> you need to pay for insurance + a car to even function in society. That is the opposite of freedom
I’m not sure what “freedom” is supposed to mean in that context. How is being dependent on paying for public transportation better? In countries where public transportation is amazing enough to obviate the need for cars, you just trade in the freedom to go wherever you want whenever you want.
I’m not sure what “freedom” is supposed to mean in that context. How is being dependent on paying for public transportation better? In countries where public transportation is amazing enough to obviate the need for cars, you just trade in the freedom to go wherever you want whenever you want.
There are some countries where public transport is free for citizens, I'm pretty sure. And even if you have to pay for public transport... gas isn't free either. And car maintenance gets pricey. And insurance. Meanwhile, public transport is a known quantity. Pay this much for a ticket/monthly pass and ride wherever you need in city limits.
Her job is already going away; McDonald's around me have already replaced cashiers with kiosks. Unionizing and requiring $15/hr + full benefits is only going to accelerate McDonald's automation plans. Is the answer to fight for $15/hr or is the answer to go back to school, apply to more jobs, and/or go into a trade? Honest question.
It's not like they can replace human personnel that easy. Ordering kiosks are the low-hanging fruit, and then comes a long, long stretch of nothing, because it turns out that developing McDonalds-compatible robots capable of preparing burgers and packing up meals is about as easy as developing actually-working autonomous vehicles. And about as expensive. It's probably easier to automate the managers away. Meaning the McDonald's of tomorrow will surely rely on a horde of human personnel for food preparation and related simple tasks for the foreseeable future.
But of course it's kind of convenient if people at least think that their job can be automated tomorrow: that makes it easier to make them sell their workforce for peanuts today. You just need to hope that they don't realize that it doesn't make a difference once the day comes on which they can be automated away - it won't matter then whether they get $9.50 or $15 an hour, the automation will be cheaper regardless. But by demanding $15 now they will at least have earned a lot more during the decades until that day finally arrives.
But of course it's kind of convenient if people at least think that their job can be automated tomorrow: that makes it easier to make them sell their workforce for peanuts today. You just need to hope that they don't realize that it doesn't make a difference once the day comes on which they can be automated away - it won't matter then whether they get $9.50 or $15 an hour, the automation will be cheaper regardless. But by demanding $15 now they will at least have earned a lot more during the decades until that day finally arrives.
I think people without any real background in the difficulties of automating purely human tasks (particularly manual ones), consistently underestimate the cost, difficulty and expense of maintenance for said automation.
I used to work in a kitchen, so maintaining food service grade of cleanliness on robots, sounds frighteningly expensive to me.
I used to work in a kitchen, so maintaining food service grade of cleanliness on robots, sounds frighteningly expensive to me.
On the other hand, you can walk into a Krispy Kreme and watch the machine work. There's no reason that machine couldn't make french fries with a few changes.
Maybe everything won't be automated all at once, but if the economic incentive is there, it will happen. Pizza making robots are already a thing. There's no reason the shake machine can't measure its output to the cup instead of pulling a lever; drink machines in many places already do this. Dispensing the cup too is not a big step.
Maybe everything won't be automated all at once, but if the economic incentive is there, it will happen. Pizza making robots are already a thing. There's no reason the shake machine can't measure its output to the cup instead of pulling a lever; drink machines in many places already do this. Dispensing the cup too is not a big step.
> There's no reason that machine couldn't make french fries with a few changes
That machine is, like, 5 machines including an oil moat. With all of them together it makes up something like half the entire store's footprint. It's only remotely viable because that shop mostly only makes one thing. No breakfast sandwiches in the morning, no burgers at lunch time, just donuts.
Plenty of employees are still required just to make the different types of donuts and donut-adjacent items (and also presumably to be there in case a monumental grease fire starts, or the dough machine blows a gasket starts spewing dough all over).
> Pizza making robots are already a thing
Presumably making the frozen ones sold at grocery stores, which might be a meaningful percentage of all pizza sold, but effectively 0% of any other pizzas?
That machine is, like, 5 machines including an oil moat. With all of them together it makes up something like half the entire store's footprint. It's only remotely viable because that shop mostly only makes one thing. No breakfast sandwiches in the morning, no burgers at lunch time, just donuts.
Plenty of employees are still required just to make the different types of donuts and donut-adjacent items (and also presumably to be there in case a monumental grease fire starts, or the dough machine blows a gasket starts spewing dough all over).
> Pizza making robots are already a thing
Presumably making the frozen ones sold at grocery stores, which might be a meaningful percentage of all pizza sold, but effectively 0% of any other pizzas?
As you note, Krispy Kreme is a small scale donut factory with a store front ;-)
This is an entirely different thing than a McDonalds.
Yes, I could trivially make an automation machine to cook meat, we have them, they're called a charbroiler, similarly, toasting buns is pretty easy. The hard an expensive part is assembling all the parts into a package.
This is an entirely different thing than a McDonalds.
Yes, I could trivially make an automation machine to cook meat, we have them, they're called a charbroiler, similarly, toasting buns is pretty easy. The hard an expensive part is assembling all the parts into a package.
McDonalds already has those.
French fry hoppers automatically filling baskets from a frozen mini-closet. Out comes fresh fries.
Same for the cups that they can use in drive-throughs.
I think it’s up to the franchises to buy/install them. Depends on volume/space whether its worthwhile/possible.
Or they just push it to the customer to do it.
French fry hoppers automatically filling baskets from a frozen mini-closet. Out comes fresh fries.
Same for the cups that they can use in drive-throughs.
I think it’s up to the franchises to buy/install them. Depends on volume/space whether its worthwhile/possible.
Or they just push it to the customer to do it.
About those automated drinks at McDonalds...when I order mine with 'no ice,' the machine is apparently incapable of filling the cup with the additional amount of coke that would normally be displaced by ice. It will simply fill the cup just 2/3 of the way. They seem to have realized this though, but instead of increasing the volume of coke dispensed, the machine drops ANOTHER cup which the employee is supposed to use to fill the actual cup to the top. The employees only do this half the time, however, which makes the entire process even more maddening. Somehow neither man, nor machine, can get a no-ice drink right at McDonalds.
That is because those machines are made in a way to mix the 'perfect' ratio of water + syrup. They take in account the ice as well. If the cup is 0.5l, it plans to be 0.4l of liquid + 0.1l of ice (random values), so if you chose no ice, you get 0.4l since that is the 'perfect' ratio. (And probably what they advertise ie '0.4l coke = 1 euro' or whatever, they just give a 0.5l cup to account for ice)
I hope one day they integrate the ice together with the drink and scoop out a single solid cube of ice to keep it from watering down right away.
I would argue it's substantially easier to produce a fully-automatic McDonalds than it is to produce an autonomous car that can actually deal with any reasonable situation in the real world.
With a McDonalds restaurant, you can control your environment almost perfectly. If you throw away the kitchen that was designed to be used by humans, and then develop a kitchen never intended to be used by humans, you can drop a lot of environmental constraints in terms of the automation concerns. Trying to fully-automate the existing kitchen layout will certainly end in disaster.
As you reach 100% automation, it actually starts to get easier because the system is now all oriented in this direction, and you have standardized specifications/interfaces across the board. Also, once you fully-automate a single McD restaurant, the next one becomes trivial because it's simply another copy of the exact same thing.
With a McDonalds restaurant, you can control your environment almost perfectly. If you throw away the kitchen that was designed to be used by humans, and then develop a kitchen never intended to be used by humans, you can drop a lot of environmental constraints in terms of the automation concerns. Trying to fully-automate the existing kitchen layout will certainly end in disaster.
As you reach 100% automation, it actually starts to get easier because the system is now all oriented in this direction, and you have standardized specifications/interfaces across the board. Also, once you fully-automate a single McD restaurant, the next one becomes trivial because it's simply another copy of the exact same thing.
100% agreed. A friend of mine is doing a food automation startup and in 6 months they’ve basically got it working. They’re planning on six more months of nailing it all down and launching. Based on what they’ve done I think they could do a fully automated McDonald’s in about two years. I would imagine it would then take another 5 years for such a system to spread to nearly all fast food restaurants... which implies to me within 10 years it’s pretty likely we won’t see humans in the kitchen at quick service restaurants..
And I think it’s more than that before we have no humans behind the wheel of cars!
And I think it’s more than that before we have no humans behind the wheel of cars!
So then what happens when someone makes a mess of the dining area or the bathrooms? I've seen roombas encounter dog excrement—not pretty. Or if a fight breaks out among customers? Most Mcdonalds operate pretty lean, sometimes two people. I can't imagine a complex automation setup and hiring a pricey/hr guy to service it every week is going to be cheaper than two guys on minimum wage and no benefits.
Perhaps you simply disallow that customers be able to enter the actual restaurant at all, and operate it more like a gigantic drive-thru/walk-up vending machine.
> Ordering kiosks are the low-hanging fruit, and then comes a long, long stretch of nothing,
DOM Pizza Checker (Domino's camera 'AI' that checks the pizza toppings are correct) could be used for other things, other than it's 'other' current use of store tracking. https://www.itnews.com.au/news/dominos-turns-its-pizza-check... Stores now get updates ;)
Designing food so it's optimised for cooking has been going on for a while but I suspect there gains there. Even if you can design more food variety for fast food that can be cooked or created efficiency, it can cut out labour at other food outlets as they close and society moves to highly efficient food outlets like McDonald's.
Automation in processes is where it's at. Designing food and processes for mostly automated machines and schedulers.
But you are correct, so far the threat of automation to keep wages low seems to have had more impact than automation.
DOM Pizza Checker (Domino's camera 'AI' that checks the pizza toppings are correct) could be used for other things, other than it's 'other' current use of store tracking. https://www.itnews.com.au/news/dominos-turns-its-pizza-check... Stores now get updates ;)
Designing food so it's optimised for cooking has been going on for a while but I suspect there gains there. Even if you can design more food variety for fast food that can be cooked or created efficiency, it can cut out labour at other food outlets as they close and society moves to highly efficient food outlets like McDonald's.
Automation in processes is where it's at. Designing food and processes for mostly automated machines and schedulers.
But you are correct, so far the threat of automation to keep wages low seems to have had more impact than automation.
The cooking machines are nearly automatic already. They are all designed to accept input and produce output without human action in between. I want to create an automated pizza shop, and have made some mock ups. I don't think it's as hard as you mention.
[deleted]
But you concede that some jobs would be automated if the labor prices were higher, and yet you think that's fine? Do you acknowledge a trade-off whereby fewer workers can get higher wages OR more workers can get some wages and prefer the former?
For argument's sake, let's assume that no jobs can be automated. The cost to the franchise owner to operate goes up, and in response they raise prices -- but at some prices they're going to really start losing business, so they also have to lower costs elsewhere or simply get lower profits. How does it all shake out? The fact is that it has to be paid by someone, and it'll likely mean fewer McDonalds are opened because it'll just be harder to make them profitable.
Maybe you're OK with that trade-off, but it IS a tradeoff that will happen, and it means fewer jobs.
Your analysis presumes that the business owners can and will absorb anything without reacting, as if more value can be extracted but there won't be a new equilibrium. I assume that the franchise owners aren't making the kinds of profits where that is true, I assume they're mostly bumping along on fairly low margins.
For argument's sake, let's assume that no jobs can be automated. The cost to the franchise owner to operate goes up, and in response they raise prices -- but at some prices they're going to really start losing business, so they also have to lower costs elsewhere or simply get lower profits. How does it all shake out? The fact is that it has to be paid by someone, and it'll likely mean fewer McDonalds are opened because it'll just be harder to make them profitable.
Maybe you're OK with that trade-off, but it IS a tradeoff that will happen, and it means fewer jobs.
Your analysis presumes that the business owners can and will absorb anything without reacting, as if more value can be extracted but there won't be a new equilibrium. I assume that the franchise owners aren't making the kinds of profits where that is true, I assume they're mostly bumping along on fairly low margins.
This is an entirely different question that has nothing to do with the original article, and nothing with the thread starter's comment.
But for the sake of it: yes, in a time of practically full employment, I do indeed prefer less workers to make more if this trade-off you assume is even a realistic model of reality (which is a big if, in my opinion).
But for the sake of it: yes, in a time of practically full employment, I do indeed prefer less workers to make more if this trade-off you assume is even a realistic model of reality (which is a big if, in my opinion).
McDonald's around me have already replaced cashiers with kiosks
Here, too. But usually half of them are broken in one way or another, like the touch screen doesn't respond or the receipt printer is out of paper, or something I saw in a TV commercial isn't in the menu structure, or the pricing isn't the same as in an ad, etc... These are things a cashier is still needed for.
As an aside, I find it curious that my local McD only got the kiosks maybe two years ago, but I used them in Germany almost 20 years ago. They are fantastic for when you can't speak the local language.
Edit:
Is the answer to fight for $15/hr or is the answer to go back to school, apply to more jobs, and/or go into a trade?
The vast majority of McD cashiers I see are in no position to go back to school or change jobs. They're too old, low-skilled, physically constrained, or low-education to do that.
I work in an organization that deals with the poor a lot. If you're 50 years old and only have a fifth-grade education and need to survive, you don't have the time to go to school. You're probably working two or three jobs just to have a place to live.
Here, too. But usually half of them are broken in one way or another, like the touch screen doesn't respond or the receipt printer is out of paper, or something I saw in a TV commercial isn't in the menu structure, or the pricing isn't the same as in an ad, etc... These are things a cashier is still needed for.
As an aside, I find it curious that my local McD only got the kiosks maybe two years ago, but I used them in Germany almost 20 years ago. They are fantastic for when you can't speak the local language.
Edit:
Is the answer to fight for $15/hr or is the answer to go back to school, apply to more jobs, and/or go into a trade?
The vast majority of McD cashiers I see are in no position to go back to school or change jobs. They're too old, low-skilled, physically constrained, or low-education to do that.
I work in an organization that deals with the poor a lot. If you're 50 years old and only have a fifth-grade education and need to survive, you don't have the time to go to school. You're probably working two or three jobs just to have a place to live.
> These are things a cashier is still needed for.
Is a cashier needed, or just an on call tech who oversees a dozen restaurants? I would imagine working on the kinks in the kiosks and improving their reliability to be doable.
Is a cashier needed, or just an on call tech who oversees a dozen restaurants? I would imagine working on the kinks in the kiosks and improving their reliability to be doable.
Is a cashier needed, or just an on call tech who oversees a dozen restaurants?
And while the store waits a couple of days for the $75/hour tech to show up, $10,000 walks out the door. Better to pay for a $15 cashier.
And while the store waits a couple of days for the $75/hour tech to show up, $10,000 walks out the door. Better to pay for a $15 cashier.
Doesn’t that imply automation isn’t worth it? If you need full human redundancy, why bother? I think you’re a bit pessimistic on the tech’s response time too.
Can the guy on call clean the stalls in the bathroom too? Change the trash? You probably need a custodian too on shift. The mcDonalds by campus gets trashed instantly during drinking hours.
>Is the answer to fight for $15/hr or is the answer to go back to school, apply to more jobs, and/or go into a trade? Honest question
So if everybody in this situation goes back into school, applies for more jobs, and/or goes into a trade, what do you think will happen? Do you think minimum wage jobs are only being offered because people aren't trying to get higher paid jobs?
So if everybody in this situation goes back into school, applies for more jobs, and/or goes into a trade, what do you think will happen? Do you think minimum wage jobs are only being offered because people aren't trying to get higher paid jobs?
> If the answer to fight for $15/hr or is the answer to go back to school, apply to more jobs, and/or go into a trade? Honest question.
Seems to me the goal should be to get a wage where you can afford to go back to school. I don't think it's fair to argue that the kiosks are replacing the cashiers only because they want a $15/hr wage - that's coming whether they want to or not. The only thing that the cashier can do is do their best to collect the resources right now to get out of that situation, and one of those is more earnings.
Seems to me the goal should be to get a wage where you can afford to go back to school. I don't think it's fair to argue that the kiosks are replacing the cashiers only because they want a $15/hr wage - that's coming whether they want to or not. The only thing that the cashier can do is do their best to collect the resources right now to get out of that situation, and one of those is more earnings.
> is the answer to go back to school
Without money ? My girlfriend was a cashier. Now she's studying law because my job can provide for us and we have free healtcare in belgium. Otherwise it would be impossible !
> apply to more jobs
That basically mean more slavery since she will apply for job that pay like McDonalds. It wont solve any problem.
> and/or go into a trade
I don't understand what your mean here.
Without money ? My girlfriend was a cashier. Now she's studying law because my job can provide for us and we have free healtcare in belgium. Otherwise it would be impossible !
> apply to more jobs
That basically mean more slavery since she will apply for job that pay like McDonalds. It wont solve any problem.
> and/or go into a trade
I don't understand what your mean here.
It is not impossible in the United States. This individual qualifies for both Mcdonald's tuition assistance ($2,500 / year) and FAFSA. FAFSA will more than likely pay for her schooling + books if she's starting at a community college.
> This individual qualifies for both Mcdonald's tuition assistance ($2,500 / year)
Is it a real thing ? Or just something they do to have a good image ?
Is it a real thing ? Or just something they do to have a good image ?
Both? Take up may not be big.
"Going into a trade" here means to start a training/apprenticeship program to be a carpenter, plumber, electrician, welder, etc. Probably not a viable option for the woman ITA.
He means he imagines that skilled trades people are absolutely willing to pay random people off the street to learn instead of working for companies who want people who have already spent 10s of thousands to pay schools to learn.
He thinks poor people could be electricians helpers tomorrow instead of mcds cashiers if they only applied themselves.
He thinks poor people could be electricians helpers tomorrow instead of mcds cashiers if they only applied themselves.
You don't have free healthcare, you pay 14% of your income tax to healthcare:
https://www.hln.be/geld/consument/wat-gebeurt-er-met-uw-100-...
https://www.hln.be/geld/consument/wat-gebeurt-er-met-uw-100-...
An interesting reminder: kiosks don't eliminate the labor of the cashier, they pass the labor on to the consumer. The same amount of labor overall is still happening in that building, just more of it is unpaid.
I have always done the work of expressing my desired food item. Without a kiosk that desire gets repeated by another person to a computer. With a kiosk that repetition does not happen, the order is directly expressed to the machine. It appears to me there is 50% less labor with a kiosk.
The McDonald’s kiosks require more work than telling a cashier your order, IME. They’re crap.
The question is if it requires more effort than using the cash register.
I agree the kiosks are a bit harder for a customer to use, I accidentally ordered something like 80 chicken nuggets the first time I used one, simply because I tried to add extra sauce.
I still prefer them because it's easy to have a bunch of kiosks which means there are shorter lines.
I agree the kiosks are a bit harder for a customer to use, I accidentally ordered something like 80 chicken nuggets the first time I used one, simply because I tried to add extra sauce.
I still prefer them because it's easy to have a bunch of kiosks which means there are shorter lines.
That’s why I like their app. I usually re-order what I got before, while on the way there.
This would be great if every store didn't have a different uniquely bad ui
I suspect we'll see high-paying jobs getting automated even faster, so her newly acquired skills may become obsolete before she graduates (also, she won't be able to afford the tuition fees). I don't think there's an answer to this problem: Nash equilibria cannot be easily beaten unless someone is imposing the rules and enforcing compliance... which probably won't happen.
Lots of skilled trades won't be automatable because of diversity of operation and location.
For example plumbers.
For example plumbers.
There’s no shortage of companies coming out with products that constantly reduce the need for expensive profession X.
On the residential side, you have more solderless fittings, YT videos and even pre-fab bathrooms in a box.
The plumbers themselves will be fine as they’ll just reduce training seats, but that makes it harder to become one.
On the residential side, you have more solderless fittings, YT videos and even pre-fab bathrooms in a box.
The plumbers themselves will be fine as they’ll just reduce training seats, but that makes it harder to become one.
The price/performance ratio of kiosks etc will fall so fast that the difference between $8/hr and $15/hr will only make a 5 year difference in the adoption of the kiosks.
Meanwhile those ordering kiosks still require about the same amount of cashier staff as before since they are such a terrible and confusing experience to use. Just another reason to not go to mcdonalds I guess
How as an adult do you do this while investing all your energy in staying afloat
> McDonald's around me have already replaced cashiers with kiosks
My local McD just got them, as part of an extensive remodel. By "extensive", I mean that early this year they tore the whole place down and built a new one there, which opened near the end of October.
I've used the kiosks when I can, but for most of November I had to use the human cashiers. Why? Because the kiosks insisted on applying a "discount" that actually raised the price! The cash registers used by the human cashiers would also apply that discount, but the interface there allows the cashier to remove it. The kiosks (and the mobile app which also applies it) do not allow removal.
On the one hand, I am impressed that their software is automatically applying discounts instead of making the customer manually ask for it. I've seen at other places things like a parent order a burger and a drink and their child order fries and a drink, and unless the cashier notices that this is cheaper as a combo (burger, fries, drink) plus another drink, it will be rung up at full price.
On the other hand, come on! It's pretty obvious that if you are going to be looking for discounts to apply, the software needs to have a check to make sure that the total with the discount is not more than the undiscounted price and if it is not apply the discount.
This situation came about at my local McD because to celebrate being at the same location for 40 years, they rolled back prices on several items to '80s level for the month of November. Among the items rolled back were Sausage McMuffins, to $0.79.
Sausage McMuffins and Sausage Burritos are part of the "any 2 for $3" discount. So if your order included two Sausage McMuffins, or included one Sausage McMuffin with one Sausage Burrito, it would decide to apply the 2 for $3. In both cases that raised the price.
A couple times that month I wanted two Sausage McMuffins and a Sausage Burrito. To order that at the kiosk or on the app and get the correct discount ($0.79 for the McMuffins, regular price for the Burrito) could only be done by doing it is 3 separate orders! (Well, I suppose it could be done on one order and then selecting cash payment...that prints a receipt that you take to a human cashier, who can then recall the order at their register and collect payment. I assume that they can modify the order at that point to remove the 2 for $3).
My local McD just got them, as part of an extensive remodel. By "extensive", I mean that early this year they tore the whole place down and built a new one there, which opened near the end of October.
I've used the kiosks when I can, but for most of November I had to use the human cashiers. Why? Because the kiosks insisted on applying a "discount" that actually raised the price! The cash registers used by the human cashiers would also apply that discount, but the interface there allows the cashier to remove it. The kiosks (and the mobile app which also applies it) do not allow removal.
On the one hand, I am impressed that their software is automatically applying discounts instead of making the customer manually ask for it. I've seen at other places things like a parent order a burger and a drink and their child order fries and a drink, and unless the cashier notices that this is cheaper as a combo (burger, fries, drink) plus another drink, it will be rung up at full price.
On the other hand, come on! It's pretty obvious that if you are going to be looking for discounts to apply, the software needs to have a check to make sure that the total with the discount is not more than the undiscounted price and if it is not apply the discount.
This situation came about at my local McD because to celebrate being at the same location for 40 years, they rolled back prices on several items to '80s level for the month of November. Among the items rolled back were Sausage McMuffins, to $0.79.
Sausage McMuffins and Sausage Burritos are part of the "any 2 for $3" discount. So if your order included two Sausage McMuffins, or included one Sausage McMuffin with one Sausage Burrito, it would decide to apply the 2 for $3. In both cases that raised the price.
A couple times that month I wanted two Sausage McMuffins and a Sausage Burrito. To order that at the kiosk or on the app and get the correct discount ($0.79 for the McMuffins, regular price for the Burrito) could only be done by doing it is 3 separate orders! (Well, I suppose it could be done on one order and then selecting cash payment...that prints a receipt that you take to a human cashier, who can then recall the order at their register and collect payment. I assume that they can modify the order at that point to remove the 2 for $3).
I have toyed with the idea of making it illegal for companies to replace people with robots and not give those people some other job to do. On the other hand, I have pretty strong feelings about regulation tending to favor large industries even when it is intended to restrict them, because they can afford expensive lawyers who find loopholes and other ways for them to exploit the law.
They should take those displaced cashiers and speed up the drive through line or clean up the tables or any of the other vast number of things a human can still do (and from my experience needs doing) at a McDonald's.
The kiosk is in your pocket. Every fast food place has an app now that you can order with before you even get to the restaurant.
That's good right? Increased productivity, she'll still get a job somewhere on the higher wage. Win win win.
The later part isn't guaranteed, in fact unskilled labor lost to automation (jobs requiring high school education) has only been getting worse and worse over time. What happened to the days when you could get a middle class lifestyle with a high school degree with a factory job?
Honestly I think the solution is emigration.
There are places in the world where you can make a living without any particular skill set, but I don’t think the US, or any other first-world country, should really be among them.
The US needs immigration reform to bring more high-skilled people into the country, but it also needs emigration reform to find new homes for people who can’t necessarily make a reasonable living in a first-world country.
There are places in the world where you can make a living without any particular skill set, but I don’t think the US, or any other first-world country, should really be among them.
The US needs immigration reform to bring more high-skilled people into the country, but it also needs emigration reform to find new homes for people who can’t necessarily make a reasonable living in a first-world country.
You've already been dunked on by plenty of other people, but I don't think they did a good job of explaining why you are wrong.
The USA has a labour shortage problem. There aren't enough people that want to spend their lives picking fruit, doing maid services, working fast food, and just generally taking care of all the problems that wealthier people pay to have taken care of.
You can pay immigrants rock bottom wages to do this work, which is the status quo in the USA today. They accept it because it comes with the promise of a better life one day. If not for them, then for their children.
If you want to send all those people packing, then get ready to pay $10 for a tomato. No, robots aren't going to help, either.
The USA has a labour shortage problem. There aren't enough people that want to spend their lives picking fruit, doing maid services, working fast food, and just generally taking care of all the problems that wealthier people pay to have taken care of.
You can pay immigrants rock bottom wages to do this work, which is the status quo in the USA today. They accept it because it comes with the promise of a better life one day. If not for them, then for their children.
If you want to send all those people packing, then get ready to pay $10 for a tomato. No, robots aren't going to help, either.
Wow this is incredibly dystopian to think about. Just imagine, you're born into a country that by no will of your own becomes more and more expensive. You're given an inadequate education to function in this country, so you're forced to work menial jobs to make ends meet, and hope that by some lottery stroke of luck you will somehow develop the time or the money or the skills to have a good life. BUT if you don't get this stroke of luck, you are asked to emigrate away from your friends and family?
Can you imagine writing your 12th grade anti-deportation exam, and looking around the room and knowing that the lowest ~15% of your peers will be asked to leave the country?
I don't even want to think of the new suicide rate in that world.
I don't even want to think of the new suicide rate in that world.
Canada might have this problem soon.
Study visas are virtually unrestricted. But there are more being issued than immigration pathway seats (which are restricted).
Study visas are virtually unrestricted. But there are more being issued than immigration pathway seats (which are restricted).
This is one of the most awful things I've ever read on this site, so thanks for that, I guess.
Please correct me if I misunderstood this, but are you seriously suggesting that the way we solve problems of poverty is to just get rid of the poor people?
That doesn’t seem to be what he’s suggesting at all. It seems like he’s suggesting they relocate to a place where they can make a better living, like my parents did by moving to the US in 1971.
Please describe where you think people ought to go live that will accept poor low skill workers?
Yes, but it seems like the implication is "relocate to a place where they can make a better living, instead of fixing the problems". Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but looking at the sister comments here seems to indicate that I'm not the only one if I did.
It sounds to me that you're advocating for sending low class/uneducated/low skilled Americans to developing countries. Is this a fair representation of your proposal?
Why do you think that people without skills will have better life in developing countries? The salaries there are even lower, for example, in Russia hourly rate in McDonalds is $2-4 depending on the city. The only kind of housing the employee can afford is a room in a shared apartment or sharing a room with a friend or living with parents for free.
I was about to call you out on this, but decided to check first. The starting salary in McDonalds is less than $2/hour. WTF
If your skill set is cashier you will almost certainly be denied moving even to Russia
Who knows, maybe they want to take advantage of cheap unskilled American labor.
Seriously though, countries with labor shortages will allow unskilled people to visit and work for awhile at least (eg Australia).
Seriously though, countries with labor shortages will allow unskilled people to visit and work for awhile at least (eg Australia).
Why would an unskilled poor person do better in an environment with worse resources to help them?
In a poorer country they would have a decreased cost of living but a decreased earnings and fewer family and friends.
I cannot comprehend the thought process that leads you to come to this conclusion.
Example my wife is disabled we live on my very modest income due to costs of life and medical care we have zero wealth of any kind and a well maintained 2004 car. I think I have $13 in the bank right now.
Where ought I move to increase my fortunes and who would let me who would also pay for my wife's medicine.
In a poorer country they would have a decreased cost of living but a decreased earnings and fewer family and friends.
I cannot comprehend the thought process that leads you to come to this conclusion.
Example my wife is disabled we live on my very modest income due to costs of life and medical care we have zero wealth of any kind and a well maintained 2004 car. I think I have $13 in the bank right now.
Where ought I move to increase my fortunes and who would let me who would also pay for my wife's medicine.
To be fair I never said it would be to the advantage of the people we relocate, but it would be to the advantage of the rest of us. Imagine a society with no poverty, no homelessness, next to no crime, etc.
It's not that it would be to their disadvantage it would ruin and kill them.
Poverty often follows medical issues which then wouldnt see any help. Compare total mortality with projected mortality and you can figure out how many exactly you are murdering.
To facilitate the operation you will have to gut civil rights setting precedents with horrible implications for everyone's freedom.
If you can send someone to a foreign land because they are poor, lame, or merely unsuccessful removing all of their rights merely because their fellow citizens will be richer for it then what rights do YOU have left that are inalienable?
Presumably your rules don't apply to all those who have no wealth or income who depend on others so now dependants are slaves who need fear losing their status if they fall out of favor.
We can apply the same logic to the working poor who now must fear deportation as a result of losing their asses when terminated.
Spousal abuse and labor mistreatment will rise substantially.
Then we must ask what nation would willingly serve as our ashtray of undesirables.
Your idea is like an endless cornacopua of horrible implications. The last time I read a blueprint for a worse outcome it was written by George Orwell.
Poverty often follows medical issues which then wouldnt see any help. Compare total mortality with projected mortality and you can figure out how many exactly you are murdering.
To facilitate the operation you will have to gut civil rights setting precedents with horrible implications for everyone's freedom.
If you can send someone to a foreign land because they are poor, lame, or merely unsuccessful removing all of their rights merely because their fellow citizens will be richer for it then what rights do YOU have left that are inalienable?
Presumably your rules don't apply to all those who have no wealth or income who depend on others so now dependants are slaves who need fear losing their status if they fall out of favor.
We can apply the same logic to the working poor who now must fear deportation as a result of losing their asses when terminated.
Spousal abuse and labor mistreatment will rise substantially.
Then we must ask what nation would willingly serve as our ashtray of undesirables.
Your idea is like an endless cornacopua of horrible implications. The last time I read a blueprint for a worse outcome it was written by George Orwell.
i think you're not wrong in the sense her living standard would be higher in a lot of ways in emerging economies. it does leave the question where the us should source its service workers from.
I was a McDonald's cashier many years ago in high school. I could not figure out any possible way to make it work (in the sense of being able to rent a minimal apartment and feed myself). At the time I think my salary was $5/hour and they wouldn't schedule more than 20 hours a week ($400/month). the managers (all of whom had gone to "hamburger U" in Chicago) didn't seem to be doing well, either- they worked 80 hours, often driving between multiple stores all over the state every day.
The only person who seemed to be doing well was the person who bought the store as a franchise. When I quit the manager said "I couldn't cut it as a cashier".
The only person who seemed to be doing well was the person who bought the store as a franchise. When I quit the manager said "I couldn't cut it as a cashier".
> It’s 8 p.m. and my scheduled shift is over, but they asked me to stay later
> The bus stops running at 10 p.m. on Sunday, but McDonald's asked me to stay until close at 1 a.m. They asked me to stay because they need my help.
Thats not a job, that's an abusive relationship.
> The bus stops running at 10 p.m. on Sunday, but McDonald's asked me to stay until close at 1 a.m. They asked me to stay because they need my help.
Thats not a job, that's an abusive relationship.
Unfortunately, this seems to be the norm for a lot of low-level jobs in the United States. You end up giving in because the job market for such jobs is saturated and others will take it for lower wages/off-the-books.
When I was 18 (many years ago), I remember having a job that did the same "we need you to stay later" BS. The buses stopped running at 8PM in the suburbs and I had to regularly walk 5-6 miles back home. Cabs and Lyft/Uber aren't much of an option when it would significantly eat into your paycheck. Most people get tired of giving you rides because you cannot afford a car.
Using a bicycle was more dangerous than walking; some people would throw things out their window at you or swerve/yell to scare you.
Factor in how managers "reward" certain employees with better shifts or punish by cutting hours. I could see why many people switch to the dole or dealing.
When I was 18 (many years ago), I remember having a job that did the same "we need you to stay later" BS. The buses stopped running at 8PM in the suburbs and I had to regularly walk 5-6 miles back home. Cabs and Lyft/Uber aren't much of an option when it would significantly eat into your paycheck. Most people get tired of giving you rides because you cannot afford a car.
Using a bicycle was more dangerous than walking; some people would throw things out their window at you or swerve/yell to scare you.
Factor in how managers "reward" certain employees with better shifts or punish by cutting hours. I could see why many people switch to the dole or dealing.
> Using a bicycle was more dangerous than walking; some people would throw things out their window at you or swerve/yell to scare you.
The USA really is a strange place.
The USA really is a strange place.
I bicycled to work for several years. Mostly cars full of shit-head teenagers that do that.
The really strange one was 5 AM on a 4 lane street, no other cars around, and a single car comes up behind me and starts honking, about hitting my rear tire.
The really strange one was 5 AM on a 4 lane street, no other cars around, and a single car comes up behind me and starts honking, about hitting my rear tire.
Part of the problem are the actual employees. Many let themselves be abused and do accept these ridiculous shifts making you 'a bad employee' in the eyes of the boss.
An employer's desire is to pay/benefit you as little as you will possibly take. It is ALWAYS an adversarial relationship. No matter how much you like your boss, someone up the chain is trying to screw you, somehow
I feel sad that you might not know this: What you said doesn't apply to many, many other countries around the world. Hundreds of millions of people don't live like this.
I agree. It's worth noting that successfully getting high minimum wages enacted can be expected to make more jobs more abusive in this way, because rationing by willingness to take abuse would substitute for rationing by wages.
A more humane and less distorting way to help poor people is to just give them money.
A more humane and less distorting way to help poor people is to just give them money.
[deleted]
[deleted]
These questions like "why doesn't she simply x or y" make me sad. The person in the article is poor, not dumb.
She likely can't move. It's expensive to move, no matter who you are, and since she has two jobs, it seems like she's going to spend a lot of time on the bus no matter what.
She definitely can't demand McDonald's pay for a taxi, or she can ask, be turned down, and have her hours cut for next week. They'll cut her hours if she just leaves at the end of her shift, and they ask her to stay.
She's already doing something that could ultimately have a positive material impact on her life, organizing with her coworkers. It's just that the many interlocking systems around her life all work against her; bad public transit, bad pay for physically exhausting work, and having to fight so hard for something as basic as a union at her workplace.
This is a situation that calls for compassion, understanding, and working alongside her to change the systems that keep her in this situation, not suggesting "why doesn't she".
She likely can't move. It's expensive to move, no matter who you are, and since she has two jobs, it seems like she's going to spend a lot of time on the bus no matter what.
She definitely can't demand McDonald's pay for a taxi, or she can ask, be turned down, and have her hours cut for next week. They'll cut her hours if she just leaves at the end of her shift, and they ask her to stay.
She's already doing something that could ultimately have a positive material impact on her life, organizing with her coworkers. It's just that the many interlocking systems around her life all work against her; bad public transit, bad pay for physically exhausting work, and having to fight so hard for something as basic as a union at her workplace.
This is a situation that calls for compassion, understanding, and working alongside her to change the systems that keep her in this situation, not suggesting "why doesn't she".
Also, she is “dumb,” because poverty is exhausting and exhaustion lowers your IQ massively. Have everyone in this thread run away from a mass shooting and then ask them to debug a deadlock.
But if she and her boyfriend work full time even for $9.50/hr, they still earn 9.50 x 320 = $3040/month and that's not a little sum. With such income, do they really have to live in some rural area with poor public transit and job choice? Something doesn't add up here.
That’s assuming they both get to work full time. The article mentions $215 as a McDonalds paycheck. Assuming that’s typical, and they’re both working two jobs, you get $1720/month.
She mentioned that it was less than she anticipated. Also, a month has 4.33 weeks on average, so even with the $215 weekly, they would be making $1863 per month.
One thing that made her life so difficult is the difficulty of getting to and from work.
It's pretty crazy that we spend nearly 15% of GDP on transportation costs. I mean sure, we can all reduce the expenses by buying a 10 year old Prius and get our travel costs down. but, a big part of the problem is that housing is always so far away from work. 500 years ago, people lived within a mile or less of their work places. now it's normal for people to live 20 miles or more away. we need to start building our cities with residential and work places closer by and hold employers accountable for where they create jobs. If you want to regulate it, then by all means regulate as follows: no job can be created unless there's an available residential place to live within 1000 feet of it. this would not only save people's lives, but also significantly reduce C02 pollution as transportation is a major source of c02.
It's pretty crazy that we spend nearly 15% of GDP on transportation costs. I mean sure, we can all reduce the expenses by buying a 10 year old Prius and get our travel costs down. but, a big part of the problem is that housing is always so far away from work. 500 years ago, people lived within a mile or less of their work places. now it's normal for people to live 20 miles or more away. we need to start building our cities with residential and work places closer by and hold employers accountable for where they create jobs. If you want to regulate it, then by all means regulate as follows: no job can be created unless there's an available residential place to live within 1000 feet of it. this would not only save people's lives, but also significantly reduce C02 pollution as transportation is a major source of c02.
A great short term solution would be to increase the investment in the local bus system. Full buses have a much better carbon footprint than single passenger cars.
The article highlights a real need for more bus stops and 24/hr bus service.
The article highlights a real need for more bus stops and 24/hr bus service.
Enforced bus lanes would go a long way in getting people to use the bus, and if more people use it then maybe headways can get to a reasonable number.
I ride the second busiest bus route in LA. Its serviced by a local and a rapid route with less frequent stops, and only the double long accordion style busses are run.
You would think the ridership and equipment would make for frequent and reliable service. But sometimes the headways are 7 minutes, sometimes back to back, sometimes over 25 minutes, sometimes skipping the stop. There is no telling.
I ride the second busiest bus route in LA. Its serviced by a local and a rapid route with less frequent stops, and only the double long accordion style busses are run.
You would think the ridership and equipment would make for frequent and reliable service. But sometimes the headways are 7 minutes, sometimes back to back, sometimes over 25 minutes, sometimes skipping the stop. There is no telling.
In another America:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/04/realestate/05...
(Yes, this an NYT Real Estate fluff piece, but god damn, sometimes I wonder how this is the same country.)
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/04/realestate/05...
(Yes, this an NYT Real Estate fluff piece, but god damn, sometimes I wonder how this is the same country.)
Perhaps it is the same country precisely because of that disparity? Maybe the rich's lavish lifestyles are only possible due to masses of hidden poor people, who suffer primarily because such rich people exist?
Wow. This really makes me thankful for what I have.
For people who have worked these kind of jobs: how much difference in your day does it make when people are pleasant or friendly? I get takeout pretty often and I am always super friendly and pay a tip of $2 when I'm picking up -- they still had to do the work of packing up the food, right? And honestly, they probably need the couple bucks more than me. I assume it is appreciated but I always wonder how much of a difference it makes for the person. Whether it's just a drop in the bucket or if they go home in better spirits or whatever. I'm also always curious if it goes into a pool so the cooking staff get a cut as well, cuz they deserve it as well.
Back when I was a McManager, I appreciated anyone who treated my employees and I like actual human beings. Whenever possible, I'd go above and beyond for those people :)
At my peak I made $11/hour and employees started at ~$7.50 so a $2 tip was a wonderful bump for the hour. Tips weren't generally shared since they never officially happened. We weren't setup for them because of tax purposes. Other fast food restaurants like Sonic rely on tips and are equipped to handle those kind of situations.
Since then (2015) McDonald's raised their USA minimum to be $9 and likely more since I last checked.
Source: I was a McDonald's employee for ~5 years, working my way up from an entry level position to eventually Asst. Store Manager at a Midwestern Franchise
At my peak I made $11/hour and employees started at ~$7.50 so a $2 tip was a wonderful bump for the hour. Tips weren't generally shared since they never officially happened. We weren't setup for them because of tax purposes. Other fast food restaurants like Sonic rely on tips and are equipped to handle those kind of situations.
Since then (2015) McDonald's raised their USA minimum to be $9 and likely more since I last checked.
Source: I was a McDonald's employee for ~5 years, working my way up from an entry level position to eventually Asst. Store Manager at a Midwestern Franchise
Interesting, yeah I pay by credit card so the $2 addition is definitely "on the books", unfortunately. I think each restaurant or chain has a different policy on how they disperse tips and I know some places do pool it (and I've def heard horror stories where the manager or owner keeps a huge chunk of the tips). But yeah I mean, everyone is valid and awesome and deserves to be treated right. Even if they make a mistake I only mention it if it's massive or repeated, and even then I don't want "a free meal", I just want to not have a key ingredient in my dish missing (or whatever) hahaha ;)
This by far not a popular opinion, but some jobs aren’t worth $15 an hour. We shouldn’t force social policy on private corporations. Sure she needs more than $9.15/hour to live as an adult and pay for insurance but a teenager staying at home doesn’t.
I am strong believer in a social safety net but I think that should be the role of government. She shouldn’t have to depend on private corporations for insurance, that should be the taken care of by government like it is in every other first world country.
We already have a program where the government (instead of corporate America) recognizes that the monetary needs of an adult is different from that of a teenager staying at home - the Earned Income Tax Credit. We as a country should both make that more generous and easier to be distributed through out the year. Historically, the EITC was supported by both Democratic and Republican administrations.
It shouldn’t take her two hours to get to work, we need better public transportation. Heck barring that I wouldn’t be opposed to subsidizing private transportation solutions like working with Uber and Lyft if it’s cheaper long term.
I am strong believer in a social safety net but I think that should be the role of government. She shouldn’t have to depend on private corporations for insurance, that should be the taken care of by government like it is in every other first world country.
We already have a program where the government (instead of corporate America) recognizes that the monetary needs of an adult is different from that of a teenager staying at home - the Earned Income Tax Credit. We as a country should both make that more generous and easier to be distributed through out the year. Historically, the EITC was supported by both Democratic and Republican administrations.
It shouldn’t take her two hours to get to work, we need better public transportation. Heck barring that I wouldn’t be opposed to subsidizing private transportation solutions like working with Uber and Lyft if it’s cheaper long term.
Here's a counter-argument: if people are taking jobs that don't cover their cost of living, and the government is having to step in to subsidize them, then that's effectively a subsidy from the government to the company's bottom line.
In general, we Americans believe in the free market, but we also believe that we need limits on what people can legally contract for. For example, we don't let people sell organs. We don't let people sell themselves into slavery. We don't let people put their pre-teen children to work. And we do indeed have a minimum wage. Do you feel like we should abolish the minimum wage altogether, or just that it shouldn't be $15/hour. If so, why?
In general, we Americans believe in the free market, but we also believe that we need limits on what people can legally contract for. For example, we don't let people sell organs. We don't let people sell themselves into slavery. We don't let people put their pre-teen children to work. And we do indeed have a minimum wage. Do you feel like we should abolish the minimum wage altogether, or just that it shouldn't be $15/hour. If so, why?
It’s not the role of every job to provide a livable income.
How many people on HN wouldn’t have a job at all if their company wasn’t subsidized by VCs?
There was an article posted here a few months ago that the average 7/11 owner makes $35K a year and that’s with them putting in 60+ hour weeks. Most small business owners aren’t getting rich.
Actually, I wouldn’t be completely opposed to abolishing the minimum wage and having a universal basic income.
How many people on HN wouldn’t have a job at all if their company wasn’t subsidized by VCs?
There was an article posted here a few months ago that the average 7/11 owner makes $35K a year and that’s with them putting in 60+ hour weeks. Most small business owners aren’t getting rich.
Actually, I wouldn’t be completely opposed to abolishing the minimum wage and having a universal basic income.
"How many people on HN wouldn’t have a job at all if their company wasn’t subsidized by VCs?"
VCs aren't taxpayers. We're not getting equity or an upside in McDonalds paying below poverty wages.
VCs aren't taxpayers. We're not getting equity or an upside in McDonalds paying below poverty wages.
Well, seeing that a lot of public pensions invest in both private equity and public stocks, what’s the difference? Your government is still taking the same amount of risk.
Let me tell you about a personal anecdote:
My mom retired from teaching probably about 15 years ago. She was approached a year later about working for a program with the school system for at risk kids. It was based on a federal government grant. When she did the math, she would only be able to work about 10 or 15 hours a week at the rate they agreed to pay her and it not affect her teacher’s pension. She volunteered to take a pay cut - that was under $15 an hour - so she could work more hours and actually help the students. Should she not be allowed to voluntarily work for less?
My own wife when we met was working a job that allowed her to support herself and her (now our) two kids and live in one of the best school districts in the area. She voluntarily took a lower paying and lower stress job that again was less than $15 an hour so she could be on the school schedule.
On a less anecdotal level, there are freelancers in California who are complaining that the government “stepping in” to “help” Uber drivers has made it harder for them to stay freelancers. Jason Snell the former editor of MacWorld who gave up his job to go freelance said the law made it more complicated for him.
I mentioned before that the average 7/11 owner makes $35K a year and puts in 60+ hour weeks. What do you think is going to happen if he is forced to pay $15 an hour? Have you seen the balance sheet of the average small business? Not everyone gets to be subsidized by Big Daddy VC while losing millions of dollars.
Anytime you have government unnecessarily involved in price fixing you get unintended consequences.
Let me tell you about a personal anecdote:
My mom retired from teaching probably about 15 years ago. She was approached a year later about working for a program with the school system for at risk kids. It was based on a federal government grant. When she did the math, she would only be able to work about 10 or 15 hours a week at the rate they agreed to pay her and it not affect her teacher’s pension. She volunteered to take a pay cut - that was under $15 an hour - so she could work more hours and actually help the students. Should she not be allowed to voluntarily work for less?
My own wife when we met was working a job that allowed her to support herself and her (now our) two kids and live in one of the best school districts in the area. She voluntarily took a lower paying and lower stress job that again was less than $15 an hour so she could be on the school schedule.
On a less anecdotal level, there are freelancers in California who are complaining that the government “stepping in” to “help” Uber drivers has made it harder for them to stay freelancers. Jason Snell the former editor of MacWorld who gave up his job to go freelance said the law made it more complicated for him.
I mentioned before that the average 7/11 owner makes $35K a year and puts in 60+ hour weeks. What do you think is going to happen if he is forced to pay $15 an hour? Have you seen the balance sheet of the average small business? Not everyone gets to be subsidized by Big Daddy VC while losing millions of dollars.
Anytime you have government unnecessarily involved in price fixing you get unintended consequences.
> It’s not the role of every job to provide a livable income.
It’s the role of the economy for someone to get a livable income if that’s what they’re seeking. If it’s not working then it needs a nudge.
It’s the role of the economy for someone to get a livable income if that’s what they’re seeking. If it’s not working then it needs a nudge.
What standard of living do you consider "livable" and what percentage of the 7.7 Billion people on the planet actually live at that standard?
The "living wage" thing is a marketing weasel phrase. It's intentionally non-specific and encourages the listener to fill in their own idea of what kind of lifestyle a "living wage" entails. I would encourage everyone to ignore "living wage" marketing weasel-speak and only listen to concrete, specific goals.
The "living wage" thing is a marketing weasel phrase. It's intentionally non-specific and encourages the listener to fill in their own idea of what kind of lifestyle a "living wage" entails. I would encourage everyone to ignore "living wage" marketing weasel-speak and only listen to concrete, specific goals.
Try at the very minimum matching to inflation, and adjusting the current wage to what it would be if it were. Then all you have to decide is whether the minimum wage should’ve been a thing in the first place.
[deleted]
I feel like there's a lot of assumptions in that suggestion that I don't necessarily accept. The biggest is the assumption that the minimum wage sets the market rather than the market setting the minimum wage. I believe the market conditions during a period of time have heavy influence on the legislated minimum wage.
Imagine if 50 years ago you could easily import millions of impoverished people willing to work for a lower wage and could also force your local worker to compete against a $0.15/day ($1 in 2019 adjusted for inflation back to 1970) foreign worker. Do you think that would have impacted 1970s minimum wage regulations? I do.
Imagine if 50 years ago you could easily import millions of impoverished people willing to work for a lower wage and could also force your local worker to compete against a $0.15/day ($1 in 2019 adjusted for inflation back to 1970) foreign worker. Do you think that would have impacted 1970s minimum wage regulations? I do.
The market doesn’t set the minimum wage. The market actively pushes wages down, as we’ve seen even with a very small unemployment rate wages haven’t gone up.
What do you think the market is aside from the cumulative actions of all of the individuals in the economy such as workers (voters) and businesses?
Why do you believe workers/voters were able to demand a higher minimum wage 50 years ago? I explained what I think changed, I'm curious to know your thoughts.
Why do you believe workers/voters were able to demand a higher minimum wage 50 years ago? I explained what I think changed, I'm curious to know your thoughts.
The “living wage” would be different for someone with no dependents and no health problems than someone who has health problems and/or kids.
When I read "living wage" I parse it very literally. It sounds like something close to "capable of purchasing just enough food calories for one person to live." It certainly would not afford you luxuries like having children.
I'm sure that's not what most people are intending to communicate, but I think that's a good starting point to demonstrate how meaningless the phrase "living wage" really is.
I'm sure that's not what most people are intending to communicate, but I think that's a good starting point to demonstrate how meaningless the phrase "living wage" really is.
Well, you can buy a lot of food calories cheaply from McDonalds....
http://freakonomics.com/2013/03/21/the-most-bountiful-food-i...
http://freakonomics.com/2013/03/21/the-most-bountiful-food-i...
Sure, but there are ways to do this that aren't forcing every single job in said economy to provide that type of income.
So should we force companies to pay a “livable income” for the teenager staying at home? The couple with two small kids and the mom staying at home to raise them? The single mom who has to raise three or four kids on her own? The single person in the story who needs expensive medical care to stay alive?
Yes. Because people who need jobs to live shouldn’t have to suffer for those people you mentioned. All those people you mentioned it’s a fucking optional thing - don’t optimize for the optional.
So it’s “optional” for the single mom who was married and whose husband left/died? Is it “optional” in any circumstance for the kids?
She should get a living wage. The kids should take less hours so they have more time to do things other than being a wage slave. Everyone who works should get a living wage.
If everyone has a living wage, the businesses will do better because people will have more money to spend. That’s the point of investment. Our economy is built off of the consumer, who has been stagnating for decades. We could be doing far better with a stronger middle class.
If everyone has a living wage, the businesses will do better because people will have more money to spend. That’s the point of investment. Our economy is built off of the consumer, who has been stagnating for decades. We could be doing far better with a stronger middle class.
So since the living wage is different for a single mom with two kids than a single person living alone, should the minimum wage be different for one than the other?
No, she should get different assistance for her situation, or if not, then yes.
Sure, why not? There’s a ridiculous amount of money out there, but people are squabbling over pennies.
So now when you apply for a job they should base your pay on your household situation? If one person is single and the other is a single mom with three kids, the company should pay more?
Should they also get paid more if one has a medical condition and the other doesn’t?
Should they also get paid more if one has a medical condition and the other doesn’t?
Again, why not?
Hence a universal basic income.
> This by far not a popular opinion, but some jobs aren’t worth $15 an hour. We shouldn’t force social policy on private corporations.
Some jobs aren't worth doing, thats for sure. We decided that if a job isn't worth paying someone $15 an hour to do, it's not worth someone doing. The market can figure that out.
We're forcing the policy on the worker as much as the corporation, they cannot sell their labor for less than $15 an hour either. We, as society, are saying "if the market says you aren't worth >$15/hour go to school until you are" as thats the best use of everyone's time.
Arguing that teenagers deserve less protections against exploitation of their labor is arguing we should go back to pre-industrial revolution policies.
I'm also not sure what your point about the EITC is, it gives different amounts of tax credits to adults depending on if they have kids or not recognizing that parenting costs money. You have to be aged 25-65 to claim it if you don't have kids yourself, so teenagers who work do not benefit from it directly. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit
Some jobs aren't worth doing, thats for sure. We decided that if a job isn't worth paying someone $15 an hour to do, it's not worth someone doing. The market can figure that out.
We're forcing the policy on the worker as much as the corporation, they cannot sell their labor for less than $15 an hour either. We, as society, are saying "if the market says you aren't worth >$15/hour go to school until you are" as thats the best use of everyone's time.
Arguing that teenagers deserve less protections against exploitation of their labor is arguing we should go back to pre-industrial revolution policies.
I'm also not sure what your point about the EITC is, it gives different amounts of tax credits to adults depending on if they have kids or not recognizing that parenting costs money. You have to be aged 25-65 to claim it if you don't have kids yourself, so teenagers who work do not benefit from it directly. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit
[deleted]
I know. I’m saying it should be more generous and easier to receive throughout the year.
I think this is probably correct but it seems entirely incompatible with modern American society.
As an outsider it seems like the way Americans think is "If you don't earn enough its because you didn't work hard enough" And any of your suggestions go against the idea of personal responsibility that is held so strongly.
As an outsider it seems like the way Americans think is "If you don't earn enough its because you didn't work hard enough" And any of your suggestions go against the idea of personal responsibility that is held so strongly.
I think what you are arguing for is we raise minimum wage for adults to a living wage but keep it low for minors claimed as dependents. We should force social policy on private corporations when they are being deliberately exploitative.
And the only reason that people who are working for money losing startups aren’t being “exploited” is because of the access to venture capital. And VCs get a lot of money from public pensions. If low margin businesses don’t “deserve” to be in business, neither do companies losing billions a year.
This is a capex vs opex question. Raise minimum wage enough and firms cross the border to investing in capex such that they replace employees.
If they’re on the fence already, then they should be doing it. A few hundred dollars a day means next to nothing to McDonald’s, and everything to the workers. Don’t hold the threat of automation over them, if it’s gonna happen rip the bandaid off.
It’s not a matter of a few hundred dollars a day. It’s a matter of whether the decision to replace workers is NPV positive. It’s clearly only so up until the point they are at now with the kiosks.
A few hundred a day means a lot to the franchise owner. It really means a lot to the mom and pop pizzeria down the street or the owner of the convenience store.
And the plantation owner. Cheap labor is not a right.
I’ve asked this before, how much “labor” could the average money losing, VC backed, startup afford?
Cheap and quality public housing along with good transportation options will go a long way in reducing poverty.
Unfortunately, it is either cheap or quality. And news flash, as someone who just recently built a new home, even the "expensive" stuff is hardly "quality" these days. We are paying more for homes with cheaper, younger, less treated wood that rots and warps faster (partially thanks to over-regulation). Majority of what is being thrown up in my city are 450-700k+ McMansions that are "stick built" and will almost assuredly have a host of problems in the near term.
Quality is just so rare these days. Everything is built to be replaced in 5-10 years.
American homes are a sham. My grandmother's home back in Greece is 180 years old at this point and I fully expect it to outlast my current home.
Quality is just so rare these days. Everything is built to be replaced in 5-10 years.
American homes are a sham. My grandmother's home back in Greece is 180 years old at this point and I fully expect it to outlast my current home.
liveoneggs(1)
The people who do ok with these jobs are people with tight nit families who live 12 people to an apartment and share all expenses. For some reason, that kind of living arrangement never works in America. Zoning can cause that to be a problem, but there are other reasons it doesn't work.
I was reading a blog by an American who took a job at a hair cutter in China and 12 people lived in 3 rooms in bunk beds in the back of the store and they never fought. He commented that this living situation would never work in America.
I was reading a blog by an American who took a job at a hair cutter in China and 12 people lived in 3 rooms in bunk beds in the back of the store and they never fought. He commented that this living situation would never work in America.
That living situation describes migrant farm workers and day workers across America, probably any industry that use illegal immigrants for most of their labor.
I worked as a cashier once and it wasn’t the same as it is for my friends who still do. These days, they all have employment contracts, non-competes, and self checkouts taking their jobs. Back in my day, you could just leave any retail job like that and go across the street
>employment contracts, non-competes
What retail stores have this in place for cashiers?
What retail stores have this in place for cashiers?
Until 2016, Jimmy John's was doing this to employees, until NY State made them stop.
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/22/jimmy-johns-drops-non-compet...
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/22/jimmy-johns-drops-non-compet...
In the old days middle class kids all had real service/manual jobs as teenagers & college students. Its scary that now the new generation has to read about what it is like.
Some of the middle class teenage kids I know would love to have service or manual jobs - earn some cash around school and over the holidays - but those jobs are now occupied by grown adults. It is scary, but not because middle class teenagers miss out on them.
McDonald's was my first job in high school. I took it because I wanted to get away from being slave labor to my parents who owned a liquor store.
I worked there for a year with a rotating cast of characters including those from first generation immigrant /low income backgrounds such as myself. One thing that year taught me? I needed to get into a good college and learn something useful.
I worked there for a year with a rotating cast of characters including those from first generation immigrant /low income backgrounds such as myself. One thing that year taught me? I needed to get into a good college and learn something useful.
Unions, unions, unions.
There’s a compelling argument that unions, combined with the fight for $15 minimum wage, will do nothing but make the situation worse. Nobody is going to pay $20 for a burger and fries. McDonald’s would either have to go almost entirely automated or cease to exist as a company.
McDonalds workers are unionized in Australia (https://www.sda.org.au/media-release-new-mcdonalds-agreement...).
The Australian minimum wage is AU$19.49.
A burger and fries doesn't cost you $20.
The Australian minimum wage is AU$19.49.
A burger and fries doesn't cost you $20.
No, it’s closer to $15 (depending on what you get), which is still too high to be tenable here.
https://www.aussieprices.com.au/mcdonalds-prices/
https://www.aussieprices.com.au/mcdonalds-prices/
That page indicates a Big Mac meal (which includes a drink, too) starts at $9.80, which is US$6.70.
The cost for this meal appears to be US$5.99 in the US - quite similar.
That's not close to $15 (or $20) by any stretch of the imagination.
The cost for this meal appears to be US$5.99 in the US - quite similar.
That's not close to $15 (or $20) by any stretch of the imagination.
If your going to convert to USD, you need to do the same for the wage. So about $13.60 USD per hr.
Fair enough. That still compares quite favorably to the US version's $7.25.
If unionization and a near doubling in minimum wage makes a hamburger, fries, and Coke cost $0.71 more, I think I can accept that.
If unionization and a near doubling in minimum wage makes a hamburger, fries, and Coke cost $0.71 more, I think I can accept that.
I was basing it on the other meals, which were on the order of $11-13. A Big Mac meal isn’t $5.99 where I live so the gap feels larger to me.
Either way, I think that the assertion of “this thing worked over there so it will work the same way here” is overly optimistic. But ultimately I don’t much care - I rarely eat there, so if McDonald’s got very expensive or went out of business, it wouldn’t have much impact on my life. If they want to unionize, more power to them.
I’m not a fan of unions overall. I recognize that they’ve done some good things, but the people I’ve known who were in unions or worked in union shops don’t describe places that I’d want to work in.
Either way, I think that the assertion of “this thing worked over there so it will work the same way here” is overly optimistic. But ultimately I don’t much care - I rarely eat there, so if McDonald’s got very expensive or went out of business, it wouldn’t have much impact on my life. If they want to unionize, more power to them.
I’m not a fan of unions overall. I recognize that they’ve done some good things, but the people I’ve known who were in unions or worked in union shops don’t describe places that I’d want to work in.
In 2017, McDonald's had 235,000 employees and paid its shareholders $7.7 billion. Compelling argument, all right.
Some math to really drill this home: that's 32K per employee. Literally a livable wage around 50% higher than the minimum they offer currently for someone working 40 hours year round, no vacation.
The restaurants are almost entirely owned by franchisees and run on fairly tight margins. You can argue that the corporation makes too much money or whatever, but they’re not the ones who will be screwed if I’m right.
Are you arguing the franchisees are hurting as well?
Or are you just arguing that the franchisees are also getting rich by paying people as little as possible?
Or are you just arguing that the franchisees are also getting rich by paying people as little as possible?
I’m arguing that the restaurants aren’t especially profitable and their margins are thin. It’s a bit like a rental property, in the sense that you have to have more than a couple in order to make much money at it.
This has never been my understanding about the major ones, at least. The licenses are incredibly expensive to buy, but they are quite profitable. But I recognize we're both speaking totally vaguely and without sources, so I'm not sure why I'm replying when I have so little to add myself :)
If those franchises will not be able to make ends meet, corporate will have to reduce their tithe. Trust me, there's a lot of money that can be squeezed from the shareholders.
Many localities in the US have instituted higher minimum wages. In DC, the minimum wage is $14, and I can assure you that a burger and fries is not $20, the local McDonald's have not automated, and they seem to be doing fine.
They would have to accelerate their automation of front of house. But other than that they won't get rid of the rest of the workers. One day they might work out how to automate some things but given the broken blizzard machine is a meme I don't think McD has the ability to automate anything else. So they McD will move upscale which is fine. They don't have playplaces anymore and they're no-ones favorite burger anymore. Lots can be said against unions but they have their place and a single company union sounds like it could work here.
I pay $20 for a burger and fries all the time. Just not at McD's.
Right, my point wasn’t that people won’t pay $20 for a burger and fries, just that they won’t pay $20 for a burger and fries at McDonald’s .
Then maybe a business that can't make enough money to pay livable wages should cease to exist? I thought this was the idea all along?
> "Then maybe a business that can't make enough money to pay livable wages should cease to exist?"
Sounds like a recipe for business closures en masse and ballooning unemployment, which I don't think is something anyone wants.
Sounds like a recipe for business closures en masse and ballooning unemployment, which I don't think is something anyone wants.
McDonalds is run well enough that they'd never do that anyway. They'd phase in changes to adapt to market conditions.
McDonalds, the corporation, would have some financial runway in which to adapt. The franchisees that own and operate individual McDonalds restaurants, however, they would most likely be decimated.
I'll pay $9 at Five Guys all day long.
If you doubled the wages of every McDonald's worker, burger prices would have to go up by 30 cents or so to compensate, if I recall the math properly.
If you’re referring to that Huffpost article from a few years ago, that got pulled because their math was faulty. It was based on assumptions about costs that weren’t rooted in reality, namely that the ingredients were the largest expense in the cost of the food. It’s not, it’s actually the labor, which is why increasing the employee wages has a disproportionate impact on the cost of the menu items.
Pappa John's own previous CEO claimed it would cost 13 cents per pizza more to provide all his employees health insurance.
He cited this as a reason to not give his employees health insurance
He cited this as a reason to not give his employees health insurance
That’s not an apples to apples comparison, but I agree that this is stupid.
Correction: I said that it got pulled, but as I recall they updated the article to reflect the inaccuracy in the original piece.
The most powerful tool in any union is a strike, but McDonalds is okay with that now, and won't be bringing in any scabs to replace those who are gone. They will be replaced by machines and the consumers are going to see a value-add.
> They will be replaced by machines and the consumers are going to see a value-add.
This is tech fantasy, like Musk promising that Teslas will be fully self-driving any minute now.
This is tech fantasy, like Musk promising that Teslas will be fully self-driving any minute now.
By tech fantasy are we talking about the kiosks which are already providing a value-add to customers?
Similarly, sometimes when I see a restaurant use Yelp for check-in, reservations, and queue management, I imagine that's a sizable fraction of a job.
Similarly, sometimes when I see a restaurant use Yelp for check-in, reservations, and queue management, I imagine that's a sizable fraction of a job.
> By tech fantasy are we talking about the kiosks which are already providing a value-add to customers?
No, we're talking about the making and packaging diverse types of food to order. That's why people go to McDonalds, and it's something that's surprisingly difficult to automate. McDonalds workers will be able to strike effectively as long as that's true.
Also, I don't consider ordering kiosks a value add for a customer. I've used them, they've been little to no benefit over ordering in person. It's just futzing around with yet another flaky touch screen, and who knows if the last person who used it had a cold or something. Their handling of process exceptions is like Google's customer support: non-existant. They're just a cost saving measure for business owners. It's not about "providing a value-add to customers" at all.
Remote ordering is a small value add, since it does permit some level of customer multi-tasking.
No, we're talking about the making and packaging diverse types of food to order. That's why people go to McDonalds, and it's something that's surprisingly difficult to automate. McDonalds workers will be able to strike effectively as long as that's true.
Also, I don't consider ordering kiosks a value add for a customer. I've used them, they've been little to no benefit over ordering in person. It's just futzing around with yet another flaky touch screen, and who knows if the last person who used it had a cold or something. Their handling of process exceptions is like Google's customer support: non-existant. They're just a cost saving measure for business owners. It's not about "providing a value-add to customers" at all.
Remote ordering is a small value add, since it does permit some level of customer multi-tasking.
I tried that kiosk once (I don't often go to McDonald's) and was surprised to find that you could not order by number/meal. It took me 10 minutes to figure out how to order what we wanted and then at the end there were no "buzzers" in the bin and I had to re-order at the counter!
[deleted]
I get McDonald's for breakfast occasionally and I really, really like the kiosks. A much better and more reliable ordering experience.
Does the USA not have mobile ordering for McD’s?
Or is that just a Canada trial thing?
Or is that just a Canada trial thing?
We have them.
>For the next four hours, I stand in one spot on a concrete floor working the tray line. It’s like a constant assembly line, putting food on trays for thousands of patients. I do milk, bread, butter, Ensure. Milk, bread, butter, Ensure. A tray goes by every few seconds. Milk, bread, butter, Ensure. If I'm slow, it backs up the line and it takes longer to finish. Standing in one place so long makes my feet and my legs hurt. I know when I get up tomorrow, I will wince when my feet touch the floor.
People should not have to do things like this. It is clearly a robot's job. And if it weren't for the parasitic managerial class constantly collecting all of the unclaimed resources for themselves, we would praise automation for freeing people from such mundane painful existence.
Automation should free up humans time so that they can do things that humans enjoy. The only reason that won't happen is that the people in charge of the system are evil and greedy.
People should not have to do things like this. It is clearly a robot's job. And if it weren't for the parasitic managerial class constantly collecting all of the unclaimed resources for themselves, we would praise automation for freeing people from such mundane painful existence.
Automation should free up humans time so that they can do things that humans enjoy. The only reason that won't happen is that the people in charge of the system are evil and greedy.
> She says she plans to work for as long as possible, trying to provide for her baby. As part time employees, we don’t get health insurance or paid sick days.
And the cycle repeats. I know it's a cold, impersonal take, but when life sucks, having a child is going to make it worse and most likely just lead to a new generation of suffering.
As much as a $15 minimum wage might help, even at $12 in Colorado, McDonald's already has touchscreen machines you can order from instead of at the counter - which might already not be manned all the time (it seems that now they often have a single person taking orders at the front counter and the drive through). So I'm skeptical if $15 minimum wage would work. It might work for the hospital job, at least the margin's there are higher and they are less able to automate the job away.
And the cycle repeats. I know it's a cold, impersonal take, but when life sucks, having a child is going to make it worse and most likely just lead to a new generation of suffering.
As much as a $15 minimum wage might help, even at $12 in Colorado, McDonald's already has touchscreen machines you can order from instead of at the counter - which might already not be manned all the time (it seems that now they often have a single person taking orders at the front counter and the drive through). So I'm skeptical if $15 minimum wage would work. It might work for the hospital job, at least the margin's there are higher and they are less able to automate the job away.
> I know it's a cold, impersonal take, but when life sucks, having a child is going to make it worse and most likely just lead to a new generation of suffering.
This is very much a class thing. Well-educated middle class and higher simply can't comprehend why a single mother or even married couple would even think about having children when they can't provide the basics, let alone a solid education in good schools that aren't feeders for prison.
The folks who make that decision do so because they see it as a part of life and don't see any change in their circumstances for the foreseeable future. No light at the end of the tunnel, so just get on with living.
This is very much a class thing. Well-educated middle class and higher simply can't comprehend why a single mother or even married couple would even think about having children when they can't provide the basics, let alone a solid education in good schools that aren't feeders for prison.
The folks who make that decision do so because they see it as a part of life and don't see any change in their circumstances for the foreseeable future. No light at the end of the tunnel, so just get on with living.
" I know it's a cold, impersonal take, but when life sucks, having a child is going to make it worse and most likely just lead to a new generation of suffering."
She could've had the child when her economics were in a better place. She could've been assaulted. She could've been denied the education to prevent the pregnancy. There are a bajillion and one reasons why a child might exist and she is responsible for it.
She could've had the child when her economics were in a better place. She could've been assaulted. She could've been denied the education to prevent the pregnancy. There are a bajillion and one reasons why a child might exist and she is responsible for it.
> She could've had the child when her economics were in a better place. She could've been assaulted. She could've been denied the education to prevent the pregnancy
It's possible but not probable when you consider that 42.3% of births are paid for via Medicaid [1].
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_13-508.pdf
It's possible but not probable when you consider that 42.3% of births are paid for via Medicaid [1].
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_13-508.pdf
Medicaid is also the largest insurance provider in the USA, so it makes sense they have a lot of births. Doesn't explain much.
Surely you need data on the rate of assault and lost economic security to make this assertion.
The lack of empathy and understanding in so many comments here makes me slightly hopeless for mankind.
I'm seeing a lot of comments in here made from the perspective of people who have never had the experience of being caught on the poverty flypaper.
Preying upon the weak is an industry. The admonition to "work harder!" is propaganda disseminated by those who passively benefit from the labor of others. The fact is that wages have not risen along with productivity: it is mostly just ownership dividends that rise.
A food-service worker should be able to enjoy the benefits that have accrued to our civilization over many centuries of specialized labor, and still be a functional person in civil society after a day's labor is done--even though food-service work is one of our lowest-status specialties. Even the least of us are still persons in their own right, and in a nation of temporarily embarrassed millionaires, we are all far more likely to stumble into deeper embarrassment than to recover those grandiose estates that were so unfortunately lost when we erred in choosing our parents.
Preying upon the weak is an industry. The admonition to "work harder!" is propaganda disseminated by those who passively benefit from the labor of others. The fact is that wages have not risen along with productivity: it is mostly just ownership dividends that rise.
A food-service worker should be able to enjoy the benefits that have accrued to our civilization over many centuries of specialized labor, and still be a functional person in civil society after a day's labor is done--even though food-service work is one of our lowest-status specialties. Even the least of us are still persons in their own right, and in a nation of temporarily embarrassed millionaires, we are all far more likely to stumble into deeper embarrassment than to recover those grandiose estates that were so unfortunately lost when we erred in choosing our parents.
...so this is going to be unpopular and create some cognitive dissonance around here, but I'm firmly convinced that an economic system that will allow for the top earners to earn a lot (in international comparison) can only be enabled if the bottom earners earn little (in international comparison).
In the United Arab Emirates, there are price-controls in place for certain low-level services. Like the price that a hair salon can charge for a haircut is price-controlled at a low price-level. This way they prevent a situation where a hair stylist can start accumulating wealth beyond their socially assigned (slave-like) status by becoming great at their craft, opening a premium hair salon and charging premium prices and accumulating wealth in the process. [Needless to say, craftsmanship is at a very low standard over there as a result]. -- The U.S. system is basically that, only not as blatant. It keeps down the underclass, because that's what's needed to enable the elites.
That makes it sound cruel and cynical. But the opposite is also cruel and cynical.
Take Austria as a counter-example which has very high per-head GDP and is at the same time one of the countries with the lowest Gini-coefficients in the world (low income-disparity). Your yearly increment in wealth post wealth-transfer like tax & government spending, social security, etc in Austria when you're a McDonald's cashier is probably three times what it is in the U.S. But for a highly qualified Software Engineer it's probably only a third of what it would be if they worked an equivalent job in the U.S.
Imagine you earn a six-figure salary in the U.S. in a Software Engineering job and you move to Austria: You might well find yourself in a situation where your neighbor, who is a bricklayer, has a bigger house than you, drivers a nicer car, works less hours, etc because they get paid in cash and cheat on their taxes.
In the United Arab Emirates, there are price-controls in place for certain low-level services. Like the price that a hair salon can charge for a haircut is price-controlled at a low price-level. This way they prevent a situation where a hair stylist can start accumulating wealth beyond their socially assigned (slave-like) status by becoming great at their craft, opening a premium hair salon and charging premium prices and accumulating wealth in the process. [Needless to say, craftsmanship is at a very low standard over there as a result]. -- The U.S. system is basically that, only not as blatant. It keeps down the underclass, because that's what's needed to enable the elites.
That makes it sound cruel and cynical. But the opposite is also cruel and cynical.
Take Austria as a counter-example which has very high per-head GDP and is at the same time one of the countries with the lowest Gini-coefficients in the world (low income-disparity). Your yearly increment in wealth post wealth-transfer like tax & government spending, social security, etc in Austria when you're a McDonald's cashier is probably three times what it is in the U.S. But for a highly qualified Software Engineer it's probably only a third of what it would be if they worked an equivalent job in the U.S.
Imagine you earn a six-figure salary in the U.S. in a Software Engineering job and you move to Austria: You might well find yourself in a situation where your neighbor, who is a bricklayer, has a bigger house than you, drivers a nicer car, works less hours, etc because they get paid in cash and cheat on their taxes.
I'd much rather live in a country where disparity is not clear like in Austria than the US. And I'm a software engineer but that doesn't change how I think about social justice.
But government-mandated wealth-transfer is not "justice". "Justice" also entails the ability to earn a return if you make an investment rather than having the return taken away by the government.
Scenario A: Your dad is a bricklayer and teaches you how to do bricklaying. You start taking jobs in the black economy, working at construction sites, getting paid in cash and not paying taxes. You start doing that when you're 14 (which is the earliest age you can legally quit school). By the time you're 30 you will have built your own house and paid it off.
Scenario B: You're 28 years old when you graduate from university with a PhD but you still cannot expect a level of income higher than the bricklayer's. In Austria you wouldn't have student debts, as your university education would have been paid for by the government, so that's good. But your daddy would have had to pay for your living expenses until you were 28. So that's a lot of money. Also, you've just spent 14 years not earning anything, so that's opportunity cost. Maybe you worked very hard at university, working late, instead of going out with your friends, doing summer internships instead of going on holiday, etc. All of that is investment not only in financial terms, but also in terms of "life energy" (if that's a word).
In Scenario B, as compared with A, there is no way you will ever be able to earn a return on that investment or recoup it in financial terms. You will never catch up with the level of wealth under Scenario A.
It doesn't work for the individual, and it doesn't work for the country as a whole: This is an advanced economy, and it couldn't work if there weren't doctors, lawyers, bankers, software engineers etc. But people are disincentivized from wanting those jobs, because you can do far easier and less stressful jobs that will get you to the same or even higher levels of wealth.
Scenario A: Your dad is a bricklayer and teaches you how to do bricklaying. You start taking jobs in the black economy, working at construction sites, getting paid in cash and not paying taxes. You start doing that when you're 14 (which is the earliest age you can legally quit school). By the time you're 30 you will have built your own house and paid it off.
Scenario B: You're 28 years old when you graduate from university with a PhD but you still cannot expect a level of income higher than the bricklayer's. In Austria you wouldn't have student debts, as your university education would have been paid for by the government, so that's good. But your daddy would have had to pay for your living expenses until you were 28. So that's a lot of money. Also, you've just spent 14 years not earning anything, so that's opportunity cost. Maybe you worked very hard at university, working late, instead of going out with your friends, doing summer internships instead of going on holiday, etc. All of that is investment not only in financial terms, but also in terms of "life energy" (if that's a word).
In Scenario B, as compared with A, there is no way you will ever be able to earn a return on that investment or recoup it in financial terms. You will never catch up with the level of wealth under Scenario A.
It doesn't work for the individual, and it doesn't work for the country as a whole: This is an advanced economy, and it couldn't work if there weren't doctors, lawyers, bankers, software engineers etc. But people are disincentivized from wanting those jobs, because you can do far easier and less stressful jobs that will get you to the same or even higher levels of wealth.
Yeah being software engineer in europe is not much fun. It can be worse than just 'not making as much as a bricklayer'. for instance, your house might not be a house, but an appartment in a run-down area of town, much like the McD employee of this story.
I'm apply to be one, because its a fairly mindless simple job, not many variables to handle so I wont have to think much at all. It will be a bit of exercise instead of being stuck on my backside in front of a computer all the time and I will get to interact with all sorts of people. I did a similar job when I was younger, was quite good at it. Sure the money sucks, but I've also experienced the other end of the scale, like writing a program which took a week to build earning me £10k in two hours and saving 3 months of coding for a major Charity. At least its paying money instead of spending money on games like Candy Crush and in a way its no different to some of these types of games so I'll still get my epinephrine, norepinephrine and dopamine buzz.
She is trying to shoot herself in the foot by supporting minimum wage limit increase.
If minimum wage will go up to $15/hour -- her prospective employers will fire her, because it would be better to either automate her service away or just hire a more skillful worker.
If minimum wage will go up to $15/hour -- her prospective employers will fire her, because it would be better to either automate her service away or just hire a more skillful worker.
The higher I climb the corporate ladder, the higher my salary goes. This is all well and good, but the expectations and stress climb with it too. I like working and applying my brain to solving problems, but I sometimes pine for a job that pays little and expects little. I can’t afford to make that change now and there is a good chance I wouldn’t actually enjoy bagging groceries at the store again, but it’s nice to dream about every now and then.
There is no job where you're paid little and expected little of. You'll just be paid little and you'll do some "low value" physical labour instead.
Right now the leading candidate on my list is to be a school bus driver. The responsibility is not trivial, but the work doesn’t seem too bad :)
You might enjoy this article about a professor who became one: https://stevesalaita.com/an-honest-living. The job seems more complex and more rewarding than I had imagined.
Sure you can. You can afford it more easily than the folks who are currently in those jobs, in fact.
I think it should be mandatory for all of the students to work even for a short period of time in the services industry. They will gain perspective of how shitty customers can be or how shitty bosses can be. When they eventually get into their shoes, hopefully they will remember how it felt to be on the other side of the cashier’s counter / boss’ desk.
Wow, it makes me realize how easy my first job (pharmacy assistant) was in comparison to food service.
But one thing I don’t understand is why so many people have to live on their own before they have the skills and the job.
Some of my Indian friends don’t leave home until they get married lol.
As a parent now, I can’t imagine kicking my kid out at 18 and saying “go make it on your own making minimum wage”.
But one thing I don’t understand is why so many people have to live on their own before they have the skills and the job.
Some of my Indian friends don’t leave home until they get married lol.
As a parent now, I can’t imagine kicking my kid out at 18 and saying “go make it on your own making minimum wage”.
Methink her job is secondary, she doesn't seem to be lazy. Systems who doesn't help to avoid people getting under the bus are bad IMO. In another country, she'd have just a bit of support to get it easier healthwise and transportwise too.
Universal basic income is far more comprehensive than raising the minimum wage, which selectively benefits only the people that manage to get the limited minimum wage jobs available.
Weird, in reader mode (Safari on MacOS), this is the text (other than the title, nothing at all about McDonalds cashiers, other than a letter about collecting receipts)...
How I Get By: A Week in the Life of a McDonald’s Cashier Cierra Brown is trying to do all she can on her own, but it rarely feels like she’s doing enough. By Maxwell Strachan Dec 5 2019, 11:11amShareTweetSnap
Got something on your mind? Email the Funbag. Your letters:
Eric:
My dear 80-something year old dad is normal in every respect. Except, he collects McDonald's receipts. Yes, that McDonald's.
How I Get By: A Week in the Life of a McDonald’s Cashier Cierra Brown is trying to do all she can on her own, but it rarely feels like she’s doing enough. By Maxwell Strachan Dec 5 2019, 11:11amShareTweetSnap
Got something on your mind? Email the Funbag. Your letters:
Eric:
My dear 80-something year old dad is normal in every respect. Except, he collects McDonald's receipts. Yes, that McDonald's.
$9.50 an hour! I work as an interpreter from Colombia and I get paid $2.50
One of the best services a supermarket can have is: free-policy when you have to wait > 2 people.
They do it with human cashier's and are insanely popular and low-cost.
No one truelly cares about self-service, it's just hype.
( Personal opinion)
They do it with human cashier's and are insanely popular and low-cost.
No one truelly cares about self-service, it's just hype.
( Personal opinion)
> No one truelly cares about self-service, it's just hype.
My grocery store recently instituted scan-as-you-go via a smartphone app, and I love it. I bag as I go along, precisely the way I want everything bagged (no crushed bread, no meat juice dripping on the candy) and basically walk out the door.
My grocery store recently instituted scan-as-you-go via a smartphone app, and I love it. I bag as I go along, precisely the way I want everything bagged (no crushed bread, no meat juice dripping on the candy) and basically walk out the door.
> precisely the way I want everything bagged (no crushed bread, no meat juice dripping on the candy)
I'm not sure what stores you go to, but just about every (bagger/cashier who bags) that I have ever interacted with has done their job quite well, and much faster than I would.
They have incentive to do so, because when they fuck up, or are too slow, they get chewed out by their manager. They also have 8 hours a day to practice.
Combined with the shit-show[1] of the self-service checkout station UIs (I haven't memorized every one of the 50+ produce codes - the cashiers have), and there is no universe where I get a better service in the self-serve checkout aisle.
Unfortunately, most of the full-service aisles have been eliminated, because it's cheaper to make customers waste their time struggling with the machines, than to employ cashiers. To the grocery, my time is free.
[1] To add insult to injury, the bagging area for the self-service machines is tiny - you can barely fit two shopping bags on it, so you end up playing a game of Tetris, as you try to scan your items. F* everything about self-service checkout machines. I still use them, because, thanks to the shortages, the full-service aisle lines are always too long.
I'm not sure what stores you go to, but just about every (bagger/cashier who bags) that I have ever interacted with has done their job quite well, and much faster than I would.
They have incentive to do so, because when they fuck up, or are too slow, they get chewed out by their manager. They also have 8 hours a day to practice.
Combined with the shit-show[1] of the self-service checkout station UIs (I haven't memorized every one of the 50+ produce codes - the cashiers have), and there is no universe where I get a better service in the self-serve checkout aisle.
Unfortunately, most of the full-service aisles have been eliminated, because it's cheaper to make customers waste their time struggling with the machines, than to employ cashiers. To the grocery, my time is free.
[1] To add insult to injury, the bagging area for the self-service machines is tiny - you can barely fit two shopping bags on it, so you end up playing a game of Tetris, as you try to scan your items. F* everything about self-service checkout machines. I still use them, because, thanks to the shortages, the full-service aisle lines are always too long.
You mention a variety of solvable (and in Wegmans' case, solved) issues.
The system I'm talking about is scan-as-you-go. No issue with the size of the bagging area. You're just putting things into your reusable bags directly in the cart.
Produce codes are simple - every produce display is labeled with a four or five digit code, and there are scales with label printers scattered throughout. These scales also display a bar code for use with the scanning app so you can forgo the label entirely. Even the folks going to a human cashier use these.
I've also been fairly impressed with their self-service UI when my phone's been too low on battery. Several years ago when they tried it out the UI was abysmal - it's clear they've made serious improvements in that realm and I've found it fast and user-friendly.
I like being able to decide how I organize my stuff. I can forgo bags for cases of soda, I can make the bags heavier than a cashier might, I can load them up based on how I'm going to unload at home.
Wegmans has kept the human cashiers, incidentally, with no noticeable increase in lines. Self-service is thus far an option, but one I prefer.
The system I'm talking about is scan-as-you-go. No issue with the size of the bagging area. You're just putting things into your reusable bags directly in the cart.
Produce codes are simple - every produce display is labeled with a four or five digit code, and there are scales with label printers scattered throughout. These scales also display a bar code for use with the scanning app so you can forgo the label entirely. Even the folks going to a human cashier use these.
I've also been fairly impressed with their self-service UI when my phone's been too low on battery. Several years ago when they tried it out the UI was abysmal - it's clear they've made serious improvements in that realm and I've found it fast and user-friendly.
I like being able to decide how I organize my stuff. I can forgo bags for cases of soda, I can make the bags heavier than a cashier might, I can load them up based on how I'm going to unload at home.
Wegmans has kept the human cashiers, incidentally, with no noticeable increase in lines. Self-service is thus far an option, but one I prefer.
Look into bags like this: https://www.amazon.com/Reusable-Organizer-Modern-Day-Living/...
What I also like is that it helps me keep the cold-chain better sustained.
What I also like is that it helps me keep the cold-chain better sustained.
What grocery store is that, and what region?
Wegmans, in upstate NY.
https://www.wegmans.com/service/wegmans-scan.html
https://www.wegmans.com/service/wegmans-scan.html
Walmart is trialling it in a location in Toronto.
I wish they had a proper barcode scanner to carry around instead of using the phone to scan though.
I wish they had a proper barcode scanner to carry around instead of using the phone to scan though.
Before I had a programmer job when i was younger, i completely 100% empathize with her in having those types of thankless jobs and constantly being tired. I can't imagine being trapped in that going forward. I bootstrapped my situation but I had a nice parents, a middle-class upbringing and a decent school to start everything, and a knack for programming... but I know/met so many who do not have this leg up in whatever they do in those experiences and have to continue that scraping by. This is why I lean toward UBI. I know both people who really want to succeed but are stuck from so many things or even people that will never try. It is what it is and is only getting worse with automation. I feel sorry for people that have not experienced these things that insist of the work ethic being the answer and are blind to reality.
I come from a broken home with one parent neglectful the other with mental illness(my mum is amazing but she had massive issues for over a decade which fortunately have improved), I worked minimum wage jobs for nearly a decade before I got myself out of that trap by something that was a solace and a hobby becoming a career.
I whole heartedly support people who organise to ensure a more equitable split for people like them, I got out the trap but for every me there is a dozen who didn’t, never will.
I was fortunate to be born in the U.K. and for the last 39 years at least have never had to worry about health insurance care, that’s just the final cherry on the shit sundae isn’t it.
She works full time hours but because it’s split over two jobs neither corp provides medical insurance, what an insane inhumane system.
I whole heartedly support people who organise to ensure a more equitable split for people like them, I got out the trap but for every me there is a dozen who didn’t, never will.
I was fortunate to be born in the U.K. and for the last 39 years at least have never had to worry about health insurance care, that’s just the final cherry on the shit sundae isn’t it.
She works full time hours but because it’s split over two jobs neither corp provides medical insurance, what an insane inhumane system.
100% agree that something needs to happen. The way we treat less-fortunate people is shameful and undignified.
My biggest concern with UBI specifically is that it will be absorbed by landlords and other societal rent-seekers. My personal opinion is that we should democratize workplaces, through unions in the short-term and co-ops in the long term. McDonalds cashiers should have a say in their working conditions beyond the bare minimum employment regulations (that are so often ignored in retail and food services).
My biggest concern with UBI specifically is that it will be absorbed by landlords and other societal rent-seekers. My personal opinion is that we should democratize workplaces, through unions in the short-term and co-ops in the long term. McDonalds cashiers should have a say in their working conditions beyond the bare minimum employment regulations (that are so often ignored in retail and food services).
Keeping people constantly tired and "on the edge" might be a deliberate strategy. Or at least a very convenient coincidence. If they're too tired and too reliant on their current jobs to protest or quit, they'll stay quiet and politically compliant.
While I wouldn't be _surprised_ if it's a deliberate strategy, I think it's more likely that the incentives just align in, as you said, a very convenient coincidence for the political elite and bourgeois interests in society.
> The way we treat less-fortunate people is shameful and undignified.
i think the crux has always been separating the unfortunate from the lazy. i don't think anyone would have serious a problem with supporting the former if the latter could be sieved.
i think the crux has always been separating the unfortunate from the lazy. i don't think anyone would have serious a problem with supporting the former if the latter could be sieved.
I honestly don't think this is that important, and I think means-testing or 'laziness'-testing is more effort than it's worth.
There will always be lazy people in society, and we have a lot of evidence that lazy people are a burden no matter how hard we try to make their lives. I'm happier giving people enough to get by unconditionally than having them steal or cheat enough to get by.
Trapping people in poverty means if they decided to not be lazy at some point, it's incredibly hard for them to get out of their situation and it's much more likely for them to fail. Furthermore, poverty only affects poor lazy people. Rich lazy people (those that got lucky or were born into wealth) can live on dividends their whole lives with no 'punishment'.
Lastly, attempts to distinguish lazy people from non-lazy people are easily corrupted by monied interests that don't want to pay as much into society. See the 'welfare queen' narrative that was popular under Reagan.
There will always be lazy people in society, and we have a lot of evidence that lazy people are a burden no matter how hard we try to make their lives. I'm happier giving people enough to get by unconditionally than having them steal or cheat enough to get by.
Trapping people in poverty means if they decided to not be lazy at some point, it's incredibly hard for them to get out of their situation and it's much more likely for them to fail. Furthermore, poverty only affects poor lazy people. Rich lazy people (those that got lucky or were born into wealth) can live on dividends their whole lives with no 'punishment'.
Lastly, attempts to distinguish lazy people from non-lazy people are easily corrupted by monied interests that don't want to pay as much into society. See the 'welfare queen' narrative that was popular under Reagan.
Teams suffer tremendously when they are forced to include lazy people. You get the additional Mythical-Man-Month complexity without any gain in productivity.
Society would be better off if lazy people were excused from the workforce. The weird obsession with forcing everyone to run on a treadmill has got to go.
Society would be better off if lazy people were excused from the workforce. The weird obsession with forcing everyone to run on a treadmill has got to go.
The older I get the more I think labels like "lazy" are not really useful.
Some people are beaten down, discouraged, unexcited at doing hard manual labour for just enough money to get them through to the next day. And some, even if you get them to work, are not going to be much use there.
I know in my own career (have worked for decades with no sabbaticals or more than 3 weeks off at a time), I'm really lucky to do a job that I find interesting. That allows me to really dig in and work long and hard.
If I was doing a shitty manual labour job I think I'd revert from being an apparently extremely hard working person to one of the laziest ones around.
Some people are beaten down, discouraged, unexcited at doing hard manual labour for just enough money to get them through to the next day. And some, even if you get them to work, are not going to be much use there.
I know in my own career (have worked for decades with no sabbaticals or more than 3 weeks off at a time), I'm really lucky to do a job that I find interesting. That allows me to really dig in and work long and hard.
If I was doing a shitty manual labour job I think I'd revert from being an apparently extremely hard working person to one of the laziest ones around.
This is a very good point. Beating people down rarely results in their most productive work. Any good manager knows this.
Hell, I generally enjoy my job but go though legitimately lazy periods. These are well-contrasted by productive periods, but 9-5 work is a strange thing and people aren't machines.
My point was mostly that even if these imaginary lazy people exist, it doesn't invalidate the need for real economic freedom where you can choose not to work. You were fair to call that out as a lame take though, and I appreciate the perspective.
Hell, I generally enjoy my job but go though legitimately lazy periods. These are well-contrasted by productive periods, but 9-5 work is a strange thing and people aren't machines.
My point was mostly that even if these imaginary lazy people exist, it doesn't invalidate the need for real economic freedom where you can choose not to work. You were fair to call that out as a lame take though, and I appreciate the perspective.
This makes me literally laugh. McDonald’s employees will destroy whatever they are given control over. In the past, smart people could get out. But with automation we need to change our views because then people really will be trapped in these kinds of jobs. Ubi or something.
I give a lot of credit to my success to my work ethic, which was nurtured by my parents encouraging me to work at a young age. Paper route by 10, then a soccer referee, then a janitor in a public ice arena. It’s amazing what you learn about hard work from cleaning a hockey locker room. The thing is I didn’t even “need” those jobs. The money was largely spent on a massive CD collection (which I eventually sold to buy an early iPod). Still, those jobs have had a tremendous impact on who I am and give me respect for labor of all kinds.
The key problem with UBI, as much as I love the idea, is that any UBI amount will instantly be sucked up by landlords using every trick in the book. What the landlords leave on the table, will be sucked up by rising costs for energy (petrol, electricity, gas) as honestly all three will at least double or triple by efforts to save the climate.
In the end the workers will be as fucked as they were before UBI. The problem is modern capitalism itself. Ford-era capitalism where capital owners were proud in paying employees a wage they could live on... that could possibly work for a long time, but many equate even this level with outright "communism".
In the end the workers will be as fucked as they were before UBI. The problem is modern capitalism itself. Ford-era capitalism where capital owners were proud in paying employees a wage they could live on... that could possibly work for a long time, but many equate even this level with outright "communism".
I think about this a lot. I’m not a web developer but the accessibility of the tools for web development (an RPi, a keyboard/mouse, and wifi), the democratization of learning materials for web development, and the commodification of dev services (even through platforms like Fiverr and Upwork) make me feel like it could be possible to set up people of limited means with all they need to self-teach their way to a better career. I know not everybody has the knack or inclination for development work or even autodidacticism, but for those that take to it, $45 worth of hardware and a few hours of pointing in the right directions could be life-changing. Am I wrong about this? What significant barriers am I missing?
I envision an open-source disk image (likely a NOOBS) with learning materials, support resources, and community tools built-in. One could sell pre-loaded SD cards and/or full hardware packages to make it turnkey, or as turnkey as RPi gets, further reducing the barrier to entry. Perhaps even donations and grant money could subsidize hardware.
Has something like this been done? Is web dev a good fit? Thoughts?
I envision an open-source disk image (likely a NOOBS) with learning materials, support resources, and community tools built-in. One could sell pre-loaded SD cards and/or full hardware packages to make it turnkey, or as turnkey as RPi gets, further reducing the barrier to entry. Perhaps even donations and grant money could subsidize hardware.
Has something like this been done? Is web dev a good fit? Thoughts?
I have the cushy upper middle class programming job and I'm still tired every day. I must be doing something wrong.
Do you snore, snort, or startle awake at night? Consider if a sleep quality/apnea test might help you.
(ugh, this sounds like a commercial...)
(ugh, this sounds like a commercial...)
I do wake up at night but its only since I started closing the window for winter. I have a feeling I have very low tolerance for heat (I like sleeping at <70º F).
Nope. Just tired.
I worked as a dishwasher for a year. Every high-tech job I've had since then has been easy in comparison, even the crazy ones.
As someone who's worked in both, I don't entirely agree. Dishwashing was just tiring in a different way. But you could just entirely shut off your mind and zone out. I remember getting into a sort of meditative state while listening to music, it was kind of cool.
Tech jobs are just mentally stressful sometimes. I can totally see a good amount of people not wanting to switch places honestly.
Tech jobs are just mentally stressful sometimes. I can totally see a good amount of people not wanting to switch places honestly.
In the U.S. there is one presidential candidate championing a UBI of $1000/mo. It would be paid for by a VAT tax.
Typically VAT tax is unpopular because it is regressive. But the UBI more than compensates for the extra tax burden.
Typically VAT tax is unpopular because it is regressive. But the UBI more than compensates for the extra tax burden.
Yang's implementation is very regressive. You have the regressive VAT tax, but then you also have the fact that you are cutting government benefits then giving everyone $1000. So the poor just end up net poorer.
Example:
Now:
$12,000 a year + $12,000 in benefits = $24,000
$50,000 a year + $0 in benefits = $50,000
UBI:
$12,000 a year + $12,000 in UBI = $24,000
$50,000 a year + $12,000 in UBI = $62,000
The poorer person receiving benefits is actually poorer then before, relatively.
Someone let me know if I'm missing something.
Example:
Now:
$12,000 a year + $12,000 in benefits = $24,000
$50,000 a year + $0 in benefits = $50,000
UBI:
$12,000 a year + $12,000 in UBI = $24,000
$50,000 a year + $12,000 in UBI = $62,000
The poorer person receiving benefits is actually poorer then before, relatively.
Someone let me know if I'm missing something.
You're missing a couple of things - first, it isn't zero sum. I don't care if I'm poor relatively as long as I'm not poor absolutely.
Second, the average benefit isn't $1,000 a month and in almost all cases the $1k per month is an increase on existing benefit numbers.
Third, since it doesn't come with strings, you don't have to worry about losing your benefits when you get a job or a kid leaves the home, when you relapse or when you get sick and can't manage the tangled web of government red tape.
Second, the average benefit isn't $1,000 a month and in almost all cases the $1k per month is an increase on existing benefit numbers.
Third, since it doesn't come with strings, you don't have to worry about losing your benefits when you get a job or a kid leaves the home, when you relapse or when you get sick and can't manage the tangled web of government red tape.
> I don't care if I'm poor relatively as long as I'm not poor absolutely.
This might be true for you personally, but it is not true in general; whether people are dissatisfied with their level of wealth/poverty has a great deal to do with how it compares to others.
This might be true for you personally, but it is not true in general; whether people are dissatisfied with their level of wealth/poverty has a great deal to do with how it compares to others.
These people need to grow up? Or, more realistically, we need to start promoting some healthy values, instead of harmful ones. This should start with: banning advertising, teaching practical philosophy (how to think about your life, how to be content with your life etc.) in schools, discouraging competition for its own sake.
We're not talking about dissatisfaction here. We're talking about meeting basic needs like food, housing, and health services. Wanting to be satisfied of these things is absolutely true in general.
> meeting basic needs like food
It's perfectly possible to get by with rice and lentils and a few vegetables, and if that's the common lifestyle of everyone in the community/country, many people are well satisfied with it. I've lived in such places.
But if you see the people around you enjoying an endless variety of steak and sushi and lobster and so on, and you're working all hours yet still only able to stretch to rice & lentils, your satisfaction may be less.
An illogical reaction? Maybe. A human one? I think so.
It's perfectly possible to get by with rice and lentils and a few vegetables, and if that's the common lifestyle of everyone in the community/country, many people are well satisfied with it. I've lived in such places.
But if you see the people around you enjoying an endless variety of steak and sushi and lobster and so on, and you're working all hours yet still only able to stretch to rice & lentils, your satisfaction may be less.
An illogical reaction? Maybe. A human one? I think so.
> You're missing a couple of things - first, it isn't zero sum. I don't care if I'm poor relatively as long as I'm not poor absolutely.
Sure, but even people with benefits are struggling to get by. To not be poor absolutely we should be giving them $1000 a month on top of current benefits. Just $1000 a month will leave many absolutely poor. Also, I'm not an economist, but I don't think we can really predict what will happen with inflation, rent prices, etc, when the vast majority of people become $1000 richer. I find it hard to believe it won't cause increases in prices in at least some things. If that happens you aren't just poorer relatively.
> Second, the average benefit isn't $1,000 a month and in almost all cases the $1k per month is an increase on existing benefit numbers.
It doesn't really matter just changes the amounts a bit. Even if you assume benefits are $100 a month only, you still only gain $900 a month from the UBI(because you lose the $100). Everyone else is gaining $100 more then you.
> Third, since it doesn't come with strings, you don't have to worry about losing your benefits when you get a job or a kid leaves the home, when you relapse or when you get sick and can't manage the tangled web of government red tape.
Yeah fair enough, I'm not against UBI. I'm only against Yang's implementation. I think we should add it on top of existing benefits. I also think it is only a band-aid or should be a small part of the overall solution.
Sure, but even people with benefits are struggling to get by. To not be poor absolutely we should be giving them $1000 a month on top of current benefits. Just $1000 a month will leave many absolutely poor. Also, I'm not an economist, but I don't think we can really predict what will happen with inflation, rent prices, etc, when the vast majority of people become $1000 richer. I find it hard to believe it won't cause increases in prices in at least some things. If that happens you aren't just poorer relatively.
> Second, the average benefit isn't $1,000 a month and in almost all cases the $1k per month is an increase on existing benefit numbers.
It doesn't really matter just changes the amounts a bit. Even if you assume benefits are $100 a month only, you still only gain $900 a month from the UBI(because you lose the $100). Everyone else is gaining $100 more then you.
> Third, since it doesn't come with strings, you don't have to worry about losing your benefits when you get a job or a kid leaves the home, when you relapse or when you get sick and can't manage the tangled web of government red tape.
Yeah fair enough, I'm not against UBI. I'm only against Yang's implementation. I think we should add it on top of existing benefits. I also think it is only a band-aid or should be a small part of the overall solution.
Or you can simply move somewhere else where life is cheaper, a place that nowadays isn't sustainable because currently the local job market is nonexistent. UBI can solve that!
$12,000 of benefits does not equal to $12,000 of UBI. UBI doesn't limit you on what you want to buy. UBI doesn't require paperwork or lengthy approval process. UBI doesn't go away as you make more money.
Your assumption is that Govt benefit starts coming your way the moment you need or ask for it. From limited personal experience AND from what I read, applying for and getting any kind of government benefit is very time labor intensive and involves long waits.
And many don't get it because they don't meet a threshold. And those who get it, have to not work (aka not make money), in order to keep getting it.
And many don't get it because they don't meet a threshold. And those who get it, have to not work (aka not make money), in order to keep getting it.
You picked a perfect example where it seems bad, but consider an opposite one:
Now:
$12,000 a year + $12,000 in benefits = $24,000
$24,000 a year + $0 in benefits = $24,000
$50,000 a year + $0 in benefits = $50,000
UBI:
$12,000 a year + $12,000 in UBI = $24,000
$24,000 a year + $12,000 in benefits = $36,000
$50,000 a year + $12,000 in UBI = $62,000
Also keep in mind that the more well off people will end up paying more VAT because they spend more. VAT can also be tweaked to not tax on necessities like basic groceries/etc.
Now:
$12,000 a year + $12,000 in benefits = $24,000
$24,000 a year + $0 in benefits = $24,000
$50,000 a year + $0 in benefits = $50,000
UBI:
$12,000 a year + $12,000 in UBI = $24,000
$24,000 a year + $12,000 in benefits = $36,000
$50,000 a year + $12,000 in UBI = $62,000
Also keep in mind that the more well off people will end up paying more VAT because they spend more. VAT can also be tweaked to not tax on necessities like basic groceries/etc.
Many currently receiving benefits might gladly give them up in exchange for $1k/mo, cash in hand, with no risk of losing benefits due to higher income or filling out a form incorrectly.
But even if not, I think there's a case that giving everyone else UBI has ancillary benefits:
- More cash in the hand of your neighbors means more customers, which means more economic activity, which potentially means better employment prospects, in a virtuous cycle [0].
- Strain on existing benefit-granting institutions is greatly reduced, as those who opt for cash exit the system, meaning faster response times and more assistance with forms/approvals/etc.
- The working class tend to be more economically interdependent by necessity; someone who declines UBI still comes ahead from a spouse, relative, grown child, etc. who requires less economic support.
- Yang has spoken at length about the effects of economic anxiety; even someone who declines UBI may experience less anxiety (and therefore greater executive function and capacity for long-term planning), simply from knowing they have a "Plan B" for basic necessities.
In addition to offsetting costs, I think one of the motivations for the "either/or" strategy is political viability with libertarians and moderate Republicans, whose exaggerated fears of "socialism" can be assuaged by the opportunity to shrink bloated federal bureaucracies. (I'm somewhat sympathetic here: the most efficient charity is usually to write a check to the poor [1], and I suspect UBI or negative income tax has greater efficacy than most means-tested federal programs, with possibly the exception of health care.)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand-side_economics
[1] https://www.givewell.org/charities/give-directly
But even if not, I think there's a case that giving everyone else UBI has ancillary benefits:
- More cash in the hand of your neighbors means more customers, which means more economic activity, which potentially means better employment prospects, in a virtuous cycle [0].
- Strain on existing benefit-granting institutions is greatly reduced, as those who opt for cash exit the system, meaning faster response times and more assistance with forms/approvals/etc.
- The working class tend to be more economically interdependent by necessity; someone who declines UBI still comes ahead from a spouse, relative, grown child, etc. who requires less economic support.
- Yang has spoken at length about the effects of economic anxiety; even someone who declines UBI may experience less anxiety (and therefore greater executive function and capacity for long-term planning), simply from knowing they have a "Plan B" for basic necessities.
In addition to offsetting costs, I think one of the motivations for the "either/or" strategy is political viability with libertarians and moderate Republicans, whose exaggerated fears of "socialism" can be assuaged by the opportunity to shrink bloated federal bureaucracies. (I'm somewhat sympathetic here: the most efficient charity is usually to write a check to the poor [1], and I suspect UBI or negative income tax has greater efficacy than most means-tested federal programs, with possibly the exception of health care.)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand-side_economics
[1] https://www.givewell.org/charities/give-directly
Yep - the key thing you're missing is that Yang is going to allow people to choose whether they want to keep their benefits or switch to UBI.
How does that change my point though? Either way they end up net poorer. If you're poor and don't take the $1000, you are the same and everyone else is $1000 richer. This makes you effectively $1000 poorer. Yang actually says UBI will save money compared to benefits. So if you pick UBI you're even more than $1000 poorer, if he's right.
>If you're poor and don't take the $1000, you are the same and everyone else is $1000 richer. This makes you effectively $1000 poorer
$1000 poorer relative to other person but not actually poorer in terms of my purchasing power.
$1000 poorer relative to other person but not actually poorer in terms of my purchasing power.
What do you think purchasing power for common goods will do once millions of people are on UBI? My bet is that prices will go up.
Could be stay the same or even go down. Producer still have to compete with each other and they even might lower their price to entice buyer to spend their UBI.
I doubt it.
There is no particular reason to believe that increases in costs would exactly match the benefits granted leaving you 1000 dollars poorer even if ssdi income was better than ubi. Furthermore ubi would not be negatively effected by a spouse earning money in a way that actually punishes families for working nor would it require suing the government for 5-10 years while they pretend your family member isn't disabled.
On net the only people who come off worse are unmarried individuals receiving ssdi who are too young for social security retirement income.
Average ssdi income is around 1200 10 million people are on ssdi aprox 6 million under 65 45% in the overall US population are unmarried.
One could reasonably suppose at least 2-3 million out of 327 million will make no more money and will see slightly to somewhat higher costs. This could be corrected by cola.
In comparison the bottom 25% is 82 million strong and will benefit substantially as will the next quartile to a lesser extent another 82 millions
On net the only people who come off worse are unmarried individuals receiving ssdi who are too young for social security retirement income.
Average ssdi income is around 1200 10 million people are on ssdi aprox 6 million under 65 45% in the overall US population are unmarried.
One could reasonably suppose at least 2-3 million out of 327 million will make no more money and will see slightly to somewhat higher costs. This could be corrected by cola.
In comparison the bottom 25% is 82 million strong and will benefit substantially as will the next quartile to a lesser extent another 82 millions
[deleted]
It is not a UBI as it is not U.
The McDonalds cashier is likely getting subsidized housing and food stamp benefits.
Yang's plan would require that the cashier has to choose between the "UBI" or her existing benefits.
I asked his campaign why they designed it this way and they did not have an answer, I was told to ask the candidate directly, which was disappointing.
The McDonalds cashier is likely getting subsidized housing and food stamp benefits.
Yang's plan would require that the cashier has to choose between the "UBI" or her existing benefits.
I asked his campaign why they designed it this way and they did not have an answer, I was told to ask the candidate directly, which was disappointing.
> Yang's plan would require that the cashier has to choose between the "UBI" or her existing benefits.
I'm neutral on Yang's campaign, but I like the idea of a UBI because administering it will be much cheaper than running existing benefits. Means-testing has a real and very sizeable cost.
What will happen to all the guvment workers who will get laid off once existing benefits have been supplanted by the UBI? They will go home to merrily enjoy their new UBI checks.
I'm neutral on Yang's campaign, but I like the idea of a UBI because administering it will be much cheaper than running existing benefits. Means-testing has a real and very sizeable cost.
What will happen to all the guvment workers who will get laid off once existing benefits have been supplanted by the UBI? They will go home to merrily enjoy their new UBI checks.
I think UBI is definitely interesting, but it can't wholesale replace benefits. For example, a major illness like cancer now can wipe out your income, your savings, and a UBI quite easily. I think UBI might be better than a range of some lower end benefits - but the also exists a variation of needs where we should commit to helping people with, that is going to exceed almost any general UBI threshhold in many cases, and still needs to be covered as benefits.
Which existing means-tested government benefits are capable of paving over a major illness such as cancer?
One example might be medicaid - given it's in an incredibly barbaric and stressful way of exhausting your finances first, then trying to get onto the program all while fighting the illness.
> They will go home to merrily enjoy their new UBI checks.
Which might be cheaper for the government than paying them to do their current jobs.
Which might be cheaper for the government than paying them to do their current jobs.
It’s the government: They’ll just move everyone over to the new Department of UBI, with an Administrator of UBI, a Deputy Administrator of UBI, an Assistant To The Deputy Administrator, a team of consultants, inspectors, auditors, inspectors of the auditors, auditors of the inspectors of the auditors, and so on. Nobody will actually lose their job.
[deleted]
Your comment is insightful, but left me no instructions as to whether I should be laughing or crying. So, I'll do both.
Yang has separate plan to tackle housing price. So essentially the choice is between food stamp or UBI. I would argue UBI is better since it allow you to buy anything you want, no paperwork/approval process required and you wouldn't lose it as you make more money.
Yang talks about this on JRE, the idea is that individuals know what they need better than the boards designing "one size fits all" benefits. The Freedom Dividend is meant to help replace complicated benefits for those receiving less than the $1k with a more flexible fund.
Cutting back existing benefit programs saves money in bureaucracy and empowers individuals to spend in ways that most benefit them.
Cutting back existing benefit programs saves money in bureaucracy and empowers individuals to spend in ways that most benefit them.
people are still gonna end up broke and need food, but now there won’t be food stamps specifically set aside for food, or Medicaid funding specifically set aside for healthcare? Terrible choice. People need $1,000 a month on top of what they have, not a check and slashing all their present support.
[deleted]
FWIW, the article says she has no benefits like that.
I hate how well off people assume poor people are getting large benefits.
Most people under the poverty line do not receive over $1k in means tested benefits.
Also, millions of Americans living in poverty receive no benefits at all.[1]
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/13-million-p...
Most people under the poverty line do not receive over $1k in means tested benefits.
Also, millions of Americans living in poverty receive no benefits at all.[1]
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/13-million-p...
The US will be the last country to implement UBI.
yah I think we tend to lean toward Yang because well, Elon does and this is a tech forum...yada yada...Yang.
Wow reading some of these comments makes me sad. Some of you have no idea how sad and hopeless situations can be. Before working as a dev I worked in fast food for 5 year, full time and while going to college. I worked with some people who were so trapped, I feel guilty at times.
jijji(5)
moonbug(4)
I was born and raised just above dirt-poor, by American standards; e.g., lived in a poor area (now a full-fledged ghetto), we reused milk to each have a bowl of cereal with the same milk, we wore all hand-me-downs, any toys we had were hand-me-downs from church friends, nobody in my extended family had ever graduated high school, we never left the state once, we ate at restaurants a few times ever, etc. Both of my parents’ parents were absolutely dirt-poor and entirely uneducated. My maternal grandma couldn’t even read.
I worked my fucking ass off as a teenager, starting at 13, making minimum wage for 2 years at various jobs; I slowly upgraded my job status to the point where I was earning almost 3 dollars an hour more than minimum-wage by the time I was 19, and I was proud of that at the time.
Needless to say, I didn’t go to college (nobody paid for that and I certainly didn’t have the money).
I became motivated by learning how much profit some of the customers I helped were making as entrepreneurs (always being nosy and asking questions, etc.), and I started a half-ass business at 22 years old. I made a little bit of money and learned some new skills burning the midnight oil till 3am for months, which translated into a sort of graphic design job, now making more money. I got acquainted with web design and web development just by reading stuff on the Internet and reading books, seriously burning the midnight oil. I worked my ass off nonstop and never stopped trying to learn more and more. Fast-forward 6 years and many hundreds of hours studying, and I was earning almost $200,000 a year as a software engineer.
Nobody gave me anything. Minimum-wage was much lower, inflation adjusted, when I started out. I started out at a huge deficit with a poor family that was uneducated and did not steer me in any particular direction. Yet, I made it.
The moral of my story is that all of the “adversity” that I experienced was exactly what made me successful. Earning minimum-wage is for people who are starting out for people who can’t make it past there. I certainly didn’t deserve more than minimum wage money earned it; but I’ll tell you what, I did deserve more when I got there, and I didn’t have to be thankful for it, because I earned it. Nobody deserves anything by default, not even clean water. Everybody has the freedom to make their own choices, including how to create a safe and clean society. It’s not the job of some government overlords to fix everything for us plebeians by passing laws. It’s our job. It’s our world, until we give it away to hucksters masquerading as our saviors.
Listening to people on here whine like groveling animals about how they deserve this and deserve that, because life is expensive, like that’s somebody else’s job to fix for them... imagine trying to describe your woes to an Irish immigrant, who just came home from a 12 hour day at the same factory where he lost his finger a few months back; and you’re typing your message out to this laborer on your $1400 phone.
Some people won’t make it; that’s OK. It sucks, but it’s how life has always been for every species since the beginning of life on Earth.
I worked my fucking ass off as a teenager, starting at 13, making minimum wage for 2 years at various jobs; I slowly upgraded my job status to the point where I was earning almost 3 dollars an hour more than minimum-wage by the time I was 19, and I was proud of that at the time.
Needless to say, I didn’t go to college (nobody paid for that and I certainly didn’t have the money).
I became motivated by learning how much profit some of the customers I helped were making as entrepreneurs (always being nosy and asking questions, etc.), and I started a half-ass business at 22 years old. I made a little bit of money and learned some new skills burning the midnight oil till 3am for months, which translated into a sort of graphic design job, now making more money. I got acquainted with web design and web development just by reading stuff on the Internet and reading books, seriously burning the midnight oil. I worked my ass off nonstop and never stopped trying to learn more and more. Fast-forward 6 years and many hundreds of hours studying, and I was earning almost $200,000 a year as a software engineer.
Nobody gave me anything. Minimum-wage was much lower, inflation adjusted, when I started out. I started out at a huge deficit with a poor family that was uneducated and did not steer me in any particular direction. Yet, I made it.
The moral of my story is that all of the “adversity” that I experienced was exactly what made me successful. Earning minimum-wage is for people who are starting out for people who can’t make it past there. I certainly didn’t deserve more than minimum wage money earned it; but I’ll tell you what, I did deserve more when I got there, and I didn’t have to be thankful for it, because I earned it. Nobody deserves anything by default, not even clean water. Everybody has the freedom to make their own choices, including how to create a safe and clean society. It’s not the job of some government overlords to fix everything for us plebeians by passing laws. It’s our job. It’s our world, until we give it away to hucksters masquerading as our saviors.
Listening to people on here whine like groveling animals about how they deserve this and deserve that, because life is expensive, like that’s somebody else’s job to fix for them... imagine trying to describe your woes to an Irish immigrant, who just came home from a 12 hour day at the same factory where he lost his finger a few months back; and you’re typing your message out to this laborer on your $1400 phone.
Some people won’t make it; that’s OK. It sucks, but it’s how life has always been for every species since the beginning of life on Earth.
This is either a troll comment or a mountain of survivors bias. For every person who tries to "Pull themselves up by the bootstraps and start a business" Most of them failed and likely ended up with less money than before.
You might as well advise people to buy lottery tickets because they give away $1M for only $5
You might as well advise people to buy lottery tickets because they give away $1M for only $5
This is neither a troll nor survivor’s bias. My brother also makes great money.
What does it have to do with lottery? I’m suggesting that hard work and diligence makes you successful. Sure, I’m moderately intelligent (or I might not have been able to learn web dev, etc.), but if others are not intelligent enough to pull themselves up in the world, it’s not my job to pay them more for not being intelligent. People that are less intelligent can do labor jobs and get paid less. It’s not an insult. It’s common sense and it has always been the case. Even the poorest of poor laborers in America have a better life than the middle class in some countries. Anybody who’s got $1000 phone (read: just about everyone) has no right to complain about how expensive it is to afford an apartment and that somebody else should help them pay for that by forcing them to pay higher wages... this nonsense is completely nuts.
What does it have to do with lottery? I’m suggesting that hard work and diligence makes you successful. Sure, I’m moderately intelligent (or I might not have been able to learn web dev, etc.), but if others are not intelligent enough to pull themselves up in the world, it’s not my job to pay them more for not being intelligent. People that are less intelligent can do labor jobs and get paid less. It’s not an insult. It’s common sense and it has always been the case. Even the poorest of poor laborers in America have a better life than the middle class in some countries. Anybody who’s got $1000 phone (read: just about everyone) has no right to complain about how expensive it is to afford an apartment and that somebody else should help them pay for that by forcing them to pay higher wages... this nonsense is completely nuts.
>Anybody who’s got $1000 phone (read: just about everyone)
The ignorance of this alone makes the whole comment worthless.
The ignorance of this alone makes the whole comment worthless.
$1,000 can feed an adult for 1 year.
$1,000 is much more than some sub-Saharan Africans and some Asians can afford to eat in 1 year.
If you have enough money for a phone that costs as much as another man’s year’s worth of food, your woes are irrelevant.
It sucks when people who don’t have the things they want, and live in areas they don’t want to live. But in the grand scheme of things, these are all conditions that we control. Unless you are incapable of providing for yourself (truly handicapped), and then the only reason you don’t have, to a certain degree, what you want, is that you don’t want it bad enough. If you have even a moment of downtime (TV, gaming, relaxing), then you live in luxury compared to those who relentlessly pursue their dreams.
$1,000 is much more than some sub-Saharan Africans and some Asians can afford to eat in 1 year.
If you have enough money for a phone that costs as much as another man’s year’s worth of food, your woes are irrelevant.
It sucks when people who don’t have the things they want, and live in areas they don’t want to live. But in the grand scheme of things, these are all conditions that we control. Unless you are incapable of providing for yourself (truly handicapped), and then the only reason you don’t have, to a certain degree, what you want, is that you don’t want it bad enough. If you have even a moment of downtime (TV, gaming, relaxing), then you live in luxury compared to those who relentlessly pursue their dreams.
I started a Gofundme page:
https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-cierra-to-buy-a-reliable-car...
I'm probably going to catch some flak, but I see some optimizations she can make.
- McDonald's offers college tuition reimbursement, when you're low income this is one of the best ROI you have available to you.
- McDonald's offers a 401k plan with up to 7% match. Even if you took the 10% early withdrawal penalty this is money in your pocket.
I don't think the best use of her time is lobbying for a $15/hr minimum wage that will more quickly move her to a $0/hr wage. Gain knowledge, skills, and have a good work ethic and it is not that hard to get ahead in America.
- McDonald's offers college tuition reimbursement, when you're low income this is one of the best ROI you have available to you.
- McDonald's offers a 401k plan with up to 7% match. Even if you took the 10% early withdrawal penalty this is money in your pocket.
I don't think the best use of her time is lobbying for a $15/hr minimum wage that will more quickly move her to a $0/hr wage. Gain knowledge, skills, and have a good work ethic and it is not that hard to get ahead in America.
> McDonald's offers a 401k plan with up to 7% match. Even if you took the 10% early withdrawal penalty this is money in your pocket.
This woman is literally living paycheck to paycheck, and your suggestion is to... put money into a 401k? That simply isn't an option for people living in poverty like this.
> Gain knowledge, skills, and have a good work ethic and it is not that hard to get ahead in America.
This is a really out-of-touch perspective. One's ability to gain knowledge and skills is determined by the amount of free time they have when not working, and when you're only earning $9.50/hr, you have to spend a _lot_ of your time just earning enough to scrape by. It _is_ hard to get ahead in America when you're poor. Lifting oneself out of poverty is not easy to do here (or anywhere). If it were, we wouldn't have nearly 30% of our country's inhabitants living in or very near to poverty levels.
This woman is literally living paycheck to paycheck, and your suggestion is to... put money into a 401k? That simply isn't an option for people living in poverty like this.
> Gain knowledge, skills, and have a good work ethic and it is not that hard to get ahead in America.
This is a really out-of-touch perspective. One's ability to gain knowledge and skills is determined by the amount of free time they have when not working, and when you're only earning $9.50/hr, you have to spend a _lot_ of your time just earning enough to scrape by. It _is_ hard to get ahead in America when you're poor. Lifting oneself out of poverty is not easy to do here (or anywhere). If it were, we wouldn't have nearly 30% of our country's inhabitants living in or very near to poverty levels.
>> I'm probably going to catch some flak, but I see some optimizations she can make.
> This woman is literally living paycheck to paycheck, and your suggestion is to... put money into a 401k? That simply isn't an option for people living in poverty like this.
Another optimization she could make is to save the money she spends on food for herself and her family. It won't be easy, but after a few years of not eating she could probably save up enough learn to code and pull herself up by her bootstraps. /s
> This woman is literally living paycheck to paycheck, and your suggestion is to... put money into a 401k? That simply isn't an option for people living in poverty like this.
Another optimization she could make is to save the money she spends on food for herself and her family. It won't be easy, but after a few years of not eating she could probably save up enough learn to code and pull herself up by her bootstraps. /s
allovernow(1)
I'm saying she puts it in and takes it out as soon as she can. This gives her more disposable income. The only issue I see is the time it takes her to make the first distribution, but then she shouldn't have any issues with lagging income if she budgets it properly.
It's not that out of touch. She doesn't have to work at McDonald's. I know there's opportunities out there that pay better and are in LCOL areas, but they have to be pursued.
I'm sorry, but I can't empathize when I read through an article and the only thing she is doing to better her situation is use the power of government to force someone to pay her more. I gave actionable advice that she herself has the power to act on to improve her situation.
It's not that out of touch. She doesn't have to work at McDonald's. I know there's opportunities out there that pay better and are in LCOL areas, but they have to be pursued.
I'm sorry, but I can't empathize when I read through an article and the only thing she is doing to better her situation is use the power of government to force someone to pay her more. I gave actionable advice that she herself has the power to act on to improve her situation.
The 401K administrators wouldn't allow this scheme of yours to be feasible. When you open a 401K account and start contributing to it, you can't just keep withdrawing from it at regular intervals like you suggest. At most you can make a one time loan against a balance that exists in your account if you want to keep using the account without closing it. You have to pay this loan amount back with interest--you're paying yourself back with interest, but still when you're in poverty paying anything back in excess of what you started out with is just another hardship.
If you opt to take a loan against your 401K, then you will be required to re-pay back the loaned amount through regular paycheck deductions until it is paid back, and you aren't permitted to take another loan until this first loan is repaid in full. Furthermore, a number of 401K plans that have employer matching typically have some form vesting requirements before those funds can be accessed; often a year or more.
Regardless, in this scheme withdrawing any amount (i.e. making a loan and not repaying that loan, or withdrawing funds and closing the account) will end up losing her money in the end given that McDonald's is only matching up to 7% while withdrawing early from the account incurs a mandatory 10% early withdrawal fee that 401K administrators are required to levy and report to the IRS.
If you opt to take a loan against your 401K, then you will be required to re-pay back the loaned amount through regular paycheck deductions until it is paid back, and you aren't permitted to take another loan until this first loan is repaid in full. Furthermore, a number of 401K plans that have employer matching typically have some form vesting requirements before those funds can be accessed; often a year or more.
Regardless, in this scheme withdrawing any amount (i.e. making a loan and not repaying that loan, or withdrawing funds and closing the account) will end up losing her money in the end given that McDonald's is only matching up to 7% while withdrawing early from the account incurs a mandatory 10% early withdrawal fee that 401K administrators are required to levy and report to the IRS.
You're right that YMMV, but it is an option with some providers. Even with the penalty you get more income.
How does putting in $100, getting a $7 match, and immediately pulling it out and paying a $10.70 penalty on the withdrawal leave her with more disposable income? (She avoids income tax on the $100, but then pays tax on the withdrawal so if they happen in the same year, that’s also a wash.)
I literally can’t see how this tactic helps her in any way.
I literally can’t see how this tactic helps her in any way.
It's a dollar for dollar match on up to 7% of pay. Let's say she makes $100. She puts in $7 and her employer also puts in $7. That's $14, and upon early withdraw she would pay $1.40 (penalty) + income tax (likely $0). She would come out with an additional $5.60.
Additional note: Only plan participants 59.5 or older are eligible to make in-service withdrawals (as are terminated employees, of course). Probably not a viable income augmentation plan for most.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/63908/00011931251820...
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/63908/00011931251820...
Then I will concede that this option won't work in her case. Doesn't change that education is one of the best choices that she has.
Economic mobility in the USA should be relatively high if what you are saying is correct - however, it is not. "Work hard" is not a solution to the problems our economic system has created. It is something someone yells before burying their head in the sand.
I laid out two things she isn't doing that she can do today to improve her situation. I'm not ignoring a problem, but offering advice. Teach a man to fish, as the saying goes.
McDonald's tuition assistance is only $2,500 a year. That wouldn't even pay for the average community college's tuition.
It can be hard to put money in a 401(k) when you're already living paycheck-to-paycheck, especially if you're trying your college idea.
It can be hard to put money in a 401(k) when you're already living paycheck-to-paycheck, especially if you're trying your college idea.
I never said it would be easy, but I don't think it's impossible.
I believe the idea that a person making $400-500 a month can "add money to a 401k and then take it out again" is not only unreasonable, but completely out of touch with reality.
It reminds me of when one of the more well-off kids at college is shocked to find out that his/her colleagues are taking out student loans, and suggests "why don't you just ask your parents to pay for it?"
It reminds me of when one of the more well-off kids at college is shocked to find out that his/her colleagues are taking out student loans, and suggests "why don't you just ask your parents to pay for it?"
But you did say it would be "not that hard".
Does that not imply a degree of hardness?
Playing dumb doesn't really help the argument.
If someone says "c'mon, it's not that hard" they don't mean it's difficult, and I suspect you know that.
If someone says "c'mon, it's not that hard" they don't mean it's difficult, and I suspect you know that.
> The bus stops running at 10 p.m. on Sunday, but McDonald's asked me to stay until close at 1 a.m. They asked me to stay because they need my help. I know it’s going to be rough to find a way home, but I need the money so I said yes.
Cannot she ask them to pay for a taxi then? Also I didn't understand why she lives so far away from work.
Cannot she ask them to pay for a taxi then? Also I didn't understand why she lives so far away from work.
Why would McDonald's pay for a taxi for her? I can't imagine them doing that.
She might not live that far from work. It might be a 20 minute drive, but with the bus system in most towns in the US it's not crazy for that to take a couple of hours on a bus with walking (the closest bus stop to her is a 30 minute walk it said). I'm sure if she could get a job closer that pays as well she would've by now.
She might not live that far from work. It might be a 20 minute drive, but with the bus system in most towns in the US it's not crazy for that to take a couple of hours on a bus with walking (the closest bus stop to her is a 30 minute walk it said). I'm sure if she could get a job closer that pays as well she would've by now.
A bike would possibly be the ideal solution for someone in her shoes. Of course, there's that lovely enhanced risk of dying you get for daring to brave the streets on two wheels in the US. But if she gets back significant time from changing it up, it might be worth it.
The average high in Durham is around 30C (86F) in the middle of summer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham,_North_Carolina#Climate). Without a shower, she would be a stinking mess at work.
Ok, so cycling is not a 100% solution and won't work every single day. I did not mean to present it as such.
Even if only 50% of days are suitable for cycling, if it saves her an hour a day then, at her hourly rate, a decent bike will return it's investment in less than half a year. And that's assuming her bus rides are free. She/a person similarly situated would have to judge for themselves whether it is a useful tool.
Even if only 50% of days are suitable for cycling, if it saves her an hour a day then, at her hourly rate, a decent bike will return it's investment in less than half a year. And that's assuming her bus rides are free. She/a person similarly situated would have to judge for themselves whether it is a useful tool.
> A bike would possibly be the ideal solution for someone in her shoes.
Not considering how far she works. And there are of course no shower facilities.
Not considering how far she works. And there are of course no shower facilities.
> Not considering how far she works.
We don't know how far she works. We only know how long her commute takes. Bus routes in cities without good bus infrastructure are often circuitous and don't represent the fastest way to get to any particular place on the route.
We don't know how far she works. We only know how long her commute takes. Bus routes in cities without good bus infrastructure are often circuitous and don't represent the fastest way to get to any particular place on the route.
Fair point. We do know that it would take 25 minutes by car, but two full hours by bus.
My commute is about 10 minutes by car. Which works out to 4 miles (3 by bike, because there's a trail). So it's doable – if those same 10 minutes where at highway speeds, it would be less so.
Regardless, it's getting better, but even 3 miles gets me sweaty and I have to take a shower. We can safely assume this person's commute to be longer. Now she has to go to work all sweaty – at a customer facing role. This won't be well-received.
Regardless, it's getting better, but even 3 miles gets me sweaty and I have to take a shower. We can safely assume this person's commute to be longer. Now she has to go to work all sweaty – at a customer facing role. This won't be well-received.
She doesn't live in the city because according to Google Maps Durham, NC is 15 km across and you can walk to almost any part of the city in less than 2 hours.
She can't live that far out of town, because the buses scarcely go five miles from the city center.
https://godurhamtransit.org/sites/default/files/godurham-sys...
https://godurhamtransit.org/sites/default/files/godurham-sys...
If she's working two jobs and one of them is McDonald's, she probably can't afford a bike.
She's contemplating affording a car. If she can swing that, she can swing a used bike. Plus, there are, at least in my city, charitable organizations that will just give you a one.
[deleted]
McDonald's...paying for a taxi? Yeah, maybe in Germany. I'm aghast that anyone could think that would happen in America. I'm at the bottom of the bottom at an IT organization and I don't even get a compensated bus pass. Nor would I expect one.
"Cannot she ask them to pay for a taxi then? Also I didn't understand why she lives so far away from work."
1) Its unlikely the 30$ she's worth closing or whatever is worth hirind the taxi about.
2) Moving is expensive, and moving to a more desirable location even moreso. She may not be able to afford the time to seek out a space, the credit to be approved, the deposit, etc.
1) Its unlikely the 30$ she's worth closing or whatever is worth hirind the taxi about.
2) Moving is expensive, and moving to a more desirable location even moreso. She may not be able to afford the time to seek out a space, the credit to be approved, the deposit, etc.
> Cannot she ask them to pay for a taxi then?
Should could ask...
> Also I didn't understand why she lives so far away from work.
Because when you earn so little, you really don't have much choice where you live.
Should could ask...
> Also I didn't understand why she lives so far away from work.
Because when you earn so little, you really don't have much choice where you live.
Asks, management suspects she might be "uppity" or getting "restless" or <insert codeword here>, replaces her with no notice or warning.
also they mentioned she and her bf lived with his parents, and they both paid for the rent.
>Cannot she ask them to pay for a taxi then?
This is pretty amazing delusion.
This is pretty amazing delusion.
Yes, I just commented on this above. Maybe this happens in Germany or Finland. The idea of a McDonald's manager (at least in the US) paying for an employee's taxi to get to work is laughable and simply unheard of.
I've been overworked at many professional technical jobs in different roles before.
I'm paid a great deal more now, and yet I was never more tired or worn out or found it hard to study than when I worked the ovens at the pizza place.
I often work with people who have never worked such jobs. They're upset that they're 'overworked' and spend their time in the fancy break room with all the perks. Many I suspect have no clue.