Minimum wage. Should it be $15?

[Jim Naseum]

It's rhetorical? Everyone is ready and eager to turn Apple, and Google, and GM over to the workers to run? Good, I'm happy to hear that Mr. Jeff! [emoji6]

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jeff Matthews]

It's rhetorical? Everyone is ready and eager to turn Apple, and Google, and GM over to the workers to run? Good, I'm happy to hear that Mr. Jeff! [emoji6]

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

Now, you are being more specific.  I don't think the first comment I quoted said this.  You might have meant it, but it wasn't clear enough... at least to me.

 

So, guy starts business.  Works hard.  Hires employees.  Grows more.  Keeps growing.  Hires more employees.  Keeps working hard.  He's the CEO, now.  

 

When should he give it over to his employees?  Should it be because the law compels him to give it away?

Edited November 8, 2015 by Jeff Matthews

[prerich]

 

I'm currently watching "A Christmas Carol" and I'm like ....WOW!!!! I would like people to view that classic show and tell me what you think?

 

Which version? The version with Patrick Stewart, I also have the version with George Scott (my favorite)!!!!

 

[prerich]

 

I'm currently watching "A Christmas Carol" and I'm like ....WOW!!!! I would like people to view that classic show and tell me what you think?

 

Which version?

 

The version with Patrick Stewart, I also have the version with George Scott (my favorite)!!!!

[Jim Naseum]

It's rhetorical? Everyone is ready and eager to turn Apple, and Google, and GM over to the workers to run? Good, I'm happy to hear that Mr. Jeff! [emoji6]

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Now, you are being more specific. I don't think the first comment I quoted said this. You might have meant it, but it wasn't clear enough... at least to me.

So, guy starts business. Works hard. Hires employees. Grows more. Keeps growing. Hires more employees. Keeps working hard. He's the CEO, now.

When should he give it over to his employees? Should it be because the law compels him to give it away?

Probably when companies "go public". Today, that just means selling the company to the public through a stock offering. The public can be said to own it, but really doesn't run it. A better idea is to make the company a public trust and let the employees run it.

That's the idea, the concept of a democratic economy. Right now, the economy is almost totally dictatorial, with very little democratic participation. Don't confuse that with the choice tho but and sell. That's at the down stream end of the economy. That right exists in all models from anarchism to socialism to capitalism. That's not at risk. The question is: how to deploy resources? And on this, the public at large must be involved.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Paducah Home Theater]

Actually, a strong case could be made that today’s worker is surrounded by a multitude of digital gadgets such as retail search engines, mobile inventory devices and controls, and instant checkout devices all leading to great increases in productivity over the old days.

Anecdotal evidence warning:

I mentioned Accuride earlier. I was a software engineer there. Most other people were union workers, and with unions come wizzing matches for overtime. You have to consider seniority, position, and overtime worked in the past. When overtime was available, it was a huge mess, very slow process, led to lots of fighting, just overall very inefficient.

So, I wrote an overtime system. Employees were given key cards and if they wanted overtime, they simply swiped their card as they walked in the front door. My business logic determined who got it. Boom, instant huge productivity boost for hundreds of employees and everybody got along better.

It seems that according to your logic, all these guys doing the swiping should get a raise based on my work. Which, makes absolutely no sense to me. When somebody sees a big inefficiency and does something about it with technology, they are doing this to make more money, not lose more.

Edited November 8, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[Paducah Home Theater]

What is the difference between now and the old days?  Why was the standard of living better for them?

It seems that in many respects the typical worker wasn’t much better educated or even that much more productive, if at all; and in a significant portions of the examples, had not even graduated from high school.

The difference that nobody wants to hear about is that the economy was such that retired people and people trying to support a family weren't stuck in minimum wage jobs for years, if not forever. The minimum wage jobs were plentiful and were reserved for those in school because everybody else could get better ones. You could easily get a job within 30 days of turning 16, which is when you could drive on your own, but even before then was not uncommon if you had a ride. 15 year olds could work if they had dependable transportation. That's just hardly the norm nowadays, most places won't even talk to a 16 year old, and 17 year olds often fill out dozens of job applications just to never get a call back. You've got too many older people competing for these jobs, even though there are many more jobs. These guys are forced into not just taking them, but holding onto them. And, to be honest, they are more reliable and flexible than a 16 year old. So, companies highly favor them.

The problem is that they get stuck in these jobs, and cannot climb the ladder. They either cannot or will not go back to school to find a better position elsewhere either. In the meantime, the prices of energy, rent, and food is killing them. All they know is that the current situation isn't working for them. So now it's their employer's fault.

I'll admit that what I keep thinking about with this situation is people like my uncle. The man is very smart, army vet from a recon unit, upper 50 something years old, feels the need to live near downtown San Francisco, has to walk to work, works multiple minimum wage jobs, like two a day, every day, rarely gets any time off, the vast majority of his income goes to pay for 1/4 of a run down house they rent. And, it's his employers fault. He wants $15 an hour. I can't say I blame him, but, nobody's making him live in uber-expensive San Francisco. Nobody is making him be in the workforce for 40 years without gaining any marketable skills, skills that his home town would voluntarily pay big bucks to have. No, he can't be bothered with that idea. He just wants his normal job but wants a 60% raise. Just blows my mind. And to be honest, it is kind of insulting, makes me a little mad. Most everyone would love to have a mindless job in their favorite location and be paid a comfortable salary to do so. Some people have to live in the real world though.

Same thing with all these liberal arts degrees. You've got people coming out of school with 6 digits worth of debt, and nobody wants to hire them. So, a surprising number of them start working low paying jobs that have zero to do with their degree. Naturally, this is tough, because their student loan payments rival a good sized mortgage. But, it's their employers fault, they want $15 an hour.

Edited November 8, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[Jeff Matthews]

Probably when companies "go public".

 

 

The reason for an IPO is for the private owners to make big dough.  If, instead, as you propose, an IPO results in loss of your ownership, I think you'd see far less public offerings.  I'd imagine the number might be zero.

[Paducah Home Theater]

On the flip side, there's people like my daughter. She's putting herself through school on an $8 an hour retail job. Zero debt, 5 grand in the bank that she made herself. I bought her a cheap car and helped with tuition a little at first but she is totally on her own now, paying for everything, on $8 an hour. She doesn't even need a car to be honest, she lives 1 block from campus and her job is on the other side of campus. For extra spending/fun money, she makes jewelry and sells it online. I don't have anything to do with any of it anymore. I don't even pay her car insurance, and haven't bought her any clothes in years. She buys it herself and appreciates it more that way. She's moving into a new apartment of her own right this minute.

Some of her friends have MUCH nicer cars and everything else that was just handed to them, and are already WAY deep into debt, yet going to the same school. Those that do have jobs complain about having no money at all, basically living paycheck to paycheck, even though they don't have anything like a car payment, and that's with the excess of their student loans subsidizing their lifestyle. I'm sure they'd love to make $15 an hour, have no doubt it's been talked about.

What's the difference here? Why are so many people struggling even while being showered by student loans while my kid can be successful at barely over minimum wage even without help from me, and no student loans nor federal aid from FAFSA? Why should I have empathy for her friends?

Edited November 8, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[Jim Naseum]

Probably when companies "go public".

The reason for an IPO is for the private owners to make big dough. If, instead, as you propose, an IPO results in loss of your ownership, I think you'd see far less public offerings. I'd imagine the number might be zero.

There's nothing wrong with giving the Founders a big reward. I don't have a problem with rewarding success. Don't get too hung up on detail and miss the bigger picture. I'm not talking here about mechanics, but rather concepts.

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

[Jim Naseum]

Mr Jeff ,

When people like Gates and Jobs are interviewed, they don't say they did it for the money. There are multiple motivations involved. A public good motivates millions and millions of people. Consider for example the desire to be a soldier and risk your life. The pay isn't the reason.

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

[Fjd]

 

Actually, a strong case could be made that today’s worker is surrounded by a multitude of digital gadgets such as retail search engines, mobile inventory devices and controls, and instant checkout devices all leading to great increases in productivity over the old days.

Anecdotal evidence warning:

I mentioned Accuride earlier. I was a software engineer there. Most other people were union workers, and with unions come wizzing matches for overtime. You have to consider seniority, position, and overtime worked in the past. When overtime was available, it was a huge mess, very slow process, led to lots of fighting, just overall very inefficient.

So, I wrote an overtime system. Employees were given key cards and if they wanted overtime, they simply swiped their card as they walked in the front door. My business logic determined who got it. Boom, instant huge productivity boost for hundreds of employees and everybody got along better.

It seems that according to your logic, all these guys doing the swiping should get a raise based on my work. Which, makes absolutely no sense to me. When somebody sees a big inefficiency and does something about it with technology, they are doing this to make more money, not lose more.

 

 

 

 

It looks to me like your application helped management become more efficient in scheduling overtime of the union employees and I do not see the connection with increased worker productivity in the way I am referring.  By extension, before the implementation, it would seem that management failed to grasp what was required in the way of scheduling, leading to the morale problem, and your program helped management do their job better with the benefit of improving union employee morale.

 

During the time periods where I was a lower level manager that covered two separate industries, I was responsible for coming up with the details of the overtime budget and its allocation during the year and reconciling budget overruns. I can see where better data to analyze in budgeting and comparing budget to actual, among a host of other financial metrics would have helped my productivity and have an impact on employee morale through better scheduling.

 

Here is a basic example of technology implementation that I was referring to where I had managed supermarkets before and after technology implementation. 

 

Before bar code scanners in the supermarket that you see everywhere today the cashier had to key punch prices into a manual cash register; and when buying an item sold by weight, such as bananas, a person in the produce department would need to stop and weigh the item and tag it with a price.  There are many more aspects were efficiencies were experienced with each new technology implementation; however, these are two basic examples that anyone shopping in supermarkets in the late 1960s - 1970s should easily remember and be able to compare and contrast to today.

 

Then technology progressed where we had installed electric cash registers that had a hand-crank (before use of generators) that could keep them operating in power outages.  Then we upgraded to cash registers where an item code and price were key punched and data could be accumulated for better analysis. 

 

With the implementation of bar code scanners and full inventory systems all interconnected, plus scales built into the checkout line connected to items that required a weight along with the price that eliminated the extra step of the produce worker, there has been an exponential increase in a cashier's productivity, among the productivity of many other hourly workers (e.g., my sales per labor hour and gross margins per labor hour "shot through the roof" each time we upgraded the technology).  Essentially, substantial increases in volume of items sold using less workers (e.g. greater productivity per worker) making the minimum wage (in actuality, we were paying workers more than minimum wage back then for processing much less volume, which does not seem to be the case today since hourly tends to be paid minimum wage for processing exponentially more volume).

 

On a side note, I'm not sure of the laws at the time when I was in high school; however, when I started in this industry as a high school student, there was some type of clause somewhere where the company could pay us less than minimum wage that they called the student wage.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Fjd

[Paducah Home Theater]

Productivity in general should have zero to do with salary though. It's more about your role in how productive they are.

An example more in line with what you are thinking about would be welding in the automotive industry. Prior to the 60's, you had to have highly skilled men on the assembly line who hand welded everything. Even though these guys would have to be really good at their jobs, it would be really slow. Then robot welders came out. Everything could be automated now. Those welders basically just had to stand back and press a button at the most. Robots don't get tired either.

With the logic presented in regards to productivity, these new button pushers deserve a big raise over what the skilled welders were getting for some reason. Doesn't make any sense to me. Just because your job gets easier because you're leveraging the work of somebody else, that doesn't mean you're actually contributing anything extra and deserve a raise.

That being said, the guys who could install, fix, and reprogram the robots would and should in fact make more at that point. That's how capitalism works. It was those guys who were boosting the productivity, not the button pushers. It's those guys who had a rare skill that commanded a higher salary. The operators seem to be more productive but that's only looking at entire plant productivity and not that worker's contribution. You're praising and rewarding the wrong people by looking at the end user and attributing it all to them.

Edited November 8, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[Fjd]

Productivity in general should have zero to do with salary though. It's more about your role in how productive they are.

An example more in line with what you are thinking about would be welding in the automotive industry. Prior to the 60's, you had to have highly skilled men on the assembly line who hand welded everything. Even though these guys would have to be really good at their jobs, it would be really slow. Then robot welders came out. Everything could be automated now. Those welders basically just had to stand back and press a button at the most.

With the logic presented in regards to productivity, these new button pushers deserve a big raise over what the skilled welders were getting for some reason. Doesn't make any sense to me. Just because your job gets easier because you're leveraging the work of somebody else, that doesn't mean you're actually contributing anything extra and deserve a raise.

That being said, the guys who could fix and program the robots would and should in fact make more at that point. That's how capitalism works. The operators seem to be more productive but that's only looking at entire plant productivity and not that worker's contribution. You're praising and rewarding the wrong people by looking at the end user and attributing it all to them.          

 

 

 

It seems that this example would be an example of something negotiated by management with a union since you are looking at a unionized industry when this change happened.  In some respects it seems that management may not have realized that they needed to update the job description and qualifications and negotiate from that standpoint in the next labor contract.  I've also worked in management in the telephone industry (before cell phones), and as part of our process with technology implementation, we would evaluate the qualifications of positions needed and hire accordingly.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Fjd

[Paducah Home Theater]

As a simpler more directly related example about productivity, I used to work at McDonalds so I know how some things work. Back in the day like probably in the 50's, the guy grilling the burgers better at least halfway care about his job because it was all manual. Same situation as if you go to Steak N Shake or another old fashioned joint like Waffle Hut, it's an open grill, and you have to learn how to cook at least a little.

Nowadays though, you have two grills, one for normal burgers and one for the quarter pounder sized patties. You line them up on the grill and pull the lid down. It's cooking from both sides so it's super fast, plus it's on a timer, so you just pick them up when the lid pops up. You don't even have to pat out the patties because they come frozen in a box. It's stupid easy, you can't screw it up (unless you go into work stoned like I did once), and it's fast. Which, is the point.

So, why should the burger flipper, who doesn't even have to actually flip the burgers or pat them out anymore, get a raise when his job was made easier and more productive by this invention? Why should the easy job at McDonalds pay more than the cook at Steak N Shake?

Edited November 8, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[Jeff Matthews]

Mr Jeff ,

When people like Gates and Jobs are interviewed, they don't say they did it for the money. There are multiple motivations involved. A public good motivates millions and millions of people. Consider for example the desire to be a soldier and risk your life. The pay isn't the reason.

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

 

You are right.  However, many decisions they make are based on expected financial gains.  That is how success is measured.  A good product or service garners more money than poor ones (typically).

 

So, will a typical, rational person ever go public if he has to part with his company he built in exchange for less-than-market compensation?  I doubt it.

 

Going public is an option.  It's not a legal requirement.  If people want to give away their businesses, they don't even have to take it public.  

 

I know what you are saying; however, it's obvious it's hard for you to define a rule that would accomplish what you are hoping.  That's not to suggest I could do any better.  I haven't tried to think about it too much because largely, I am content with the way the system operates.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Jeff Matthews

[Fjd]

As a simpler more directly related example about productivity, I used to work at McDonalds so I know how some things work. Back in the day like probably in the 50's, the guy grilling the burgers better at least halfway care about his job because it was all manual. Same situation as if you go to Steak N Shake or another old fashioned joint like Waffle Hut, it's an open grill, and you have to learn how to cook at least a little.

Nowadays though, you have two grills, one for normal burgers and one for the quarter pounder sized patties. You line them up on the grill and pull the lid down. It's cooking from both sides so it's super fast, plus it's on a timer, so you just pick them up when the lid pops up. You don't even have to pat out the patties because they come frozen in a box. It's stupid easy, you can't screw it up (unless you go into work stoned like I did once), and it's fast. Which, is the point.

So, why should the burger flipper, who doesn't even have to actually flip the burgers or pat them out anymore, get a raise when his job was made easier and more productive by this invention? Why should the easy job at McDonalds pay more than the cook at Steak N Shake?

 

 

 

I would look into technology similar to the supermarket 'self-checkout' line and have 'self-burger-flipping' and even the standard burger-flipping position could be eliminated.  In many of the larger supermarkets, there will be one person providing oversight for many registers (I can staff with one person instead of eight) while the customer does it himself or herself.   That would really put new meaning to "have it your way."

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

All kidding about the "have it your way" aside, I keep coming back to these quotes below and I'm thinking if these companies can only compete with the "indirect government subsidy"  (or don't think the positions are 'worth' more than the $7.00 currently paid, but can take advantage of the situation through another disparate situation and have factored in the "indirect government subsidy" as an easy addition to the bottom line) these companies should consider getting out of that business and enter a business where they can invest their capital to create jobs and pay a wage that doesn't depend on these "indirect government subsidies."  And please do not read into this that I agree or disagree with an arbitrary $15 figure since I do not currently have the correct information to make an informed conclusion on an arbitrary amount.

 

 

 

In a nutshell here's the deal:  Companies that are allowed to pay people such a small amount that they qualify for government benefits are essentially being subsidized by the government.  Every one of us has to decide if that's what we really want.  I suppose the truly heartless would simply remove any level of public support from the workers to solve this dilemma.  FFS, we already have a homeless problem, why not make it worse?

 

 

Did the survey, and wish I'd simply copied my "comments" section to paste here.

 

Basically, I said the minimum wage should be raised to a point that fully covered an individual's needs to be above the poverty level...maybe even at least two covered by one.  Reasoning is that we pay for welfare for those below the line anyway and it's filtered through an expensive bureaucracy.  Prices would rise to cover an increased minimum wage...but it would be direct aid rather than bureaucratic so far more efficient.

 

Open to comments on that as I'd never seriously thought about it before and that is the result of doing so.

 

Dave

 

 

Dave, I made a similar comment.  Pay people enough to incentivize work such that they still don't qualify for food stamps, etc.

 

Metro, your point is superfluous in that while it is economically correct, you miss the moral issue as a reflection of our society that places a way more inordinate value on the value of one's labor versus another.  It's not envy driving the argument (or "ceo hate"), it a sense of pure human fairness.  I get what you say about small business, but if the business owner weren't making enough in the first place they wouldn't feel a need to hire anyone.  Let's not put the cart before the horse.

 

 

 

 

.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Fjd

[Fjd]

 

Mr Jeff ,

When people like Gates and Jobs are interviewed, they don't say they did it for the money. There are multiple motivations involved. A public good motivates millions and millions of people. Consider for example the desire to be a soldier and risk your life. The pay isn't the reason.

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

 

You are right.  However, many decisions they make are based on expected financial gains.  That is how success is measured.  A good product or service garners more money than poor ones (typically).

 

So, will a typical, rational person ever go public if he has to part with his company he built in exchange for less-than-market compensation?  I doubt it.

 

Going public is an option.  It's not a legal requirement.  If people want to give away their businesses, they don't even have to take it public.  

 

I know what you are saying; however, it's obvious it's hard for you to define a rule that would accomplish what you are hoping.  That's not to suggest I could do any better.  I haven't tried to think about it too much because largely, I am content with the way the system operates.

 

 

 

 

When taking a company public I'm amazed at how they keep coming up with new ways to continue to squeeze out returns from the company long after the IPO.  When I read annual reports a portion of these new IPO companies have certain obligations defined under tax receivable agreements where the old owners continue to reap benefits long after the IPO (e.g., shifting additional value from the corporation to its historic equity owners over longer timeframes other than from the immediate sale of the common stock in the IPO).  I don't think anyone in the investing community has any clue how to value these agreements and there seems to be no impact on IPO common stock valuations or subsequent common stock valuations of these companies.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Fjd

[Jim Naseum]

Mr Jeff ,

When people like Gates and Jobs are interviewed, they don't say they did it for the money. There are multiple motivations involved. A public good motivates millions and millions of people. Consider for example the desire to be a soldier and risk your life. The pay isn't the reason.

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

You are right. However, many decisions they make are based on expected financial gains. That is how success is measured. A good product or service garners more money than poor ones (typically).

So, will a typical, rational person ever go public if he has to part with his company he built in exchange for less-than-market compensation? I doubt it.

Going public is an option. It's not a legal requirement. If people want to give away their businesses, they don't even have to take it public.

I know what you are saying; however, it's obvious it's hard for you to define a rule that would accomplish what you are hoping. That's not to suggest I could do any better. I haven't tried to think about it too much because largely, I am content with the way the system operates.

I don't see any reason that single ownership would be incompatible with public ownership. Maybe some companies should stay private. They would be competing with the public trust democratic companies for labor. Might work OK.

I think you may be underestimating the number of people who sacrifice for public good. We have had millions volunteer for the army. We have millions who do volunteer work. Gates has volunteered to give away his fortune.

There is no overnight change. If should be gradual. We could have given GM to the workers had we been bold.

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

[Fjd]

 

What is the difference between now and the old days?  Why was the standard of living better for them?

It seems that in many respects the typical worker wasn’t much better educated or even that much more productive, if at all; and in a significant portions of the examples, had not even graduated from high school.

The difference that nobody wants to hear about is that the economy was such that retired people and people trying to support a family weren't stuck in minimum wage jobs for years, if not forever. The minimum wage jobs were plentiful and were reserved for those in school because everybody else could get better ones. You could easily get a job within 30 days of turning 16, which is when you could drive on your own, but even before then was not uncommon if you had a ride. 15 year olds could work if they had dependable transportation. That's just hardly the norm nowadays, most places won't even talk to a 16 year old, and 17 year olds often fill out dozens of job applications just to never get a call back. You've got too many older people competing for these jobs, even though there are many more jobs. These guys are forced into not just taking them, but holding onto them. And, to be honest, they are more reliable and flexible than a 16 year old. So, companies highly favor them.

The problem is that they get stuck in these jobs, and cannot climb the ladder. They either cannot or will not go back to school to find a better position elsewhere either. In the meantime, the prices of energy, rent, and food is killing them. All they know is that the current situation isn't working for them. So now it's their employer's fault.

I'll admit that what I keep thinking about with this situation is people like my uncle. The man is very smart, army vet from a recon unit, upper 50 something years old, feels the need to live near downtown San Francisco, has to walk to work, works multiple minimum wage jobs, like two a day, every day, rarely gets any time off, the vast majority of his income goes to pay for 1/4 of a run down house they rent. And, it's his employers fault. He wants $15 an hour. I can't say I blame him, but, nobody's making him live in uber-expensive San Francisco. Nobody is making him be in the workforce for 40 years without gaining any marketable skills, skills that his home town would voluntarily pay big bucks to have. No, he can't be bothered with that idea. He just wants his normal job but wants a 60% raise. Just blows my mind. And to be honest, it is kind of insulting, makes me a little mad. Most everyone would love to have a mindless job in their favorite location and be paid a comfortable salary to do so. Some people have to live in the real world though.

Same thing with all these liberal arts degrees. You've got people coming out of school with 6 digits worth of debt, and nobody wants to hire them. So, a surprising number of them start working low paying jobs that have zero to do with their degree. Naturally, this is tough, because their student loan payments rival a good sized mortgage. But, it's their employers fault, they want $15 an hour.

 

 

 

On the flip side, there's people like my daughter. She's putting herself through school on an $8 an hour retail job. Zero debt, 5 grand in the bank that she made herself. I bought her a cheap car and helped with tuition a little at first but she is totally on her own now, paying for everything, on $8 an hour. She doesn't even need a car to be honest, she lives 1 block from campus and her job is on the other side of campus. For extra spending/fun money, she makes jewelry and sells it online. I don't have anything to do with any of it anymore. I don't even pay her car insurance, and haven't bought her any clothes in years. She buys it herself and appreciates it more that way. She's moving into a new apartment of her own right this minute.

Some of her friends have MUCH nicer cars and everything else that was just handed to them, and are already WAY deep into debt, yet going to the same school. Those that do have jobs complain about having no money at all, basically living paycheck to paycheck, even though they don't have anything like a car payment, and that's with the excess of their student loans subsidizing their lifestyle. I'm sure they'd love to make $15 an hour, have no doubt it's been talked about.

What's the difference here? Why are so many people struggling even while being showered by student loans while my kid can be successful at barely over minimum wage even without help from me, and no student loans nor federal aid from FAFSA? Why should I have empathy for her friends?

 

 

 

Congratulations with your daughter as it seems like these situations today are more the exception rather than the rule.  It seems like you are witnessing both situations represented in today's society between your daughter and your uncle's dilemma. 

 

Regarding the college degree work, I struggle somewhat with why someone would pick a major without considering the job prospects in the area they want to live.  Growing up in an unskilled labor family we 'migrated' to where the unskilled jobs were.  I didn't go to college until age 37 after being downsized for the third time due to business acquisitions and business relocations and "continually told" that I did not have marketable skills with my work experience because I did not have a college degree (I had held college degreed positions in middle management without having a college degree, was a first-line supervisor and started my jobs in these industries in Union positions); however, I picked accounting, information technology and industrial psychology as my degree work since these areas of study were more compatible with my work experience and compatible jobs in the areas where I wanted to live. 

 

In many respects your posts seem to touch upon the "barriers to entry" that jo56steph74 emphasizes in the quote below.  When a person starts out in that lower class (I did and my dad had an 8th grade education and my mother died young) there are substantial internal barriers and external barriers that must be overcome that are usually faced without much of a personal/family support system.  While that doesn't mean that the barriers cannot be overcome, I believe that it does mean that very few actually can overcome them in our current system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very good thoughts there. Let me posit another cause for the disparity in pay. Another reason why "market worth" is just propaganda.

The real cause is CLASS. The work of Domhoff, C. Wright Mills, and others have shown clearly that class is where the cause of inequality lies. There is a distinct "rich class"** in the USA where progeny are groomed from birth to hold special status in the establishment which is responsible for the management of the nation.

Members carefully and explicit supply advantage, training, ethics, support, training, opportunity, introduction, to each of its members. There is a prosperity path for this class which includes key posts in government, corporate boards, and key institutions, that bring them directly into the flow of wealth, because it is the main job of these people to hold, preserve, manage (as in ownership) the assets of the nation.

Class is everything, which is why it is a verboten subject for public discussion. You will NEVER hear an introduction of these people that includes any comment about their class. We train kids in school for 16 years that America is a classless society to prevent any possible understanding of this most important phenomenon.

**doesn't matter what name is applied. Ruling class, upper class, etc

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

Edited November 8, 2015 by Fjd