Support NeoGAF

[Iph]

I know this one! Capitalism is evil, right? I've worked a lot of minimum wage jobs (and even paid-cash farm labour for less than minimum wage) in my life. I could no-way live off of it. My room and board was paid for where I worked, which is what made it passable.

Hell, even now I joke that getting certified to be a stationary engineer is a realistic way to save up enough money to pay off my debt and go to university if I ever want to advance my education further. :/

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Riiight. In the same way they set the prices for their products... as a response to supply and demand. I have had to hire people, and if you can't find anyone qualified at a certain salary you have no choice but to offer more. It's basic supply and demand, business owners have little say on that.

Supply has been high and demand has been low since 2001. There's nothing stopping a business owner from paying his employees a livable wage, provided he has a viable business model to begin with. Nothing except greed, that is.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Supply has been high and demand has been low since 2001. There's nothing stopping a business owner from paying his employees a livable wage, provided he has a viable business model to begin with. Nothing except greed, that is.

His original point, though, I think, is that this is the market. You can't say something is business owners, as opposed to the market. They are part of the market. As are employees.

Your comments about greed are also a tremendous grey area. I earn more from my employer than I need to live. Am I being greedy? There's nothing stopping me giving it back. But I don't.

 

[casabolg]

No idea on the data. And your premise about young people gaining experience presumes people stay in one job role or industry and never get laid off. I got fired for a made up complaint by a senior manager. I am also burned out on the industry I was in (social work). How do you propose I get an entry level job or change career if I am competing with people who are being paid a quarter of what I would be required to be paid? Can't get an entry level job, too expensive. Can't get a more senior one, no experience. What exactly is the benefit to me or anyone else who is not an employer?

I think experience having a job and working with people is good experience to have for starting jobs, whether it be in the same industry or not. Service jobs are a big thing. Beyond that, you have the benefits of education over the younger crowd, and possibly better strength. The added 3-5 years between you and the young one and what those years bring are your advantage is in trying to be hired. That said, people who do not take up that time to give themselves a good education, experience, references, or connection (or not good enough) are left out and disadvantaged by this system but I'd wager that group would be much smaller than the disadvantaged teens entering the workforce for the first time.

 

[zero shift]

Riiight. In the same way they set the prices for their products... as a response to supply and demand. I have had to hire people, and if you can't find anyone qualified at a certain salary you have no choice but to offer more. It's basic supply and demand, business owners have little say on that.

Except this only true up to a point. There is a reason why nearly all of the wealth and income gains have only gone to the richest in society over the past some decades and just as much so since the recession ended. Yes income is decided by how little someone is willing to take. And when gains of the company are made these people are going to be properly compensated since if they complain they can very well be replaced. ...this isn't really anything new. We found this out that if people don't have the means of demanding their proper compensation from the results of the increase of production and profits they won't get their fair share of income and power. This is a bad thing. We spent the past one hundred something years learning this.

 

[Azih]

Either companies should fear union bargaining , or they should fear government regulation. You can't have a situation like the current one where they fear nobody, they'll just fuck everybody over as much as they can then.

 

[casabolg]

Either companies should fear union bargaining , or they should fear government regulation. You can't have a situation like the current one where they fear nobody, they'll just fuck everybody over as much as they can then.

That is the short term solution. Long term, we should be trying be trying to equal out the worker to available job ratio by trying to promote methods of minimizing population growth while maximizing the growth of jobs and bringing back jobs to America. Once we have it more equal we don't have to worry much about those two solutions as much.

 

[Dude Abides]

That is the short term solution. Long term, we should be trying be trying to equal out the worker to available job ratio by trying to promote methods of minimizing population growth while maximizing the growth of jobs and bringing back jobs to America. Once we have it more equal we don't have to worry much about those two solutions as much.

Abortions for all!

I don't think there has ever been a society where the number of jobs has been roughly equal to the number of workers. I doubt it is possible, as fewer people means less demand means fewer jobs..

 

[Chojin]

That is the short term solution. Long term, we should be trying be trying to equal out the worker to available job ratio by trying to promote methods of minimizing population growth while maximizing the growth of jobs and bringing back jobs to America. Once we have it more equal we don't have to worry much about those two solutions as much.

Maybe I'm pessimistic but I don't see a maximizing growth of jobs unless they're bullshit busywork.

As for population growth, well I guess if they starve, they can eat cake ;P

I agree with Dude Abides as well. You lower the population then demand will decrease. As I said prior, production will always go up and up, ands there's always going to need to be someone to consume the output. Problem is we're not providing the means for everyone to consume.

 

[empty vessel]

I don't think there has ever been a society where the number of jobs has been roughly equal to the number of workers. I doubt it is possible, as fewer people means less demand means fewer jobs..

The country that creates a job guarantee program first will change that.

 

[zero shift]

Abortions for all!

I don't think there has ever been a society where the number of jobs has been roughly equal to the number of workers. I doubt it is possible, as fewer people means less demand means fewer jobs..

Exactly. Something will never exist. Its much like many of the tenets of Communism, makes sense when you first think about it but after a minute or two of really evaluating it it makes no sense. Capitalism by definition is very unpredictable, it requires taking risks. This is the true purpose of the welfare state. Scandinavia fully understands that while the market may be perfect today it may not be tomorrow, so you keep the support for everyone incase of an unpredictable situation.

The country that creates a job guarantee program first will change that.

Has any country ever done this?

I was under the impression that even if you worked in an office building you were still "working class". I don't think I ever met anybody who worked in an office environment and didn't consider themselves "working class"

Are you serious? You'd be hard pressed to find anybody in this country to not call themselves "middle class". They stick to that term so much they even invented the term "lower middle class" (lol!).

 

[Pakkidis]

As some who studied labour studies in university, I was under the impression that even if you worked in an office building you were still "working class". I don't think I ever met anybody who worked in an office environment and didn't consider themselves "working class"


The erosion of union membership is one of the reasons why wages are so low today, (not the only reason but one of them) It absolutely boggles my mind that their are working class people that are so anti union.

 

[Chojin]

As some who studied labour studies in university, I was under the impression that even if you worked in an office building you were still "working class". I don't think I ever met anybody who worked in an office environment and didn't consider themselves "working class"


The erosion of union membership is one of the reasons why wages are so low today, (not the only reason but one of them) It absolutely boggles my mind that their are working class people that are so anti union.

I work in an office and I still feel like those kids on You Can't Do that on Television's opening credits.

Warehouse, Office, flipping burgers, its all quotas to meet. Demanding more output, trying to create a culture of an "all in one Office warrior" no matter where I work its the same. I always feel like they're trying to pile on the workload with less and less people while the pay doesn't reflect the amount of work increased.

 

[casabolg]

I don't think there has ever been a society where the number of jobs has been roughly equal to the number of workers. I doubt it is possible, as fewer people means less demand means fewer jobs..

Oh most definitely we can never get it perfectly equal, but more equal is definitely a possibility we need to work for.

 

[Blader]

The erosion of union membership is one of the reasons why wages are so low today, (not the only reason but one of them) It absolutely boggles my mind that their are working class people that are so anti union.

My parents are New Jersey educators who voted for Chris Christie twice. Last Thanksgiving, my mom was telling me if she could do it over again, she'd never become teacher, as the pay/benefits are becoming especially terrible now. I said that's probably because Christie is so aggressively anti-union, to which she responded that she's ok with that if it means improving the state economy; getting a pension is meaningless if the state is bankrupt. To which I responded, hasn't Christie done very little for NJ's economy, which is still pretty shitty compared to like half of the country? She answered yes, and then the conversation just stopped.

So if I had to guess, a lot of anti-union sentiments among workers are born from the same vote-against-your-interests cognitive dissonance that conservatives have brainwashed themselves with.

 

[Dude Abides]

The country that creates a job guarantee program first will change that.

That's true, though it's hard to see that being politically viable unless unemployment got to Great Depression levels.

Oh most definitely we can never get it perfectly equal, but more equal is definitely a possibility we need to work for.

Not perfectly equal, even roughly equal seems impossible. Doing so would require something akin a one-child policy coupled with strict protectionism, which would be more radical and politically unpopular than EV's job guarantee proposal.

 

[Durask]

Abortions for all!

I don't think there has ever been a society where the number of jobs has been roughly equal to the number of workers. I doubt it is possible, as fewer people means less demand means fewer jobs..

I am pretty sure the good old USSR was close to that.

 

[Dude Abides]

I am pretty sure the good old USSR was close to that.

True. We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.

 

[Dead Man]

I think experience having a job and working with people is good experience to have for starting jobs, whether it be in the same industry or not. Service jobs are a big thing. Beyond that, you have the benefits of education over the younger crowd, and possibly better strength. The added 3-5 years between you and the young one and what those years bring are your advantage is in trying to be hired. That said, people who do not take up that time to give themselves a good education, experience, references, or connection (or not good enough) are left out and disadvantaged by this system but I'd wager that group would be much smaller than the disadvantaged teens entering the workforce for the first time.

LOL. See, you assume hiring decisions are rational. They are not. And 3-5 years? How old do you think I am? I am 37. And you have entirely missed the point of the problem. You think employers actually think long term in their hiring decisions? Or do you think I am one of those who 'people who do not take up that time to give themselves a good education, experience, references, or connection (or not good enough)'? Your attitude reeks of naivete. But drive on I guess.

 

[casabolg]

LOL. See, you assume hiring decisions are rational. They are not. And 3-5 years? How old do you think I am? I am 37. And you have entirely missed the point of the problem. You think employers actually think long term in their hiring decisions? Or do you think I am one of those who 'people who do not take up that time to give themselves a good education, experience, references, or connection (or not good enough)'? Your attitude reeks of naivete. But drive on I guess.

1. I did not assume your age. You were talking about 21 year olds compared to people just entering the workforce, so I mentioned the age gap of 3-5 years.

2. If the hiring decisions are flat out not rational then there wouldn't be a rational focus on money saving nor getting good workers so there is noticeable flaw. You screw up your own argument, but since you since you didn't have data before and are calling me naive I suppose you're speaking on experience? Good. So am I.

3. I don't know who are you are well enough to judge you accurately. Please don't try to make this debate personal.

 

[Piecake]

1. I did not assume your age. You were talking about 21 year olds compared to people just entering the workforce, so I mentioned the age gap of 3-5 years.

2. If the hiring decisions are flat out not rational then there wouldn't be a rational focus on money saving nor getting good workers so there is noticeable flaw. You screw up your own argument, but since you since you didn't have data before and are calling me naive I suppose you're speaking on experience? Good. So am I.

3. I don't know who are you are well enough to judge you accurately. Please don't try to make this debate personal.

What makes you think think businesses are rational when cutting spending? Well, I suppose they are rational if you understand that they are concerned with short-term stock prices, not the long term growth of their company. Its rational in one sense, but completely irrational in another.

Good workers is another interesting thing since there is clearly instances where old people with experience get phased out for younger, cheaper workers. One thing the recession is doing now though, is that the high unemployment rate is allowing them to hire experienced workers on the cheap since there is just such a supply of workers.

Note, I am just talking about general trends. I am not claiming that all business do this

 

[kirby_fox]

Completely disagree.

I worked barely above minimum wage at a grocery store. We were unionized. I saw more harm done by union reps than good. I think the most positive thing they did was increase pay for full time workers- which did nothing because majority of members were considered part-time on purpose to cut costs of benefits. I even watched a guy get screwed by a union rep who outed his plan to push going full time. His hours got cut so he couldn't.

Another guy got screwed by a store manager as he was leaving. Something the store manager would get fired on because he had too many reports on him. Still works there last I saw.

I feel like unions in places like KFC would do exactly what my union did: take our money and do enough to get by. In factories back then their unions were more local like the article said, meaning they can work for themselves and their pals to get what's necessary. In huge chains, they don't know the millions of workers affected by what they push, and working wages don't come out of that. They begin sympathizing with the company, instead of the people.