|
Volkerball posted:Something like 2.5% of the workforce aged 16+ make minimum wage so nah, it's a rare few that don't move on to bigger and better things. That's the percentage of people making the federal minimum wage or below. It doesn't count state minimum wages, which are often higher. This is why over half of federal minimum wage earners live in the South, where states tend not to raise their minimum wage laws. In Texas, for example, over 10% of workers are paid at or below the federal minimum wage. No one appears to be collecting data on how many people make the state minimum wage in each state. But given the massive numbers seen in Southern states that don't set a minimum wage higher than the federal, it's safe to say the number is significantly higher than 2.3%. And even then, half the people being paid at or below federal minimum wage are over the age of 25. Naturally, two-thirds of federal minimum-wage earners are women, and black and Hispanic populations are overrepresented in the minimum wage population as well.
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:54 |
|
|
Volkerball posted:Something like 2.5% of the workforce aged 16+ make minimum wage so nah, it's a rare few that don't move on to bigger and better things. Besides wampa's very obvious and relevant "What about people making a penny more?" that percentage is very misleading. That's just full-time employees paid an hourly wage making the federal minimum (or less due to exempted categories). 29 states and DC have a mandated wage above that NY and CA included. It's also worth noting the drop from 10%-ish of the workforce making the federal minimum to the current 2.5 between 2010 - 2017 also lines up roughly with the heavy shift to part time workers and contractors. You're just flat out wrong if you believe poverty wages are for teens https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-workers-older-88-percent-workers-benefit/ this is slightly older data, but I've seen no reason to assume zoomers have taken over the economy since 2013. edit: paineframe'd! 
Coolness Averted fucked around with this message at 21:39 on May 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
I believe the core question the OP asked in this thread has largely been answered and while it's extremely funny that the OP is now whining in reports about the fact that people don't like him, I believe this has run its course.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 21:55
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I believe the core question the OP asked in this thread has largely been answered and while it's extremely funny that the OP is now whining in reports about the fact that people don't like him, I believe this has run its course. i respectfully disagree.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 10:08
|
|
|
Post the reports LK. e: lol of course there's a qcs thread bloom fucked around with this message at 10:19 on May 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 10:15
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That's the percentage of people making the federal minimum wage or below. It doesn't count state minimum wages, which are often higher. This is why over half of federal minimum wage earners live in the South, where states tend not to raise their minimum wage laws. In Texas, for example, over 10% of workers are paid at or below the federal minimum wage. Fair enough, but this still doesn't say too much. Using your Texas figure, 5% of the workforce over the age of 25 works for minimum wage there, where the state and federal minimum wages are the same figure. I'd imagine there's an increase in the percentage of workers making minimum wage in states with higher state minimum wages, but I can't imagine it's significant enough to make that number "massive." The median household income is nearly $60,000, which would require 2 people making, in wage terms, over $14 an hour discounting overtime, or one person making a whole hell of a lot more than minimum wage. With that being the case in over half of American households, the situation isn't as godawful as some people here are trying to make it seem, although there's obviously a bunch of room for improvement on the income inequality and personal debt fronts. It's the bottom quarter of the income bracket that is getting pinched at the moment, not the bottom three quarters like it seems to be portrayed here by people acting like engaging in the US economy is for suckers. And a solid chunk of the people on the low end of the scale aren't doomed to be in that situation for the rest of their life. They've just hit a rough patch or haven't gotten their footing in their current/future career path. That's not the case for everyone certainly, and that needs to be addressed yesterday, but that doesn't change the fact that most of y'all don't have an excuse. WampaLord posted:You and wateroverfire are both Just_World_Fallacy.txt but I guess you win the no-prize for the sadder of the two because you were bought off for much cheaper than he was. So, congrats! Grow up. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 11:09 on May 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 11:05
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Grow up. Ooh, nice counter. Must have touched a nerve. Here, let's make a deal, you give me some of your "investments" and I could probably afford to! eta: Here's some education! https://twitter.com/AFLCIO/status/1128270151252697089 WampaLord fucked around with this message at 11:57 on May 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 11:24
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Fair enough, but this still doesn't say too much. Using your Texas figure, 5% of the workforce over the age of 25 works for minimum wage there, where the state and federal minimum wages are the same figure. I'd imagine there's an increase in the percentage of workers making minimum wage in states with higher state minimum wages, but I can't imagine it's significant enough to make that number "massive." The median household income is nearly $60,000, which would require 2 people making, in wage terms, over $14 an hour discounting overtime, or one person making a whole hell of a lot more than minimum wage. With that being the case in over half of American households, the situation isn't as godawful as some people here are trying to make it seem, although there's obviously a bunch of room for improvement on the income inequality and personal debt fronts. It's the bottom quarter of the income bracket that is getting pinched at the moment, not the bottom three quarters like it seems to be portrayed here by people acting like engaging in the US economy is for suckers. And a solid chunk of the people on the low end of the scale aren't doomed to be in that situation for the rest of their life. They've just hit a rough patch or haven't gotten their footing in their current/future career path. That's not the case for everyone certainly, and that needs to be addressed yesterday, but that doesn't change the fact that most of y'all don't have an excuse. I don’t completely disagree with you, but I also want to point out that even if we tracked exactly how many people made federal and state minimum wage, that does not count people making ¢10 over minimum, which is common at a lot of “minimum wage” jobs. Or ¢20 or ¢30 or whatever. But yeah a lot of people make quite a bit more. They struggle with rising rent and healthcare costs too, though.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 12:58
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:i respectfully disagree. I came back this morning to do this and you already beat me to it.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 13:35
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:i respectfully disagree. I like your moxy here but where do you see this thread in five years?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 13:54
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I came back this morning to do this and you already beat me to it. Hmm, so you're saying your supervisor consistently is in the office before you? *checks something on annual performance review*
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 13:56
|
|
|
' posted:wateroverfire tried to make an anti feminism thread lol never forget
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 14:02
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Hmm, so you're saying your supervisor consistently is in the office before you? This is true both on the forums and in real life. 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 14:03
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:And a solid chunk of the people on the low end of the scale aren't doomed to be in that situation for the rest of their life. They've just hit a rough patch or haven't gotten their footing in their current/future career path. That's not the case for everyone certainly, and that needs to be addressed yesterday, but that doesn't change the fact that most of y'all don't have an excuse. quote:September went out hot in East Tennessee. Caleb didn’t mind; he parked his lawn chair in a shallow pool of shade, clipped a small fan to its arm, lit a cigarette, and settled back to wait. It would be more than 12 hours before the free medical clinic opened its doors. Caleb had read about the clinic online, and that it was best to get there early. Hundreds of people were expected to show up. Whole lot of Americans going through rough patches; hope they get their footing soon! B B fucked around with this message at 16:26 on May 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 16:21
|
|
|
Prokhor Zakharov posted:You aren't paying enough. If you were paying what the work was worth people would show up. lol no you can increase the hourly and plenty people would still not give a poo poo enough to cancel an interview when they can't make it
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 16:28
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:And a solid chunk of the people on the low end of the scale aren't doomed to be in that situation for the rest of their life. They've just hit a rough patch or haven't gotten their footing in their current/future career path. That's not the case for everyone certainly, and that needs to be addressed yesterday, but that doesn't change the fact that most of y'all don't have an excuse. Citation extremely loving needed here. People saying things like "a solid chunk" and "not the case for everyone" and "most of y'all[sic] don't have an excuse" is dogwhistle for "This is how I want poo poo to be, but I know it's not, but if I state it woolly enough I might get away with it".
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 16:29
|
|
|
This thread is wild. As a job seeker it'd be super-loving-cool if companies supposedly hiring would show up to the interviews they have scheduled. I've had three no shows in the past 8 interviews. Being on time is apparently literally impossible for people doing hiring. In my experience 100% have been at least 5 minutes late, some times much more. Sure, I'll sit here for 30 more minutes while you do whatever. What? We don't have time for my questions now, oh well, they weren't important anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:This thread is wild. As a job seeker it'd be super-loving-cool if companies supposedly hiring would show up to the interviews they have scheduled. I've had three no shows in the past 8 interviews. Being on time is apparently literally impossible for people doing hiring. In my experience 100% have been at least 5 minutes late, some times much more. Sure, I'll sit here for 30 more minutes while you do whatever. What? We don't have time for my questions now, oh well, they weren't important anyway. theyre busy going over the numbers one last time to make certain Boss McJobCreator can still afford that 3rd house
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
The thing about ghosting interviews that a lot of employers don't understand is that it is very much in the employee's rational self-interest to be incorpreal. Passing on beyond this mortal coil (after initial immediate fixed costs like funerals and paying out your estate) drastically reduces your general expenses, and basically all income becomes discretionary. Beyond that, you're less subject to hiring pressures imposed by say, having to eat. While some economists think that the deceased make ideal low - wage workers, candidates who ghost interviews are actually in a much stronger position with regard to the hiring process than living workers. My advice? If you don't offer proper compensation, prepare to be haunted.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 17:04
|
|
|
[Ray Parker Jr. voice] I ain't hirin' no ghost
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
(Union) 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 17:11
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The median household income is nearly $60,000, which would require 2 people making, in wage terms, over $14 an hour discounting overtime, or one person making a whole hell of a lot more than minimum wage. With that being the case in over half of American households, the situation isn't as godawful as some people here are trying to make it seem, although there's obviously a bunch of room for improvement on the income inequality and personal debt fronts In what universe is $14/hour anything other than just barely above the lowest end of the income scale? That's like a buck or two above what you'd make at an entry-level retail job around here. Like, yeah, it's fine if you're a dual income household where each person makes that much and you have no kids, but otherwise that's solidly in paycheck-to-paycheck territory anywhere the cost of living isn't exceptionally low. It's poverty wages in cities or high cost-of-living areas. edit- household income is a massively deceptive stat and I wish we'd stop using it double edit- Reminder that the Economic Policy Institute found that the lowest living wage in the country was in the neighborhood of $59,000/year. For most of the country, the median household income is literally below what they found to be a living wage. Roughly 40% of the country makes less than $15/hour, which means nearly half of the country is below a living wage with two combined incomes. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 17:40 on May 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
Not to mention that the vast majority of Americans don't even have $400 in the bank to cover an emergency bill.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 18:29
|
|
|
CAPS LOCK BROKEN posted:Not to mention that the vast majority of Americans don't even have $400 in the bank to cover an emergency bill. Well you see that's because they aren't smart with money. They should invest in property.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
It's possible people don't want to work for a rape apologist, OP.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 19:37
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Grow up.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
CAPS LOCK BROKEN posted:Not to mention that the vast majority of Americans don't even have $400 in the bank to cover an emergency bill. The cool thing about being a slob with a job that saves up money is that it takes a long loving time and all it takes is one or two big bills to dick you over. Case in point. I want to go to community college. I could afford it. I could qualify for financial aid, but even without, it is doable. But my car isn't reliable enough to get me back and fourth. It's dangerous for anything other than short hops, and putting a regular, forty mile commute on it would undoubtedly break more parts. I've been consciously avoiding a car note because I don't want to take on a contractual debt with the amount of financial security given to me by my job. So I've been saving money. My bills are light, but, so's my paycheck. I put as much as I can into savings. I build up a healthy 4,000 in the bank account. Whoops, turns out the roof on the family home is shot. I cover it, because the only other option is a loan. Get it fixed. Get some money back from my family. Whoops, the fuel sender in the your car died. Whoops, you got sick ( I have insurance, the deductible is a 1.5k tho ). Whoops, your company's RX plan denied your medication. Whoops, your dog has to have three teeth out. I could go into maximum austerity mode, and it wouldn't even save me any real money because my indulgences are cheap ones; I barely buy anything that isn't on sale. Fifty dollars is a splurge for me, and I rarely spend that much money. So, realistically, how do I make more money? Get a better job? Guess what? Everyone in this rural cow-hell knows what the better jobs are ( and by "better" i mean "better paying". Twelve-hour shifts six days a week in a factory is grueling work ). Get a second part-time job? My current one schedules me between 32-36 hours a week, keeping me a hair under full-time hours- just like a lot of people in my situation, my generation. And guess what? They don't want me working part-time for another retail store. It's a fire-able offense. The only industry in which I have significant experience is barred to me by my employer. And even if I did get a second job, I'd be working a fifty, sixty hour week- because normal, full-time jobs are rare things. I can either have three-fourths of a job, or a job and a half with literally no free time. But hey, I could save three hundred and fifty dollars a month if I canceled my health insurance! The point of this isn't to appeal for pity. I've made a lot of bad life choices. People do that, because people gently caress up. The point is that even if you're in a favorable position, and even if you are trying? It takes time and luck, and every little accident life throws your way can spoil months of effort. The point is that a lot of people don't even have a car, or family to share bills with, or a college/vocational school they can even go to ( if they can afford it ). The point is that if you truly say and believe things like Volkerball posted:most of y'all don't have an excuse You're either ignorant, heartless, or you ain't ever had it as bad as you thought you did.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 20:37
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Grow up. These are big words coming from an E-1
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 20:41
|
|
|
NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:You're either ignorant, heartless, or you ain't ever had it as bad as you thought you did. In the case of some, it's all three.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 20:43
|
|
|
NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:Saving money hard
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
have you tried just advertising the high range of the salary of the position you want to fill OP? Why do people have to bother haggling with you in order for you to pay them what you'd be willing to pay them in the first place? I assume you're not a used car salesman, you don't have to act like one.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 20:45
|
|
|
The amount you make has little to do with personal effort, it's mostly a hilarious multifaceted lottery, from which country and family you were born in, to what your interests are, to what people you met, to what jobs you had before, to what the country's economy was like, etc etc It's 2019 and people are still pushing the "pull yourself off your bootstraps" argument? I thought that would have been debunked by now. There's no meritocracy, only the terrible roulette of capitalism. "Hey ma'am", he whispers into the ear of the overworked teacher travelling to 3 different schools a day for minimum wage, paying for her pupils' materials out of pocket, "have you considered learning Javascript?"
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 20:46
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:These are big words coming from an E-1 I will have you know I am a LtCol equivalent.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 20:46
|
|
|
CharlestonJew posted:have you tried just advertising the high range of the salary of the position you want to fill OP? Why do people have to bother haggling with you in order for you to pay them what you'd be willing to pay them in the first place? I assume you're not a used car salesman, you don't have to act like one. What, and treat job applicants like people?!
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 20:49
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:What, and treat job applicants like people?! My favorite job ads are the ones with neither a salary nor a work location. Because what it pays and where it is totally aren't the two things I want to know most.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
Great Post Nerdy. People forget how much luck plays a part.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Any of those things would be illegal here. It is precisely because employers lack precise knowledge about the capabilities of a potential hire that they rely on simple heuristics such as age, nationality, race, gender and appearance to make such decisions. There's are numerous studies attesting to this. Job market signalling, labour market disadvantage and activation, p.2 posted:It is widely known that when hiring new employees, employers tend to consider “signals” i.e. Job market signalling, labour market disadvantage and activation, p. 6-7 posted:The results of these studies indicate that employers indeed use ethnicity as a sorting criterion in the While the intentionally bland and tepid academic prose understates the full implications of what is being described above the empirical literature speaks for itself here. The results are similar for gender, with managers often particularly concerned to avoid footing the bill for the costs of having a pregnant employee. Job market signalling, labour market disadvantage and activation, p.8 posted:Bielby and Baron (1986) show that a majority of occupations are sex segregated and that even when wateroverfire posted:Like...here's why this is a really hard problem. You don't need discriminatory hiring practices to generate discriminatory outcomes. Let's say a given position across many employers Could pay $7/hour on the low end up to $10/hour on the high end. Think something really ubiquitous like cashiering. If employers start out offering toward the low end and you have populations (women, minorities, other groups however defined) who have a lower wage threshold then those jobs are going to get filled at the low end of the salary range first (because people are saying yes) and with more likelyhood by people in those groups with a lower wage threshold. People who have a higher wage threshold (because they can afford to wait longer to take a job, or they have more opportunities, or whatever reason) can be more choosy and find the openings that can get filled toward the higher end of the range. No discriminatory actions on the part of the employers but... in aggregate those disadvantaged populations end up getting paid less. As we've seen there's a lot of compelling evidence, both statistical and in terms of interviews with people responsible for hiring, suggesting that people do actively discriminate based on race, gender, nationality, age and appearance, among other things, when making hiring decisions. But even if we remove this intentional discrimination you are right, there would still be very strong 'neutral' reasons for these extremely sexist and racist hiring outcomes, which makes utter non-sense of this: wateroverfire posted:Again...that is some toxic attitude, IMO. Not just for an employer but for YOU. If you don't like an offer you can find a better one and tell the employer to gently caress off, or negotiate. People do both all the time, and people who are willing to do those things will make more than people who don't. I don't know how you can pivot between contradictory arguments this quickly with so little shame but if you acknowledge that statistic discrimination is a huge and pernicious problem then it's really grosse that you fall back on this trite cliches about how "if you don't like your crappy wage maybe you should learn to negotiate better". And as for your last comment here: quote:That is not to say that there aren't employers who will size someone up and lowball them because they think they can. That is a thing that absolutely does happen whether it's illegal or not. Just that it's not required to generate disparate outcomes and that's why systemic discrimination is such a hard thing to combat. This quite the statement coming from somebody who I recall more or less arguing that Pinochet was forced to seize power and throw people out of helicopters because of the "excesses of the left" and who (half jokingly? totally sincerely? who knows) has stated that you wish there was more American imperialism in Latin America.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Gross My favorite job ad ever was from the height of the recession. They wanted two years' experience and for the applicant to be bilingual to work part time in a warehouse for minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
Volkerball: "What I believe is a child's view of the USA. Literally, what a child thinks. GROW UP LOSERS!"
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:54 |
|
|
Pochoclo posted:The amount you make has little to do with personal effort, it's mostly a hilarious multifaceted lottery, from which country and family you were born in, to what your interests are, to what people you met, to what jobs you had before, to what the country's economy was like, etc etc People really underestimate the role of luck in their own success and hate to admit that it was anything other than their own effort that got them wherever they were. But yes, a number of decisions ( many of them made as a child or by their parents! ) can completely alter or screw up someone's life. As a for instance: if my family had access to health insurance, I might have been diagnosed with ADD and depression before teenage me Amtrak'd his academic and financial life. These illnesses, no exaggeration, ruined my life. They influenced every decision I made. I was hopelessly depressed and listless for over a decade, due to reasons outside my control, due to my family being unable to afford treatment. It took a titanic amount of effort to leverage myself out of that hole, to realize I needed treatment, to seek it. And if I didn't have a job with insurance? It would have been impossible. My ADD diagnosis would have cost thousands of dollars. When I saw that bill, I poo poo. The neurologist would not have seen me ( without insurance ) unless I was able to pay seven hundred dollars, upfront, at the time of the first visit. I was lucky to have the resources I had, the family I did, access insurance, healthcare, etc. Lucky. Please, somebody please, tell me more about how I and other people don't deserve a living wage because we haven't met whatever arbitrary measure of having worked "hard enough" for it. Please, tell me please, what the pathway is for someone like me who never got health insurance, or was born somewhere the jobs ain't, where community college or Pell grants ain't? Next time I see the sixty-six year old woman I work with who's raising her grandson 'cause her daughter is having addiction problems, who's never had health insurance in her life, I'll tell her that she deserves to slave for less than a living wage until she dies. I'm sure she's just not trying hard enough. NerdyMcNerdNerd fucked around with this message at 21:24 on May 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 21:21
|
|