SecretStash
Gawd
- Joined
- May 27, 2017
- Messages
- 684
There's a few times in my life where I would have been desperate enough to line up.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Americans Are Lining Up to Work for Amazon for $15 an Hour
- Thread starter Megalith
- Start date
- Status
No.
If I had to guess, you're thinking of Laowhy aka C-Milk.
I am certainly not him nor am I a fan of his in any way. Few foreigners in China are.
FYI: Laowai (老外) means 'foreigner' in Chinese.
![Zarathustra[H]](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/avatars/m/9/9298.jpg?1707758471){kind=avatar}
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,858
Even at $15 an hour, full time ( though no one can ever get that many hours in fast food) that is $2,600 before taxes.
That's barely rent money in many cities.
It sure as hell is notxebough money to voluntarily save. Rent, food and other immediate necessities will always come before long term saving.
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,858
It's also a somewhat derogatory term for foreigners.
stolikat
n00b
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 54
What I find laughable is that many here just assume that a minimum wage job must be a fast food job. That is far from the case many warehouse, manufacturing, and shipping jobs etc. are minimum wage as well. Are these workers somehow better than the fast food workers?
Arguable. Believe me, this has been beaten to death as a topic for expats in China and it is all about context.
I wasn't allowed the forum name NotChinese so picked this for no reason.
In few cities could rent not be paid at that rate. Extremely few. Furthermore, perhaps alternative living arangements would be advised if funds are tight. Most of the people I know shared accommodations with others to keep costs down at some point in their lives. Many people I know live outside of expensive areas and commute to work..and of those, many are quite a distance away from earning minimum wage.
While the real minimum wage is $0, we are talking about jobs with generally low/no skill or education requirements. These are not often the kind of jobs that help you financially prepare for retirement.
FlawleZ
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,691
These numbers are going to be a little high as this was just as we entered the holiday season and a lot of people pickup temporary jobs during the holiday season.
TheOne&OnlyZeke
100% Irish
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2000
- Messages
- 11,248
I wouldn't work either. I';d be a slacker and bum around
Hahahahahahaha
But seriously. I'd take anything over Amazon. Everything points towards it being a toxic work env.
Guy I worked with in EA who managed our outsource partners, moved to Amazon.....came back fairly quickly to EA when the op arose.
He said even the office ENV is cut throat. EVERYONE was out for themselves.
And for those saying fast food is easy....I would say the work is tiring but easy enough
Its dealing with the public...thats the kicker, to me thats what makes it harder
Joe Public are a bunch of cnuts
Hahahahahahaha
But seriously. I'd take anything over Amazon. Everything points towards it being a toxic work env.
Guy I worked with in EA who managed our outsource partners, moved to Amazon.....came back fairly quickly to EA when the op arose.
He said even the office ENV is cut throat. EVERYONE was out for themselves.
And for those saying fast food is easy....I would say the work is tiring but easy enough
Its dealing with the public...thats the kicker, to me thats what makes it harder
Joe Public are a bunch of cnuts
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,858
Well yeah, but that assumed you have no other expenses.
Subtract taxes (35%?), Food (~$20 a day for a very thrifty family?) clothing budget (can't go to work naked), transportation (have to get to work somehow) health insurance (that shit is very pricy) and then there is somehow supposed to be some left over for savings or investment?
All I was trying to say was that the savings and investment comment was more than just a little bit out of touch with the realities of working people. There are many people working 3 or more jobs to exhaustion just to make ends meet, and still unable to afford to save for the future.
Many will argue that unskilled labor is not intended to be a career. It is something a little extra part time cash or students to do. The truth is - however - if only moonlighting stay at home moms and students worked minimum wage jobs, the country would grind to a halt.
We need people in these very basic jobs, and if we need them we should be willing to pay them enough that they don't have to worry where their next meal is going to come from.
Ten years ago I lived on 8.50 an hour. Didn't have much, but I had enough to live. 300sqft studio apartment. Car insurance, usual bills.
Where are you getting this from? About 5% of the workforce works multiple jobs and of that 5% I'd expect a much lower percent works 3 jobs. The percentage has been on the decline since the mid-90's. I am not convinced your opinions are grounded in facts but if you have facts, kindly link them.
As to the living expenses....I get it! Some cities (or parts of cities) are insanely expensive. If you're poor, you shouldn't live there. This isn't rocket science. Discussing the most expensive cities in the country has no real bearing on any conversation about minimumm wage earners and/or those who need multiple jobs to survive.
Yeah, it's difficult to save when you earn minimum wage. I cannot disagree with that rather obvious conclusion.
Yes, we need people working entry-level jobs but that does not automagically mean the jobs are more valuable to an employer. Were there a shortage of people willing to work those jobs, that would very likely have an impact on wages for reasons which should be obvious. However, since most of the push for a higher minimum wage seems to be coming from unions, activists, as well as uninformed individuals and not organically through supply/demand, I find little credibility in this artificial 'movement'.
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,858
I do think have any exact figures, just anecdotal experiences (which is why I didn't claim any figures, just said "a lot of people".
Let's run with your 5% figure for a moment though. The U.S. labor force is about 160 million people. 5% of that is 8 million. I'd say 8 million people (and their dependents) constitutes a lot of people, wouldn't you?
Expensive cities need fast food workers, short cooks, dog walkers and retail clerks too.
In fact, because expensive cities tend to be larger, they typically need MORE of them than other places.
So many of the things we take for granted in cities depend on unskilled labor, and if we are unwilling to pay them, they won't be able to do the jobs we are asking of them.
So what is wrong with paying them more, so they can afford to live where they work?
Is minimum wage really what people should actually be paid? I though minimum wage was the absolute lowest you were legally allowed to pay someone and not a suggested wage employers should or paying out. You get what you pay for ... just sayin’
You seem to be missing the obvious.
No, 5% is not 'a lot of' anything. It's 5%. You also throw in dependents as a rather sad and transparent appeal to emotion "think of the children, hurf durf".
Once again, just because a certain city or cities are expensive, that does not prevent people from commuting or living in the less expensive areas of the city. Using your examples.... there ARE fast food workers, short order cooks, dog walkers, and retail clerks aplenty who work in what are considered expensive cities to live in.
Feels over reals, amirite?
Here are some facts that are not at all hard to find.
Lowest you can be paid is zero.
Yes, minimum wage is appropriate for whatever position is able to be filled at that rate, imo. If supply and demand or other market forces alter that equation organically, that's great! Only a very low percentage of workers earn minimum wage or below (minimum wage exempt positions).
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,757
Sorry to be cold, but we (the rest of society) should not be paying for people's poor life decisions (having children at an early age). Raped and having kids is a different story, but irresponsibly having kids should not be rewarded in any way. The minimum wage is not meant for raising a family on, it's for a single person with no dependents to live frugally while making their way up.
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,858
Your McDonalds burger might go up by a very slight amount when dining in high cost locations, but no one is talking about taxing in order to pay people extra.
It's a moot point though. In most high cost areas this is already happening on its own. They can't find people to work in their establishments unless they start paying more and more, because people earning that little simply can not afford to live near where they work, or to drive there.
Students and part time stay at home moms will continue to be taken advantage of for below market rates, but there just aren't enough of them to meet the needs.
I always LOL to myself when I hear some poor small business person complain about a labor shortage or how they can't find enough people to staff their kitchen. Pay more and they will come. That's how supply and demand works.
Same for farmers. Don't rely on importing cheap slave labor from Mexico. Pay enough to make it worth it for Americans to do the job, or don't do it. It's that simple.
stolikat
n00b
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 54
Is that a rule you just made up or is it written in law somewhere? I do not recall ever seeing it so maybe you could provide a link?
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,757
Your McDonalds burger might go up by a very slight amount when dining in high cost locations, but no one is talking about taxing in order to pay people extra.
It's a moot point though. In most high cost areas this is already happening on its own. They can't find people to work in their establishments unless they start paying more and more, because people earning that little simply can not afford to live near where they work, or to drive there.
Students and part time stay at home moms will continue to be taken advantage of for below market rates, but there just aren't enough of them to meet the needs.
I always LOL to myself when I hear some poor small business person complain about a labor shortage or how they can't find enough people to staff their kitchen. Pay more and they will come. That's how supply and demand works.
I said the exact same thing earlier in this thread with significantly less words.
Better wording would have been "should not be meant" rather than "is not meant." In any case, I hold very little sympathy for anyone trying to raise a family on minimum wage. Furthermore, raising the minimum wage by law will do nothing to actually help those people.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 29,669
It's common sense.
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,858
Mostly agreed. Minimum wage laws are usually nothing but a bandaid. They don't solve the real problem, that people don't have marketable skills.
That problem is much more costly and difficult to solve though, so politicians usually reach for the "easy solution" especially when there is someone to blame, like the big bad employer for not paying enough.
The real solution is for the federal government to pump much more money into education, mental health issues (which often express themselves in adolescence) and solving poverty.
While lazy people exist, most of the time, that is not the root cause. Blaming "those lazy people for not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and making something of themselves, like I did" is an incredible cop-out for not dealing with a real structural societal problem.
The support structures and quality of education are simply much lower much lower in poor areas than in wealthy ones. The schools suck, kids may not have a stable home environment with a parent who can help them with their homework (or force them to do it rather than play a video game).
You show me an 8 year old boy who is self motivated enough to do his math homework, especially when dangling video games in front of him, and I'll show you Santa Clause. And the problem is it snowballs. First they fall a little behind when they are in 1st or second grade, then because of this it is more difficult to do well later. By the time they realize how fucked they are, it's nearly impossible to catch back up, and instead they wind up making all the same mistakes their parents did, and breed yet another generation of a permanent underclass.
It's not their fault for being "lazy" like people are so fond of claiming. They are stuck in the worst of catch 22's.
Sure, every now and then a few of them scrape their way out of this hole through a combination of determination and extremely good luck, but they are rare. The cards are stacked against them to the point where this is nearly impossible.
I was lucky to be born to a family with two highly educated parents, who valued my education and had the time and the energy to force my undisciplined 8 year old ass to do my homework and learn my multiplications and encourage me towards success in life. If we are honest about it, I'd be willing to bet that just about all of us who are not the working poor had something like this as well.
We don't succeed because of our own greatness. More often than not we succeed because we are fortunate to be born in the right place at the right time to the right family. It falls upon us, then the fortunate and of means to support programs that spend money and effort on overcoming the catch 22 of poverty and eliminate this problem once and for all, so that anyone who wants to can succeed, at least to the point where they are not in poverty.
stolikat
n00b
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 54
The greatest trick the devil ever played was to convince working people that more money in their pockets would not help them. An assumption so absurd it is laughable.
The fact is the raising the minimum wage has helped people in a big way. I know I live in Seattle where the minimum wage is $15 and have seen how it has benefited people here and has ZERO negative effect on the economy. Wages as a whole have gone up and grocery stores are now paying people $16-20 an hour here. The local burger place starts new employees at $18 an hour and offers medical and college financial aid. It works and Seattle is proof of it.
That is as it should be. No need for gov't intervention.
Taken advantage of? Yes. I keep hearing about all those employers who force random students and part-time stay at home moms(whatever the fuck that means) to accept jobs or else.
Why do you think all employers have an infinite pool of money to spend? I always LOL to myself when I see people making absurd statements. Better the business fail because activists and idiots think that raising the minimum wage is some kind of panacea. While I agree that in many cases, employers can pay more if there is a labor shortage, some cannot. Small businesses would be especially sensitive imo.I always LOL to myself when I hear some poor small business person complain about a labor shortage or how they can't find enough people to staff their kitchen. Pay more and they will come. That's how supply and demand works.
I won't bother replying to or quoting any of your opinions on social issues in the future since you've proven yourself time and time again to be an idealogue with a complete allergy to facts.
EDIT: I've since dived a bit into the study discussed in the video above. It's not as comprehensive as I would have liked. Unfortunately, none of the studies I have seen so far, either pro or con, employed credible methodology imo. Until I see some solid and comprehensive evidence broken down by sector and other criteria, I'll keep my mind open on if raising the minimum wage helps or hurts. If anyone has a link to a study, pro or con, I'd be glad to take a look.
Last edited:
Cool, I love anecdotal evidence. Here's some more!
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,858
Whatever man. You are free to keep believing that you are where you are because of your own greatness and only your own greatness, and everyone who doesn't make a good safe income is somehow lazy or unmotivated. You'd be wrong, and it kind of makes you a terrible person, but you are free to believe it.
What are you going on about?Whatever man. You are free to keep believing that you are where you are because of your own greatness and only your own greatness, and everyone who doesn't make a good safe income is somehow lazy or unmotivated. You'd be wrong, and it kind of makes you a terrible person, but you are free to believe it.
What does your gibberish above have to do with the conversation in any way, shape, or form?
You managed to fit three strawman positions into two sentences. Good on you!
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,757
And that's why places like Seattle and San Francisco have $2500+ a month rent for a single bedroom apartment. While places like Phoenix with a $8? 10? minimum wage have single bedroom apartment rent down at $800. Tell me, what would go farther, $10 an hour with a $800 rent or $15 an hour with $2500+ rent?
The only reason you see burger places doing that in Seattle is because they are unable to find enough workers at just minimum wage with little/no benefits. I guarantee you that if they can find enough workers to fulfill that need at that wage, they will. Everyone that only has skill levels fitting minimum wage has fled the city or decided to live off government/parental support while going through education.
The biggest reason SF has such high rents is because SF wants to have high rents.
Developers are routinely prevented from building more housing and that includes affordable housing.
The city whose heart bleeds for any left-wing lunacy imaginable does little to nothing to help alleviate any social problems within its direct control.
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,757
Doesn't invalidate my point though, as $2000+ single bedroom apartments is typical in cities around the SF Bay Area. A single bedroom apartment in SF is likely $4k+.
There are signs that the housing market in the SF Bay Area is quickly slowing down though. What would have sold for over asking price within hours is now sitting for weeks before selling at or below asking price. Recession's already coming, and it'll be interesting to see how the job market shakes up at the low end because of it.
- Status