Fast-food workers in dozens of US cities are on strike, union leaders say, in what could be one of the industry's biggest walkouts.
Workers want to be paid $15 (£10) an hour, double the rate for many employees at fast-food chains.
In New York City, about 300 protesters flooded into a McDonald's near the Empire State Building.
The strike comes amid calls by President Barack Obama and some lawmakers to raise the US minimum wage.
Those members of Congress suggest bringing the current rate up to $9 an hour from $7.25, previously set in 2009.
Labor Secretary Thomas Perez, who is taking a lead role in the Obama administration's higher minimum wage push, said: "For all too many people working minimum wage jobs, the rungs on the ladder of opportunity are feeling further and further apart."
In addition to a walkout at fast-food chains in 50 cities, employees at retail firms in some cities were expected to join, say union leaders.
This could bring the US to its knees
This could bring the US to its knees
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: This could bring the US to its knees
They want to make more than a lot of EMTs, MAs, CNAs make in these parts. Good luck getting folks to get on board with that.
-
oldr_n_wsr
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: This could bring the US to its knees
Since when did fast food employment turn into a job that someone should be able (or expect to be able) to support a family/children on? When I was a teen I worked at a Roy Rogers in Greenvale (it's gone, I think it's a Hardy's or a Burger King now) and all the "workers" were high school/college kids and older people supplimenting their soc sec. The only ones who were doing it as a career were the managers, assitant managers and managers in training (which they had a pretty good career path for, if you wanted to do that for a living).
It's a "no skill" job (other than be there on time and do what the manager tells you to do). How much compensation does one expect to get for doing a job that pretty much anyone can do? And with the economy still in the toilet (despite what the numbers say) and millions on unemployment, disability, welfare, foodstamps, etc the no-skill jobs are getting filled somewhat with "skilled" laborers as they would rather work for less than sit home.
I was 24 hours away from stocking shelves at Stop n Shop for $8 an hour (on the overnight shift) before I was recruited to my current job. It wasn't about the money***, it was about reviving some self esteem, about doing something rather than sitting on ones ass. I accepted the pay rate as loading stuff on a palet, bringing it out to the shelves and stocking those shelves is not a job that requires much skill or education. The biggest concern the manager had was that I was 50-something and if I could take the physical end of it.
***I have saved for rainy days all my life and while we certainly had to tighten our belts while I was unemployed, we were no where near losing the house, cars (which are always bought with cash), cashing in the 401k or going chapter 11
It's a "no skill" job (other than be there on time and do what the manager tells you to do). How much compensation does one expect to get for doing a job that pretty much anyone can do? And with the economy still in the toilet (despite what the numbers say) and millions on unemployment, disability, welfare, foodstamps, etc the no-skill jobs are getting filled somewhat with "skilled" laborers as they would rather work for less than sit home.
I was 24 hours away from stocking shelves at Stop n Shop for $8 an hour (on the overnight shift) before I was recruited to my current job. It wasn't about the money***, it was about reviving some self esteem, about doing something rather than sitting on ones ass. I accepted the pay rate as loading stuff on a palet, bringing it out to the shelves and stocking those shelves is not a job that requires much skill or education. The biggest concern the manager had was that I was 50-something and if I could take the physical end of it.
***I have saved for rainy days all my life and while we certainly had to tighten our belts while I was unemployed, we were no where near losing the house, cars (which are always bought with cash), cashing in the 401k or going chapter 11
Re: This could bring the US to its knees
I guess since people who had skilled jobs and got laid off still had families to support?Since when did fast food employment turn into a job that someone should be able (or expect to be able) to support a family/children on?
-
oldr_n_wsr
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: This could bring the US to its knees
I think most of those in that position realize that the job they are currently in (flipping burgers) is not meant to be a career. I know my takng the stocking shelves position was not going to be my "new career". I think most of those protesting getting a "living wage" (whatever that means) for no skilled work at ff resturants are those who have no marketable skills, did nothing in their lives to aquire said skills and have little to no chance of going beyond "do you want fries with that".Daisy wrote:I guess since people who had skilled jobs and got laid off still had families to support?Since when did fast food employment turn into a job that someone should be able (or expect to be able) to support a family/children on?
Re: This could bring the US to its knees
How do you get those skills if your job doesn't provide a means to get them?
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
-
Econoline
- Posts: 9607
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
- Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans
Re: This could bring the US to its knees
Go to college, of course.Crackpot wrote:How do you get those skills if your job doesn't provide a means to get them?
Next question: how do you afford college while working for 9 bucks an hour?
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God @The Tweet of God
— God @The Tweet of God
Re: This could bring the US to its knees
Using all that money you saved from your low paying job; don't you have any ambition?
-
Econoline
- Posts: 9607
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
- Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans
Re: This could bring the US to its knees
Here's an interesting article on something that's definitely related to this topic:
(It's a PDF file, so it was kinda hard [i.e., time-consuming] to copy and paste it and to get the formatting right, and I couldn't copy ANY of the tables and graphs...so I recommend that you follow the link to get the whole thing.)
The Low-Wage Recovery and Growing Inequality
Summary
This report updates NELP’s previous analyses of job loss and job growth trends during and after the Great Recession. We find that:
1 During the recession, employment losses occurred throughout the economy, but were concentrated in mid-wage occupations. By contrast, during the recovery, employment gains have been concentrated in lower-wage occupations, which grew 2.7 times as fast as mid-wage and higher-wage occupations. Specifically:
..........• Lower-wage occupations were 21 percent of recession losses, but 58 percent of recovery growth.
..........• Mid-wage occupations were 60 percent of recession losses, but only 22 percent of recovery growth.
..........• Higher-wage occupations were 19 percent of recession job losses, and 20 percent of recovery growth.
2 The lower-wage occupations that grew the most during the recovery include retail salespersons, food preparation workers, laborers and freight workers, waiters and waitresses, personal and home care aides, and office clerks and customer representatives.
3 The unbalanced recession and recovery have meant that the long-term rise in inequality in the U.S. continues. The good jobs deficit is now deeper than it was at the start of the 21st century:
..........• Since the first quarter of 2001, employment has grown by 8.7 percent in lower-wage occupations and
............ by 6.6 percent in higher-wage occupations.
..........• By contrast, employment in mid-wage occupations has fallen by 7.3.
4 Industry dynamics are playing an important role in shaping the unbalanced recovery. We find that three low-wage industries (food services, retail, and employment services) added 1.7 million jobs over the past two years, fully 43 percent of net employment growth. At the same time, better-paying industries (like construction; manufacturing; finance, insurance and real estate; and information) did not grow, or did not grow enough to make up for recession losses. Other better-paying industries (like professional and technical services) saw solid growth, but not in their mid-wage occupations. And steep cuts in state and local government have hit mid- and higher-wage occupations the hardest.
In short, America’s good jobs deficit continues. Policymakers have understandably been focused on the urgent goal of getting U.S. employment back to where it was before the recession (we are still missing nearly 10 million jobs), but our findings underscore that job quality is rapidly emerging as a second front in the struggling recovery.
After two years of growth, the good jobs deficit continues
In what follows, we analyze data from the Current Population Survey (CPS), the main government survey providing information on wages and occupations for U.S. workers (see Appendix for details on data and methods).
Specifically, we examine employment trends in 366 detailed occupations. We formed three equal groups, each representing a third of U.S. employment in 2008: lower-wage occupations with median hourly wages from $7.69 to $13.83; mid-wage occupations with median hourly wages from $13.84 to $21.13; and higher-wage occupations with median hourly wages from $21.14 to $54.55 (all in 2012 dollars).
We then tracked net employment changes in these three groups over time, as shown in Figure 1. The red bars show net losses in employment during the recession (2008 Q1 to 2010 Q1). The orange bars show net growth in employment during the recovery (2010 Q1 to 2012 Q1). The pattern is striking.
During the Great Recession, employment losses occurred across the board, but were concentrated in mid-wage occupations. By contrast, in the recovery to date, employment growth has been concentrated in lower-wage occupations, which grew 2.7 times as fast as mid-wage and higher-wage occupations:
• Lower-wage occupations constituted 21 percent of recession job losses, but fully 58 percent of recovery growth.
• Mid-wage occupations constituted 60 percent of recession job losses, but only 22 percent of recovery growth.
• Higher-wage occupations constituted 19 percent of recession job losses, and 20 percent of recovery growth.
Figure 2 shows the lower-wage occupations that grew the most during the recovery, and their median hourly wages. (Of these, six are also among the top ten occupations projected to add the most jobs by 2020). In terms of jobs that have struggled to come back, Table 1 lists the mid-wage occupations that currently have the biggest job deficit relative to pre-recession employment levels.
The long-term rise in inequality continues
The U.S. labor market was already in trouble before the Great Recession, the result of 30 years of growing wage inequality and shrinking numbers of good jobs (see the recent CEPR report). But the twin trends described here – mid-wage occupations experiencing the biggest losses during the recession, and lower-wage occupations growing the most during the recovery – have only exacerbated the growth in inequality.
In Figure 3, we illustrate the longer-term trend by analyzing employment growth in occupations since the start of the century. The logic of the analysis is similar to the one above. Beginning with the first quarter of 2001, we formed three equal groups of occupations, each representing a third of U.S. employment, and tracked net employment growth through the first quarter of 2012.3
The graph shows a steady rise in inequality from 2001 to 2008, with lower- and higher-wage occupations experiencing more growth than mid-wage occupations (which barely saw gains in employment). But the hollowing out of the middle became even more pronounced during the recession and continues to leave its mark on the recovery. Specifically:
• Since the first quarter of 2001, employment has grown by 8.7 percent in lower-wage occupations and by 6.6 percent
..in higher-wage occupations.
• By contrast, employment in mid-wage occupations has declined by 7.3 percent since the first quarter of 2001.
In addition, the wages paid by these occupations has changed. Between the first quarters of 2001 and 2012, median real wages for lower-wage and mid-wage occupations declined (by 2.1 and 0.2 percent, respectively), but increased for higher-wage occupations (by 4.1 percent).
Which industries are driving the unbalanced recovery?
Understanding differences in occupational growth requires understanding trends at the industry level. As shown in Figure 4, different sectors of the U.S. economy have seen different patterns of job loss and job growth, both during and after the Great Recession (in this section, we analyze BLS Current Employment Statistics data). In addition, the mix of occupations has also changed in some industries. Our analysis of both of these dynamics suggests the following four drivers of the unbalanced recovery to date:
#1: Large low-wage industries are dominating growth during the recovery
Three low-wage industries have added 1.7 million jobs in the recovery and constitute 43 percent of total net growth: food services, retail, and administrative, support and waste management services (largely employment services, i.e., temp jobs). The majority of growth within these industries (76 percent) occurred in their lower-wage occupations.
#2: Key mid-wage and high-wage industries are either not growing, or not growing enough to make up for recession losses
Steep losses in construction, FIRE (finance, insurance and real estate), and manufacturing during the recession created a large deficit in mid-wage occupations. These industries are not showing enough growth, and especially in the case of construction, are unlikely to get back to pre-recession levels any time soon. There has also been a long-term and continuing decline in the information sector, contributing to the deficit of higher-wage jobs. Finally, deep cuts in state and local government during the recovery (a loss of 485,000 jobs since February 2010) occurred largely in mid- and higher-wage jobs.
#3: Some mid- and high-wage industries are growing, but that growth has been unbalanced
In a number of better-paying industries, recovery growth has not been evenly distributed and has contributed to the good jobs deficit. In wholesale trade, recession losses were concentrated in mid-wage occupations, but growth has been concentrated in lower-wage occupations. In educational services and social assistance, recent growth has been strongly polarized between lower- and higher-wage occupations. And the recovery in professional and technical services has been concentrated in higher-wage occupations, leaving a significant mid-wage gap in this sector.
#4: The bright spots: several mid- and high-wage industries have seen balanced growth
Even though it lost more than a million and a half jobs during the recession, durable manufacturing has been one of the key drivers of the U.S. recovery, and importantly, growth in this sector has been concentrated in mid-wage occupations; similarly for transportation and warehousing. As important, the health care sector has seen solid employment growth across the occupational distribution. Without these industries, the recovery would have been even more unbalanced and skewed toward lower-wage occupations.
The Low-Wage Recovery and Growing Inequality
Summary
This report updates NELP’s previous analyses of job loss and job growth trends during and after the Great Recession. We find that:
1 During the recession, employment losses occurred throughout the economy, but were concentrated in mid-wage occupations. By contrast, during the recovery, employment gains have been concentrated in lower-wage occupations, which grew 2.7 times as fast as mid-wage and higher-wage occupations. Specifically:
..........• Lower-wage occupations were 21 percent of recession losses, but 58 percent of recovery growth.
..........• Mid-wage occupations were 60 percent of recession losses, but only 22 percent of recovery growth.
..........• Higher-wage occupations were 19 percent of recession job losses, and 20 percent of recovery growth.
2 The lower-wage occupations that grew the most during the recovery include retail salespersons, food preparation workers, laborers and freight workers, waiters and waitresses, personal and home care aides, and office clerks and customer representatives.
3 The unbalanced recession and recovery have meant that the long-term rise in inequality in the U.S. continues. The good jobs deficit is now deeper than it was at the start of the 21st century:
..........• Since the first quarter of 2001, employment has grown by 8.7 percent in lower-wage occupations and
............ by 6.6 percent in higher-wage occupations.
..........• By contrast, employment in mid-wage occupations has fallen by 7.3.
4 Industry dynamics are playing an important role in shaping the unbalanced recovery. We find that three low-wage industries (food services, retail, and employment services) added 1.7 million jobs over the past two years, fully 43 percent of net employment growth. At the same time, better-paying industries (like construction; manufacturing; finance, insurance and real estate; and information) did not grow, or did not grow enough to make up for recession losses. Other better-paying industries (like professional and technical services) saw solid growth, but not in their mid-wage occupations. And steep cuts in state and local government have hit mid- and higher-wage occupations the hardest.
In short, America’s good jobs deficit continues. Policymakers have understandably been focused on the urgent goal of getting U.S. employment back to where it was before the recession (we are still missing nearly 10 million jobs), but our findings underscore that job quality is rapidly emerging as a second front in the struggling recovery.
After two years of growth, the good jobs deficit continues
In what follows, we analyze data from the Current Population Survey (CPS), the main government survey providing information on wages and occupations for U.S. workers (see Appendix for details on data and methods).
Specifically, we examine employment trends in 366 detailed occupations. We formed three equal groups, each representing a third of U.S. employment in 2008: lower-wage occupations with median hourly wages from $7.69 to $13.83; mid-wage occupations with median hourly wages from $13.84 to $21.13; and higher-wage occupations with median hourly wages from $21.14 to $54.55 (all in 2012 dollars).
We then tracked net employment changes in these three groups over time, as shown in Figure 1. The red bars show net losses in employment during the recession (2008 Q1 to 2010 Q1). The orange bars show net growth in employment during the recovery (2010 Q1 to 2012 Q1). The pattern is striking.
During the Great Recession, employment losses occurred across the board, but were concentrated in mid-wage occupations. By contrast, in the recovery to date, employment growth has been concentrated in lower-wage occupations, which grew 2.7 times as fast as mid-wage and higher-wage occupations:
• Lower-wage occupations constituted 21 percent of recession job losses, but fully 58 percent of recovery growth.
• Mid-wage occupations constituted 60 percent of recession job losses, but only 22 percent of recovery growth.
• Higher-wage occupations constituted 19 percent of recession job losses, and 20 percent of recovery growth.
Figure 2 shows the lower-wage occupations that grew the most during the recovery, and their median hourly wages. (Of these, six are also among the top ten occupations projected to add the most jobs by 2020). In terms of jobs that have struggled to come back, Table 1 lists the mid-wage occupations that currently have the biggest job deficit relative to pre-recession employment levels.
The long-term rise in inequality continues
The U.S. labor market was already in trouble before the Great Recession, the result of 30 years of growing wage inequality and shrinking numbers of good jobs (see the recent CEPR report). But the twin trends described here – mid-wage occupations experiencing the biggest losses during the recession, and lower-wage occupations growing the most during the recovery – have only exacerbated the growth in inequality.
In Figure 3, we illustrate the longer-term trend by analyzing employment growth in occupations since the start of the century. The logic of the analysis is similar to the one above. Beginning with the first quarter of 2001, we formed three equal groups of occupations, each representing a third of U.S. employment, and tracked net employment growth through the first quarter of 2012.3
The graph shows a steady rise in inequality from 2001 to 2008, with lower- and higher-wage occupations experiencing more growth than mid-wage occupations (which barely saw gains in employment). But the hollowing out of the middle became even more pronounced during the recession and continues to leave its mark on the recovery. Specifically:
• Since the first quarter of 2001, employment has grown by 8.7 percent in lower-wage occupations and by 6.6 percent
..in higher-wage occupations.
• By contrast, employment in mid-wage occupations has declined by 7.3 percent since the first quarter of 2001.
In addition, the wages paid by these occupations has changed. Between the first quarters of 2001 and 2012, median real wages for lower-wage and mid-wage occupations declined (by 2.1 and 0.2 percent, respectively), but increased for higher-wage occupations (by 4.1 percent).
Which industries are driving the unbalanced recovery?
Understanding differences in occupational growth requires understanding trends at the industry level. As shown in Figure 4, different sectors of the U.S. economy have seen different patterns of job loss and job growth, both during and after the Great Recession (in this section, we analyze BLS Current Employment Statistics data). In addition, the mix of occupations has also changed in some industries. Our analysis of both of these dynamics suggests the following four drivers of the unbalanced recovery to date:
#1: Large low-wage industries are dominating growth during the recovery
Three low-wage industries have added 1.7 million jobs in the recovery and constitute 43 percent of total net growth: food services, retail, and administrative, support and waste management services (largely employment services, i.e., temp jobs). The majority of growth within these industries (76 percent) occurred in their lower-wage occupations.
#2: Key mid-wage and high-wage industries are either not growing, or not growing enough to make up for recession losses
Steep losses in construction, FIRE (finance, insurance and real estate), and manufacturing during the recession created a large deficit in mid-wage occupations. These industries are not showing enough growth, and especially in the case of construction, are unlikely to get back to pre-recession levels any time soon. There has also been a long-term and continuing decline in the information sector, contributing to the deficit of higher-wage jobs. Finally, deep cuts in state and local government during the recovery (a loss of 485,000 jobs since February 2010) occurred largely in mid- and higher-wage jobs.
#3: Some mid- and high-wage industries are growing, but that growth has been unbalanced
In a number of better-paying industries, recovery growth has not been evenly distributed and has contributed to the good jobs deficit. In wholesale trade, recession losses were concentrated in mid-wage occupations, but growth has been concentrated in lower-wage occupations. In educational services and social assistance, recent growth has been strongly polarized between lower- and higher-wage occupations. And the recovery in professional and technical services has been concentrated in higher-wage occupations, leaving a significant mid-wage gap in this sector.
#4: The bright spots: several mid- and high-wage industries have seen balanced growth
Even though it lost more than a million and a half jobs during the recession, durable manufacturing has been one of the key drivers of the U.S. recovery, and importantly, growth in this sector has been concentrated in mid-wage occupations; similarly for transportation and warehousing. As important, the health care sector has seen solid employment growth across the occupational distribution. Without these industries, the recovery would have been even more unbalanced and skewed toward lower-wage occupations.
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God @The Tweet of God
— God @The Tweet of God
-
Econoline
- Posts: 9607
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
- Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans
Re: This could bring the US to its knees
Here's another article, which argues that "job polarization" and the disappearance of employment in what the authors call "routine occupations" (e.g., machinists, factory workers, bank tellers, secretaries, file clerks et al--formerly solid, middle-income occupations) may represent a permanent structural change in the labor market: middle-income occupations are going away, leaving only low-income and high-income occupations and a big hole in the middle.
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God @The Tweet of God
— God @The Tweet of God
-
oldr_n_wsr
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: This could bring the US to its knees
If you are working in fast food and expecting them to provide you skills that would get you into a better, higher paying job (other than being a ff manager) you are deluding yourself.Crackpot wrote:How do you get those skills if your job doesn't provide a means to get them?
Still need to read the other posts after Crackpots
-
oldr_n_wsr
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: This could bring the US to its knees
Scholorships, loans, workstudy (all things my children did to help us put them through college).Econoline wrote:Go to college, of course.Crackpot wrote:How do you get those skills if your job doesn't provide a means to get them?
Next question: how do you afford college while working for 9 bucks an hour?
And not everyone is college material. The trades are a better path for many. While the pay for apprentices is low, as your skills/time in increase, so does your pay.
Plumbers, car mechanics (car technicians now), HVAC techs and the like are all in demand. I know of people (from the meetings) in all three trades who are so busy they are averaging 6 days a week 10 hours a day. And their hourly rate is well over $9/hour. But of course one needs to want to work, and really work.
Re: This could bring the US to its knees
That's such old fashioned thinking. Our government should provide lifetime jobs with a living wage for people with no skills.oldr_n_wsr wrote:But of course one needs to want to work, and really work.
Oh wait...
...our government already does that.
Re: This could bring the US to its knees
Oldr--I have a friend who was a class a car mechanic most of his working life, working for several dealers, and since the late 80s his wages steadily eroded. He worked for car dealerships, had tools estimated (conservatively) at $10,000, and yet year after year the hourly wages dropped. He went from getting a salary, to a guarantee of 25-30 billed hours a week, to no guarantee, and an hourly wage of around $35 to around $12 at the time he retired (and no benefits); this at major dealers like BMW, Lexus, and Mercedes (that bill something like $200 an hour for repairs). Perhaps he could have gotten some money together to open his own shop, but he was a mechanic not a businessman.
The trades are not all that some think they are.
The trades are not all that some think they are.
Re: This could bring the US to its knees
oldr_n_wsr wrote:Scholorships, loans, workstudy (all things my children did to help us put them through college).Econoline wrote:Go to college, of course.Crackpot wrote:How do you get those skills if your job doesn't provide a means to get them?
Next question: how do you afford college while working for 9 bucks an hour?
And not everyone is college material. The trades are a better path for many. While the pay for apprentices is low, as your skills/time in increase, so does your pay.
Plumbers, car mechanics (car technicians now), HVAC techs and the like are all in demand. I know of people (from the meetings) in all three trades who are so busy they are averaging 6 days a week 10 hours a day. And their hourly rate is well over $9/hour. But of course one needs to want to work, and really work.
And how does one pay for such training? There aren't many scholarships for trade school. Not to mention the additional problems if you have a child to provide for. You should never take a functioning familial support system for granted.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
-
oldr_n_wsr
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: This could bring the US to its knees
While my parents pitched in for my college, I dropped out after 2 years. After that I was on my own. I went to electronic technical training school (Suburban technical school formerly Sylvania Tech, 9 month course) and worked nights (at Roy Rogers) and weekends (at a beer distributer) while attending. The gov provided some support in the form of CETA (forgot what CETA stands for but thanks Jimmy Carter) Got a pretty good job as an electronic technician, and had a knack for it too. Worked my way up from systems tech (lowest rung) to bench tech to modular tech to lead tech. Found out the company had a tuition plan and went to school at night and got my degree. Went on to be a engineering tech to jr engineer to engineer to sr engineer all before finishing my degree. Worked my butt off to get ahead. Got married and had two children while working and going to school. My wife stayed home when the kids were young and when they were finally in regular school she only worked 9-2 so she was there to get them on/off the bus. We did without for many years. We were married in 1984 (son born in 85, daughter in 89) and my wife got her first brand new car in 1999. My new car came in 2001. Her second new car came in 2009. Don't know when mine is coming as I like my car (PT Cruiser) Chrysler stopped making them and I don't like most new cars out there now.And how does one pay for such training? There aren't many scholarships for trade school. Not to mention the additional problems if you have a child to provide for. You should never take a functioning familial support system for granted.
After 24 years, 11 months and 2 and 1/2 weeks at Chyron, in the fall of 2008, I got laid off. I am still making $20K less than I was (in part due to my own fault took up with the alcohol after being laid off). But we're making do. Wife still only works 9-2 but she is looking for full time employment (which is not going well).
I know it's tuff out there. I know personally and through my wife and kids employment prospects.
But do we just pay no skill jobs a skill job pay scale?
As Big RR points out, a highly skilled mechanic is getting squeezed.
I admit, the middle class is gettign destroyed and if the middle class gets destroyed, the USA will cease to exist. When 47% are or have been on some type of gov support (unemployment, disability, food stamps, etc) there is a fundamental problem.
Is the solution to pay no skill jobs, skilled job wages? I doubt it.
ETA
And the tech schools are a help in getting loans and weeding through grants and scholorships too. They want people in their seats as much as colleges do, perhaps more so.
-
oldr_n_wsr
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: This could bring the US to its knees
I do fear for this country and for my kids future. Things have been going down hill for a long time now even if my personal situation mostly went up. I am not be as well off as my parents were at this point in life and my kids probably won't be as well off as I am at this point.
I tried to instill in them a good work ethic and pride in a job well done. To always do more than you are asked to do, to go above and beyond.
A saying I used to tell them is:
If all you ever do is your job, then that's all you will ever do.
I tried to instill in them a good work ethic and pride in a job well done. To always do more than you are asked to do, to go above and beyond.
A saying I used to tell them is:
If all you ever do is your job, then that's all you will ever do.
Re: This could bring the US to its knees
The USA needs socialism more than ever.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
-
Econoline
- Posts: 9607
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
- Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans
Re: This could bring the US to its knees
I'll have a longer post later, or maybe over the weekend, but for now a few quick points in response to oldr:
If the wages at fast food restaurants (such as the Roy Rogers you worked at) had gone up at the same rate as tuition, I'll bet those wages would be WAY more than $15/hr by now. That entry level job as an electronic technician probably requires a 4-year degree as a basic credential to get in the door nowadays. Company benefits like the tuition plan that helped you get your engineering degree have been going away for years. It also used to be possible for a young couple to get by on only one full-time income (hell, even one part-time income if you really scraped) and that's gone away. And it's odd that you'd think the fact that 47% are or have been on some type of government support was a fundamental problem, when just a couple of paragraphs back you said that you had gotten help from CETA, the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act.
ETA: Also too:
If the wages at fast food restaurants (such as the Roy Rogers you worked at) had gone up at the same rate as tuition, I'll bet those wages would be WAY more than $15/hr by now. That entry level job as an electronic technician probably requires a 4-year degree as a basic credential to get in the door nowadays. Company benefits like the tuition plan that helped you get your engineering degree have been going away for years. It also used to be possible for a young couple to get by on only one full-time income (hell, even one part-time income if you really scraped) and that's gone away. And it's odd that you'd think the fact that 47% are or have been on some type of government support was a fundamental problem, when just a couple of paragraphs back you said that you had gotten help from CETA, the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act.
(Note that that legislation was introduced by a Democratic Representative and a Republican Senator, and signed into law by a Republican POTUS; how likely is it that that could ever happen in today's political atmosphere?)The Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA, Pub.L. 93–203) was a United States federal law enacted by the Congress, and signed into law by President Richard Nixon December 28, 1973[1] to train workers and provide them with jobs in the public service. The bill was introduced as S. 1559, the Job Training and Community Services Act,[2] by Senator Gaylord Nelson (Democrat of Wisconsin) and co-sponsored by Senator Jacob Javits (Republican of New York). The program offered work to those with low incomes and the long term unemployed as well as summer jobs to low income high school students. Full-time jobs were provided for a period of 12 to 24 months in public agencies or private not for profit organizations. The intent was to impart a marketable skill that would allow participants to move to an unsubsidized job. It was an extension of the Works Progress Administration program from the 1930s.
ETA: Also too:
"If we started in 1960 and we said that as productivity goes up, that is as workers are producing more, then the minimum wage is going to go up the same. And if that were the case then the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour," she [Sen. Eliozabeth Warren] said, speaking to Dr. Arindrajit Dube, a University of Massachusetts Amherst professor who has studied the economic impacts of minimum wage. "So my question is Mr. Dube, with a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, what happened to the other $14.75? It sure didn't go to the worker."
Dube went on to note that if minimum wage incomes had grown over that period at the same pace as it had for the top 1 percent of income earners, the minimum wage would actually be closer to $33 an hour than the current $7.25.
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God @The Tweet of God
— God @The Tweet of God
Re: This could bring the US to its knees
Yeah, I remember Warren saying that; I meant to post about it but it slipped my mind..."If we started in 1960 and we said that as productivity goes up, that is as workers are producing more, then the minimum wage is going to go up the same. And if that were the case then the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour," she [Sen. Eliozabeth Warren] said, speaking to Dr. Arindrajit Dube, a University of Massachusetts Amherst professor who has studied the economic impacts of minimum wage. "So my question is Mr. Dube, with a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, what happened to the other $14.75? It sure didn't go to the worker."
She really embarrassed herself by showing what a simple minded ignoramus she is in economics. What an ass showing display...
Improvements in productivity come primarily from technological advances and improvements in efficiencies and rationalization of production process, things that are brought about by investment not workers working harder...
Is she really stupid enough to think that people are now working 3 times harder or faster than they were in 1960?
Did this college professor ever even take an Econ 101 course?
Or does she really know better and was just cynically pandering to the ignorant?
(there's plenty of that going on on both sides; Ted Cruz is pretty good at it too....)
