Speaking as a working class USA resident, I admire him for working at an entry-level job. Chances are, he’ll end up working for his parents’ business (or taking it over), opening up his own, or joining a large corporation as a high-level manager. In any case, his humble experiences at doing menial work will guide him to treat his future employees with respect. This way, everyone will enjoy a productive and friendly work environment.
Yeah, but in practice they are both going to college anyway: the A student is going to college regardless: the $500 will be a TV in his dorm room and ordering pizza a bit more often, where as the C student will just borrow $500/less. And, at least in these scholarships, it’s unlikely the grades that make the difference; it’s two B students, but one was class president, volunteered at camp each summer, and played varsity football. The other was in co-op and delivered pizzas.
One scholarship that I’ve got right now is a pretty good compromise; it’s awarded on a merit basis, but the size of the scholarship is need-based. It’s a theatre scholarship, awarded by audition, and the chair of the department who judged the auditions sends a prioritized list to the financial aid office. The FinAid office just looks at the list, decides what #1 gets, then what #2 gets, until the money runs out. I think it’s a pretty good compromise.
Do we even know that he doesn’t need it to eat? Are his parents automatically going to provide for him? If my kids think they can sponge off me rather than earn their own money, they are going to get very hungry.
If the kids of every millionaire (by US$ valuation) in the world took grunt jobs, first thing out of college (or out of HS if they didn’t go to college), the effect on the labor market would be so small, nobody would bother to measure it. Even in our new Gilded Age, there just aren’t THAT many millionaires, and only a small fraction of them at any time would have kids in the right age bracket.
Oh, agreed, read the rest of my posts. Only because other people don’t think he’s got a financial need, doesn’t mean the need isn’t there. But I also think that freedom and self-respect, while perhaps not required to stay alive, are required to be able to live with yourself.
When I was a teenager I used to think, “My family is doing fine, and if I look for a job I may take the position from someone out to feed his family”. Let’s consider this was in Italy where there was an employment rate, I believe, of about 12 or 15 % on a national level, and about 20% where I lived. So I honestly believed I was doing a good thing leaving whatever job position I would have applied for to those that needed it.
However, the end result was that I lived with my parents until I was 26, with lots and lots of frustration for my lack of economic independence. Furthermore, my skills were in the IT field, and this in a time where in Italy there were very few skilled people around. I could have been able to be independent much earlier, save a bit and have a wider range of job experiences, and I would have appreciated this by now.
As for the kid the OP mentions, I admire his spirit and wish I’d done the same, but I understand the doubts about taking jobs from those that need it, because I thought the same.
Definitely. When I was broke, and finishing up graduate school, I decided I needed a job to help pay the bills, and had a job at a large chain sporting goods store within about 3 hours of starting the search.
It paid $7.25 an hour, and I got somewhere between 20 and 40 hours a week, depending on what was going on.
Most truly minimum-wage, entry level jobs here (Texas) are either done by teenagers (of all income levels), or by Hispanic immigrants. And, I’d wager that even the immigrants are making more than minimum wage, because many of them work in skilled or semi-skilled construction trades.
There are very, very few strictly minimum-wage jobs around here(mostly McD’s burger flipper type jobs), and the majority of those are filled by teenagers.
I feel I need to set the record straight on how having wealthy parents helps your career. Companies don’t hire 22 year old college graduates as Managing Directors just because their parents were wealthy. They hire them as Managing Directors if their dad is the CEO of that company. More often than not, their family connections may help get them internships at the types of large companies that offer the potential to make a lot of money later on. Half the interns at my consulting firm are sons or nieces or whatever of some senior partner.
So maybe a better question is “is it right for some millionares kid to take entry level jobs that others might be better qualified for?”
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Although I respect your opinion, I’d like to offer my own.
My husband is a junior partner at a major law firm. Do I “need” to work? Financially speaking, no, my husband’s income can support both of us just fine. But I still am working - for a non-profit to be specific. I work because I have hopes, dreams, and career goals of my own. I’ve been with this company for almost a year now and I show up on time and I never felt like this job is a “hobby” but I don’t need this job to survive. I do the best job I can for a variety of reasons: I believe in my company’s goals and mission and I like helping people. I would be really heartbroken to know that my prior experience was irrelevant and I was discriminated against for employment just because I don’t “need” to work.
I will admit that sometimes I do feel bad because the non-profit sector pays pretty poorly, and my co workers are struggling to make ends meet - but then why should I? I work hard and I am proud of my work, and I’d probably be doing this job anyways regardless of my husband.
Sorry I just reread the post title and it said “menial” job. Ignore my previous post and carry on.
I guess i can use this to pose another question to the debate: Is it right for a millonaire’s kid to work in a “career” job that others might need? Does the Dope think its ok for a rich kid to pursue a career vs. menial jobs?
Well, I’m hoping my congressman votes to build a wall around that rich kid’s house so he can’t take the jobs that other Americans could be working.
And I wouldn’t take an accounting job for a million bucks unless I had to. Maybe it’s not his bag, either.
Again, same answer. If he takes a job, any job, he is adding to the productivity of the economy and creating more jobs than he’s taking away.
Jobs are not some finite resource that have to be parcelled out like minerals or rations. Jobs are how we create wealth. More people working equals more wealth. He would be doing far more harm to the economy, and other people, by NOT taking a job.
Vice, I eventually left the non-profit field because the wages were so low. It seems that to afford a career in most non-profits, you need to have a spouse who makes a much better slalary than you do. I think it’s a systematic problem that drives some very good people away from work at which they excel.
However, I wouldn’t expect you to feel guilty because you can afford to work in a low-paying field. Ethically, I would expect you to advocate better salaries and benefits for non-profit employees, whether or not you personally need them.
>I’m honestly completely ambivalent on the whole thing…
This is an excellent OP. I too see a real ethical dilemma here, at least at first.
But I agree with the excellent answers that point out the economy isn’t a zero sum game and that the kid would be occupying a made up or valuable job if he did work for the parents.
I conclude the kid should go out and find a real job and am glad that he thinks so too. Moreover, I think that if he does inherit a great deal of wealth then he will be important in society, for good or ill, and for the practical benefit of tomorrow’s world it may be more important to give a job to him than to somebody who, today, needs it desparately.
How dare those Kennedy kids work, when their family has so much wealth. How dare Julian Lloyd Webber become a noted cellist and give the word such good music when his brother is a (self-made) multi-millionaire. How dare they?
Just because your relatives have money doesn’t mean you shouldn’t contribute to the world.
Being the son of a millionaire, I’m highly amused to read that some believe I have a lesser right in regards to feeding my own kids and fulfilling my career goals.
Why isn’t the question “Should millionaires stop working after they reach a million dollars?” or some such other foolishness?
On a Bill Cosby show, one of the chldren was talking about how “we have money.” Cliff replied: “We” don’t have money. Your mother and I have money. You have nothing.
>Why isn’t the question “Should millionaires stop working after they reach a million dollars?” or some such other foolishness?
Now that you mention it, OK, I’ll bite. Why shouldn’t they? Because it isn’t a zero sum game, as long as that’s actually true. Is the game so completely nonzero sum? Are there any reasons that the very wealthy should stop their work? Is the answer so clear that the question is foolish?
A related question is whether people who are getting older shouldn’t step aside and let younger people move up into their position. I’ve read a few discussions of this that make it sound like it’s NOT a zero sum game, and a company needs a mechanism of clearing older workers out of their positions. While I am slowly creeping up on retirement age I’ve been thinking about this, particularly thinking about how to find or create a role that doesn’t block other up-and-comers.