I guess I just see this differently from a lot of you. Maybe it’s because I grew up in a working class family in a working class neighborhood.
I saw my father come home dead tired every day. He may have been “unskilled” but he worked hard and that sure as hell should count for something. He earned every cent of his union wages. His union medical insurance probably saved my life.
The gentleman in this article probably should try to unionize. However, he lives in a “right to work” state which can make that difficult.
You’re not the only one that came from a working class family. My grandfathers both worked in the steel mills for a living, but were determined to give their kids a better shot at things. My parents raised us on hourly wages while they went to night school, one at a time, so they could make a few extra dollars an hour at some point. Now we kids are climbing the ladder even higher. My uncles and cousins are doctors and small business owners not by fortune, but by hard work. And I don’t wear a tie to work every day by accident.
So don’t try to play the “I was poor, so I get it” card. We all get it. In fact, those of us that are unfazed by this man’s story probably feel that way because we were once there, too. And we know there are things that can be done to stop it.
Unfortunately, the hamsters ate my last long post about your father, but I was going to say that while I’m sure your father scraped by, and he may have bitched about it to his friends or coworkers, I bet he didn’t think it was unfair or that he was somehow being screwed over. If he did, he was wrong.
The article says the average worker makes $8-$10/hr.
Yes, it’s right. People should not be forced to give money to other people, and if the other person doesn’t or can’t bring anything to the table, why should they expect more money? This guy doesn’t make any money because he’s not worth very much. Is his company to blame for his lack of value?
No, he didn’t think it was unfair, because he did make a decent living, because of his union. I was making a point against the idea that unskilled labor doesn’t deserve a decent living. He worked hard and he deserved what he got but he likely wouldn’t have gotten it without the union.
Which would make sense if this guy were living in Bangladesh, but first-world countries (including the US and most of Europe) most certainly DO need more people. Feel free to check this, but it’s my understanding that the US is experiencing positive population growth almost entirely because of immigration, and population growth is something that is good for our economy.
My politics fall left of center, and I always cringe when I hear people demand a “living” wage. Partly because, as Shodan says, what qualifies as “living” can be pretty arbitrary, and partly because over-inflating minimum wage is a horrible way to solve social issues*.
If you think an unacceptable number of people are unable to meet their needs through full-time employment, then devise a way to help them meet those needs (cough government-funded health care cough) that doesn’t involve inflating the costs of items produced by sub-living-wage workers. More expensive employees = more expensive goods and services, and you’re right back where you started.
**I think some mandated minimum wage makes sense, but not that that should be high enough to be a “living” wage.
I think the OP would have been better served by not mentioning the expensive commute so prominently, not bringing up the idea of a minimum wage, which isn’t really relevant if he isn’t making minimum wage, or using the phrase “living wage” in the thread title. There wouldn’t be any injustice going on that needs correcting, we couldn’t really complain about the guy’s wages or argue that somebody should force them to pay him more—if the company genuinely couldn’t afford to pay him any more than they already are, and his employers were already treating him as well as they could. In that case, “too bad, so sad” is all we really could say.
From the article, it sounds like the big problem is that the company bigwigs—the salaried workers—may be greedy, insensitive bastards, lining their own pockets at the expense of the lowly workers. If this is really what’s going on, it sounds like the kind of problem that unions are really made for.
Without seeing his whole household budget, it’s hard to say what the best advice for him is.
However, I reject the implication that merely because someone works hard, they are somehow entitled to some unspecified minimum standard of living. They are entitled to whatever wage a willing employer pays them for their skill. I think it’s absurd that just because Tiger Woods has the skill of hitting a little white ball into a far away hole using very few swings of a club, he’s given large amounts of money. But that’s between Tiger and the people willing to pay him.
This. I don’t know if it’s due to less unionization or what, but this situation – upper execs making an absolute killing while workers’ wages stagnate – did not used to be the norm. I don’t think this should be shrugged off so easily.
I’m not sure where exactly this guy lives – his profile just says Tennessee. And I don’t know anything about home prices in Tennessee. But here in California, a 700 square foot apartment in San Francisco or San Jose is not necessarily cheaper than a house 45 minutes away. And I know that in some areas, there aren’t many apartments outside of the major cities.
I make significantly more than this guy makes (though far less than his supervisors), and I live in a 280 square foot studio. But I also don’t live in Tennessee. You can’t ignore location. People commute for a reason, and very often that reason is because it’s cheaper to do so. This guy likely can’t afford to live near his job, even in an apartment (keeping in mind that a tiny studio isn’t an option with a child).
The thought of the wrong kind of people raising a family in modest comfort at the expense of a few extra millions to already multi-millionaires is quite offensive to fiscal conservatives. This shouldn’t shock anyone paying attention that dollars are only sacred and owed to the haves, because market forces are sancrosanct and only workers should be competing for lower wages with third worlders. Nevermind that even in this country in living memory, it used to not be this way.
I’m not so sure that is possible anymore. Can you imagine someone with a family making 8$/hr affording night school? My parents were able to work thier way through college and had $0 loan debt when they graduated… unless you really luck up and find a great paying, flexible-hour job, this simply isn’t possible. I don’t know what the solution is, but it seems more people had an easier path to prosperity years ago than they do now.
True, but in the Bay Area at least a lot of people who wanted to get a house they could afford were forced to go a long way from work to do it. Their responsibility screwed them in two ways - high gas prices caused their expenses to go up, and the crash making houses closer more affordable hurt their house price even more.
With 8% unemployment his employer would theoretically have no problem. Now if the pool of people lived far away and couldn’t afford to get to work at the wages offered the employer would have a problem. But you know what happens next - the employer bitches about how lazy workers are now because he has jobs that he can’t fill at the offered salary.
If a person can’t find work, he is a lazy bum who is enjoying being unemployed. If a person is working at a low salary, he is a lazy bum who should have more skills to get salaries like the rest of us have. I think you sum up the conservative position very nicely.
We have no idea of what his value to the company is. Presumably it is more than $8 an hour plus benefits. Perhaps it is a lot more, and that delta between productivity and pay contributes to the bottom line, and the CEOs big salary. All that is required is for companies to share some of the productivity improvements seen in the last decade or so with workers, and not give it all to execs. Do that and the companies can stop moaning about how no one wants to buy their products. They’d be able to afford to.
That’s a dumb shit argument. I give money to our local food bank, whose clients are hurting a lot more than the guy in the OP is. But people who work hard, who go to work every day and are productive, shouldn’t need charity. We’re not asking for the government to help these people, we are asking for their employers to steer a bit more of what these people make for them back to their pockets.