Because he might be living with his parents and working his way through college? Or something like that.
Lack of a living wage is the bane of American society.
The earners making 21 to 79 percent of the nation’s income have been bamboozled into paying taxes toward social programs that support the nation’s bottom 20% of income earners and program recipients. While the wealthy top 1% and 10% earners tell everyone that they need tax breaks because they are creating so many “jobs” that really don’t pay sustainable wages.
Depending on your family size, it might not be cost effective to take a job that doesn’t pay a sustainable wage because the loss of benefits from social programs can result in greater losses to the family’s bottom line than the benefits from working increase it.
Lack of a sustainable living wage is bad for business in the long run. It creates a population that is better served by social programs that provide basic necessities rather than offering the opportunity to obtain basis necessities (housing, health care, child care, food, etc) through earned income.
They already begin 45 % above national minimum wage. These folks make more starting than I do after a decade of working for the Church. Inside job, air conditioning, not live hanging chickens or cleaning the floor in a meat plant.
Basic supply and demand. If the labor force is plentiful, an employer can lower their wages, if there aren’t enough workers, they need to raise the wages.
Or cheat and bring in illegal workers.
But that makes perfect sense, Church work is often close to charity and they have access to a large pool of available staff.
So if 45% of nat’l min wage doesn’t fill these hard jobs, then the wage should keep climbing till they are filled.
Remember the oil field boom in Dakota? Really REALLY crappy work and POOR conditions, but they were able to get people to come and fill their jobs. Just an anecdote to show the labor market does work, and US citizens will do any job if the pay and benefits are right.
What we need to do is to face the reality that there is a shortage of people who are willing/able to fill entry level jobs. That throwing money at the problem was supposed to help, so, many companies have raised their entry level wages. There is a McDonalds a few miles up the road who is so desperate for employees they are offering cash bonuses for new hires who stay with the job for 6 months.
Again you refuse to just let the labor market do it’s thing, you immediately run to support the business owner with a supply of cheap and pliable foreign workers.
What McDonalds is doing is fantastic, not something to criticize as a problem indicator.
I don’t see any criticism of McDonalds. In fact they should be praised for their ads for educational assistance as it shows long-term concern for their employees.
I see criticism of the lack of supply of entry workers in that McDonalds is forced to make abnormal offers to try fill their open positions. It’s used as an example of why we need more immigrant labor.
Seasonal farm work is really the only area I see that justifies large importation of temporary worker and even there I feel it should be legal so that the temp workers have basic rights and working conditions.
Social welfare programs primarily support the bottom 20% of of the country’s earners, as well as those without work. Because these social programs are means-tested (income based), it often doesn’t pay to take an entry level job since the earned wages won’t compensate for the lost assistance.
We’ve got to increase the asset and income levels for recipients and restructure these means-tested programs in a tiered way that will help people get into the work force and eventually off of public assistance.
Fast food restaurants and grocery stores were a main staple of jobs for teens and college students. Why do we need migrant labor for these jobs? Did teens and young adults quit looking for part-time at these places following the Great Recession? Or do these businesses prefer older workers?
I just don’t understand why the youth aren’t filling these positions since these jobs are an excellent source for building soft skills in the work environment.
Or cheat and buy foreign goods manufactured by virtual slaves.
I talked to an oil field worker who says it’s even worse in the tar sand fields of Canada. But the pay is outstanding and all you have to do is show up and you’re hired. Even though it’s brutal work and worse conditions, he does it.
A quick words about that. I have some familiarity with that work and those conditions. Live hang is about the worst job there is in a poultry plant, but it pays better than other jobs. So does maintenance. It’s almost difficult NOT to get promoted in a poultry plant, and the benefits are pretty good. Also, there’s lots of overtime available.
But I’ll agree that a lot of poultry (and other meat producing) plants “cheat” but not many by knowingly hiring illegals. What they do instead is make deals with NGOs that “sponsor” UN-designated “refugee” groups. I know of one poultry plant in which five languages are spoken. That kind of thing allows employers to resist pay raises because the “refugees” are getting support of other kinds by the NGOs, who do it with government money.
So are you agreeing that business owners (no matter their political affiliation) tend to cheat?
“Tend to” suggests that it’s pervasive. I do say many cheat in some manner. But for the most part, the “cheating” is legal. Take Walmart, for instance. They buy goods that are cheap because they’re made by slaves or near-slaves in foreign countries. It’s legal, but morally, it’s “cheating” in my estimation.
Then why did you equate illegal cheating with legal activities?
This is part of the story. The other part is that the price that customers are willing to pay for goods or services constrains the compensation of people involved in the service. The idea that a labor shortage is some how good misses the broader picture. It is not good for anyone if labor shortages lead to business failures.
They secure goods at prices that their customers are willing to pay. And while you can afford to decry the conditions that workers endure, it is probably true that for most, the opportunity provided by this work is great step forward in economic vitality.
Present one time where I have stated what you claim.
I have been pro work visa program because people who are willing to work deserve the chance TO work.
It is indicative of the lack of workers willing to fill jobs.
Did I criticize? No. I stated a fact. Please, retract your accusation.
Take a poll at the next PTA meeting. Parents today feel that their teen is better off loaded down with travel elite sports teams than working a part time job.
College students are encouraged to take out loans instead of working part time jobs.
The programs support the unemployed temporarily while they seek re-employment. They also support those whose ability to work is compromised such disabled, elderly, children. The restructuring of these programs happened in the '90’s, but the myths seem to endure.
That very point was made by Rep Malinowski in conversation with his constituents. The kids are off to coding camp, not doing summer yard work, with the belief that the former provides more important skills than the latter.