Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

What determines how your life will be?

1235

Replies

  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 25,584 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    Haven't seen work ethic mentioned.

    Work ethic is a belief that work and diligence have a moral benefit and an inherent ability, virtue or value to strengthen character and individual abilities.[1] It is a set of values centered on importance of work and manifested by determination or desire to work hard. Social ingrainment of this value is considered to enhance character through hard work that is respective to an individual's field of work

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_ethic

    Note, it's my belief that strong work ethic transfers over to good in one's personal life.

    My aunt was just talking about how she despairs for her 16 yo grand daughter. Mom made a lot of comparisons of where I was at the same age. My aunt said that me going into the military was probably the best thing that ever happened to me. I think that is a little strong, but it certainly did instill a good work ethic. But more along the lines of "Much work is tedious drudgery, and it is important to do it well, no matter how distasteful or boring."

    (And who knew how valuable the health care would turn out to be?!? At the time (80s) I just wanted money for college and to travel.)
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 25,584 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    Haven't seen work ethic mentioned.

    Work ethic is a belief that work and diligence have a moral benefit and an inherent ability, virtue or value to strengthen character and individual abilities.[1] It is a set of values centered on importance of work and manifested by determination or desire to work hard. Social ingrainment of this value is considered to enhance character through hard work that is respective to an individual's field of work

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_ethic

    Note, it's my belief that strong work ethic transfers over to good in one's personal life.

    My attitude has always been "work smarter not harder." I quit a job once because they wanted me to hand type information from one database into another. I told them it's error prone, slow, and needlessly expensive; I can write them a query to do the entire job. They insisted it must be hand typed. I said "sorry, I'm not doing something that dumb." Constructive laziness is a big part of what separates good software developers from mediocre ones.

    You're my hero :)
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 25,584 Member
    What a sad commentary.  My grandparents' generation could buy a home and raise a family on a janitor's salary, now there is no state in the union where a full time job at minimum wage can pay for a two bedroom apartment.

    bfpzrzk82k881.jpg

    Yes, I'm living in the house my grandfather bought in 1959. My mother took it over in 1995. At the time, she would not have been able to purchase it outright on her salary, and she had a master's degree. (In social work, but a master's nonetheless.) I would not have been able to purchase it outright on the white collar salary I had before I lost my job to COVID, and I do not have children and their associated expenses.
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    What a sad commentary.  My grandparents' generation could buy a home and raise a family on a janitor's salary, now there is no state in the union where a full time job at minimum wage can pay for a two bedroom apartment.

    bfpzrzk82k881.jpg

    True, but also look at what the average house in your grandparents generation looked like compared to now in regard to size, features, etc.

    So it is obviously the identical size, but we are most of the way through a $100,000 renovation, which included adding heat to one room, and AC to the upstairs and most of the downstairs. And we are getting the whole house generator installed tomorrow, woo hoo! (We're fairly rural in a pine forest, so lose power a lot, and are at the bottom of the priority list for getting it restored. My mother and grandfather were ok with not having power for days at a time, but my partner and I are not.)
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 25,584 Member
    gb7deq9ulo8h.png
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,881 Member
    This sounds crazy to me, but it costs $800 for a season pass to Stevens Pass. 🤯 (I don't do that kind of skiing, we ski up the hill in order to go back down, I've never been on a lift and don't know how they work.)

    The company that runs the place isn't willing to pay a fair salary. Like many other companies, they are facing an employee shortage. 60% of their resort is closed because they don't have enough staff to fully open. In the last 2 days, 15,000 pass holders have demanded a 60% refund on their $800. Many are threatening to sue.

    I don't have access to their financials, but my hunch is it would have been cheaper to just pay their people fairly.
  • threewins
    threewins Posts: 1,064 Member
    Here's my opinion. People start off roughly the same, and then there are two (well, more than two) factors which can cause your life to be pushed in a direction that it might not have been pushed otherwise. Illness and having children. One of both of these has a significant effect on your lifestyle. I don't have children, this has given me a freedom which I wouldn't have had otherwise. On the other hand, I've had a significant illness for many years which has given me less control on my life (and finances) and significantly reduced the quality of my life.

    It's not just these two factors, of course, I'm sure that there's a whole menu of things which can derail your life, or make it better.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,881 Member
    qra8ye2cgw981.jpg
  • glassyo
    glassyo Posts: 6,351 Member
    qra8ye2cgw981.jpg

    Exactly! Those blizzards aren't gonna make themselves!
  • SuzySunshine99
    SuzySunshine99 Posts: 2,712 Member
    glassyo wrote: »
    qra8ye2cgw981.jpg

    Exactly! Those blizzards aren't gonna make themselves!

    To be clear, I do NOT agree that these jobs shouldn't pay a living wage.

    But, the people who make that argument aren't saying that no one should work those jobs. Their point is that no one should be relying on these jobs as a primary source of income. They say they should be filled by teenagers, who presumably are still supported by their parents, or people looking for supplementary part-time income.

    Great...in a fantasy world. The reality, of course, is that some people HAVE to rely on jobs like this to live and support their families, as they may not be qualified for a higher-paying position.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 7,549 Member
    But, the people who make that argument aren't saying that no one should work those jobs. Their point is that no one should be relying on these jobs as a primary source of income. They say they should be filled by teenagers, who presumably are still supported by their parents, or people looking for supplementary part-time income.

    Thats fine if those jobs are part time.

    so, sure, I agree nobody should be expecting to work a very part time entry wages job and make enough to live on - those sort of part time jobs are intended for students, semi retirees, household 2nd incomes etc - not as a full time job you can live on.

    Problem is when such job is actually full time and still not enough to be a basic living wage.

    or people are working part time jobs because nothing full time is available to them rather than because they chose that as a supplementary income- but they are still expected to live off that.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,881 Member
    Also remember a lot of jobs are part time because that way the company won't have to provide benefits. A lot of people work multiple part time jobs because that's what's available to them. ☹️
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 7,549 Member
    Also remember a lot of jobs are part time because that way the company won't have to provide benefits. A lot of people work multiple part time jobs because that's what's available to them. ☹️

    Genuine question: what benifit do they not provide to part time employees?

    Because here in Australia they do. You get annual leave sick leave, superannuation etc in proportionate amounts.
    Even casual workers who do more than a couple of hours a week get superannuation.

  • SuzySunshine99
    SuzySunshine99 Posts: 2,712 Member
    Also remember a lot of jobs are part time because that way the company won't have to provide benefits. A lot of people work multiple part time jobs because that's what's available to them. ☹️

    Genuine question: what benifit do they not provide to part time employees?

    Because here in Australia they do. You get annual leave sick leave, superannuation etc in proportionate amounts.
    Even casual workers who do more than a couple of hours a week get superannuation.

    Zero benefits.

    No health insurance, no sick leave, no vacation time, no retirement funds. Nothing.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 24,464 Member
    Also remember a lot of jobs are part time because that way the company won't have to provide benefits. A lot of people work multiple part time jobs because that's what's available to them. ☹️

    Genuine question: what benifit do they not provide to part time employees?

    Because here in Australia they do. You get annual leave sick leave, superannuation etc in proportionate amounts.
    Even casual workers who do more than a couple of hours a week get superannuation.

    Zero benefits.

    No health insurance, no sick leave, no vacation time, no retirement funds. Nothing.

    This is the correct answer, but I'm going to amplify one tiny thing because the question came from someone in another country.

    Companies and workers are each required to pay into social security (theoretically our federal safety net retirement/disability program). That applies to most part-time workers. Eventual benefits (if any) will depend on annual eligible income levels over a long period of years.

    Even for the highest earners (for whom a cap on employee/employer maximum annual payment applies), they would receive a benefit amount that would be difficult to live on, if that were the only source of retirement. Some people manage it. For low wage full-time workers, it's even lower. For people with a lot of part-time-only years in the mix, the benefit is very, very low, possible zero.

    Depending on the state the person lives in, a part time worker may also have very limited (at best) unemployment benefits (if fired under certain defined circumstances, say), or workers compensation benefits (which pay some costs if someone is injured on the job).

    These things are very minor, not consequential as benefits, to part-time workers, as a generality. I just wanted to mention those things, because how all of this works is very different across different countries.

    I agree with the general concept that part-timers get zero, as the correct general statement.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 7,549 Member
    Ok - well that is quite different here.

    Permanant part time gets exactly same benifits as permanant full time - but in proportionate amounts to hours worked - so, for example, I would get the equivalent of 6 days Sick Leave per year if I worked part time, 6 days per week
    Full time gets 10 days.

    That is different to casual - casual workers get a higher hourly rate to compensate for not getting leave entitlements.

    But they still get employer superannuation, unless they work only a couple of hours per week.

    and all are protected by workers compensation - as well as covering your medical costs if injured at work, you are paid the equivalent of your average wages
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,867 Member
    edited January 8
    Ok - well that is quite different here.

    Permanant part time gets exactly same benifits as permanant full time - but in proportionate amounts to hours worked - so, for example, I would get the equivalent of 6 days Sick Leave per year if I worked part time, 6 days per week
    Full time gets 10 days.

    Just to add one thing, there are different kinds of part time. I am most familiar with salaried part time (I have not done it, but it is available where I work and I know people at my office and elsewhere who are part time), and in those kinds of jobs you typically get benefits (although paid time off would be likely based on percentage of time you worked and vary employer to employer anyway). In general there are going to be big differences between types of jobs.

    What people are talking about, of course, is federal requirements for certain benefits (that they aren't required doesn't mean no one gets them). With health insurance in particular, employers are only required to offer health insurance to employees who work more than 30 hours per week (there are other health insurance options under ACA if one does not have employer-provided insurance). Social security is based on income (some jobs don't get soc sec but other options like govt workers and pensions -- which are actually more generous than SocSec by a lot where I live). The US generally doesn't have any requirements for paid time off, that tends to be up to the employer (and will often have to do with what the employer has to offer to be competitive). There are requirements for unpaid, but they vary based on reasons for the leave and the hours you work.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,881 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Also remember a lot of jobs are part time because that way the company won't have to provide benefits. A lot of people work multiple part time jobs because that's what's available to them. ☹️

    Genuine question: what benifit do they not provide to part time employees?

    Because here in Australia they do. You get annual leave sick leave, superannuation etc in proportionate amounts.
    Even casual workers who do more than a couple of hours a week get superannuation.

    Zero benefits.

    No health insurance, no sick leave, no vacation time, no retirement funds. Nothing.

    This is the correct answer, but I'm going to amplify one tiny thing because the question came from someone in another country.

    Companies and workers are each required to pay into social security (theoretically our federal safety net retirement/disability program). That applies to most part-time workers. Eventual benefits (if any) will depend on annual eligible income levels over a long period of years.

    Even for the highest earners (for whom a cap on employee/employer maximum annual payment applies), they would receive a benefit amount that would be difficult to live on, if that were the only source of retirement. Some people manage it. For low wage full-time workers, it's even lower. For people with a lot of part-time-only years in the mix, the benefit is very, very low, possible zero.

    Depending on the state the person lives in, a part time worker may also have very limited (at best) unemployment benefits (if fired under certain defined circumstances, say), or workers compensation benefits (which pay some costs if someone is injured on the job).

    These things are very minor, not consequential as benefits, to part-time workers, as a generality. I just wanted to mention those things, because how all of this works is very different across different countries.

    I agree with the general concept that part-timers get zero, as the correct general statement.

    The reason this fact is important:

    Used to be part time job meant done by a youth after school, or there wasn't enough work for full time. Now it's done to improve profits by reducing employee retention costs at the farm of poor people doing the actual work.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,881 Member
    We (as a society; actually beyond that because most societies agree on this) allow people to make money by lending money and charging interest. But there's a limit. You can charge 20% interest, not not 80 %, which is usury.

    That's what minimum wage is. You can leverage other people's labor to make a profit. If you're able to use it in an innovative way you can make a lot of profit while providing a useful product or service, and opportunity. But you can't pay your people $1 an hour and make them shop at the company store.

    I think people agree with both examples; the debate is a matter of degree not kind. We all want to live in a world where a rising tide floats all boats.