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?
Options
Replies
-
When I was in college (1973-77), a large decent state university, quite a number of my fellow students were able to swing attending college by working a summer job (nothing grand, waitressing or cleaning hotel rooms was common), and working part time during the academic year while going to school full time. (The guy I later married went to school part time, I think half time or a bit more, worked part time but closer to full time, paid his way fully that way.)
That wasn't possible by the time I was in school, not without loans and grants, of course, and I'm not young, so the idea that this is some new thing is one I disagree with. I do think there's a problem with HOW inflated college costs have gotten (although there are still schools that give a lot of need-based aid and there are often better avenues for students not aiming for careers that actually require college) and I think we need to address some of the reasons costs have so greatly exceeded inflation. Also, there should be state schools in every state where it is still possible, although I also think people need to think through what they will do with the degree (I took on a ton of loans, but had an understanding of what I would have to do to pay them off).I couldn't afford a house when I graduated from college, even though I got a decent job (annual salary $11,000-something), but the problem was indeed the mortgage rates, at 9-16%, and the then-standard 20% down requirement (didn't have savings yet). I can't recall how much houses cost here, then. (We bought this one in 1992 for $76,000. This is a low real estate cost area, still. Estimated value of my house has more than doubled, nearly tripled, without any major improvements. Zillow says it's 2.7 times higher, but I'd say that's a little high based on selling prices recently nearby. It's not a fancy location, and extremely not a fancy house.)
Real estate costs vary extremely dramatically by location, yes. Often the discussion is dominated by the most high cost places, and I think that's a mistake (although yes costs are generally higher in a broader variety of places and the lower cost places -- and I know of a lot of pretty low cost places within my own state -- tend to have poor job markets, although supposedly we are all supposed to be happy now that there's more flexibility in where people can live, bc of commuting, so that should address some of the issue).
Even within the metro area where I live, there are huge variations in housing costs (and within areas large differences in rent costs based on type of unit). There are lots of pretty moderately priced rentals where I am that are still in older buildings and the like. Yeah, definitely not 2-beds affordable by one minimum wage salary (absent getting a subsidized unit, and there are also some subsidized units), but I don't think that was ever an expectation, really, and has become less so as the percentage of the population who makes min wage has declined a lot -- minimum wage at most should be a starting salary for an unskilled job, not a wage on which a single person raises a family.
Here's an interesting stat: https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2020/home.htm#:~:text=The percentage of hourly paid,(See table 10.)
"The percentage of hourly paid workers earning the prevailing federal minimum wage or less declined from 1.9 percent in 2019 to 1.5 percent in 2020. [Note: this fluctuation is likely due to coronavirus.] This remains well below the percentage of 13.4 recorded in 1979, when data were first collected on a regular basis. (See table 10.)"
Also: "Age. Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented just under one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up 48 percent of those paid the federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers (ages 16 to 19) paid by the hour, about 5 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with 1 percent of workers age 25 and older."1 -
I think this has been mentioned, but it's important to reiterate when talking about cost-of-living...
More affluent areas that have a high cost-of-living tend to have a higher density of hotels, restaurants, resorts, and entertainment venues. These industries rely on minimum wage earners for their day-to-day operations. But those workers cannot afford to live anywhere near where they work. So, they are either forced to make an unmanageable commute, or live in sub-standard, poverty-level housing.
A resort-type area where we vacation sometimes has decided to provide housing to their seasonal employees, since they would not be able to afford their own housing in that area.
It's great in theory to point out that you can get an apartment in West Virginia for $425. Are there jobs there? Decent schools? Would a person of color be welcomed or even accepted in rural W. Virginia?3 -
When I was in college (1973-77), a large decent state university, quite a number of my fellow students were able to swing attending college by working a summer job (nothing grand, waitressing or cleaning hotel rooms was common), and working part time during the academic year while going to school full time. (The guy I later married went to school part time, I think half time or a bit more, worked part time but closer to full time, paid his way fully that way.)
That wasn't possible by the time I was in school, not without loans and grants, of course, and I'm not young, so the idea that this is some new thing is one I disagree with. I do think there's a problem with HOW inflated college costs have gotten (although there are still schools that give a lot of need-based aid and there are often better avenues for students not aiming for careers that actually require college) and I think we need to address some of the reasons costs have so greatly exceeded inflation. Also, there should be state schools in every state where it is still possible, although I also think people need to think through what they will do with the degree (I took on a ton of loans, but had an understanding of what I would have to do to pay them off).
(snip some other good discussion)
At the major state university in question, per-credit-hour fees roughly tripled between the mid-1970s and the mid-1980s. Increases were fast, pretty evenly spaced over the years. Over the same period, federal minimum wage went up from $2.20/2.30 to $3.35 - not remotely keeping pace.
It wouldn't have taken long - i.e., being in college later than I was by only a few years - before the same institution would've been unaffordable on the "work your way through" basis that I was seeing in the early/mid 1970s. (In this particular case, the cost increases were multi-factor, but one key piece here was state government contributions to higher education shrinking fast during that period).
The earlier edge of the boomer generation got relatively affordable higher education, IMO. The mid-range is where that started to unravel. By the later end of the boomer age group, higher ed was much more expensive, the big loans were common, etc. (There was also a lot of change in things like scholarships and grants - who was eligible, and for how much - over that period. I'd have to refresh my memory for details, but recall that the rules were volatile.)
I absolutely agree that there are many good avenues to jobs, not just higher ed - higher ed is frequently oversold as that path. Personally, I do think it's regrettable that we've pretty much lost the affordability of higher education for most anyone who wants it as life enhancement (which I think it is, or can be), and is willing to put in a few years of effort (work + the education itself) to get there. It's so expensive that now it utterly must pay off in career earnings, for non-wealthy people. I think there's some societal loss in that.
I was a liberal arts major, ended up in an IT career. That education was beneficial big time in my career, IMO, possibly in some nonobvious ways. To me, the life value of the totality of the higher ed experience, in quality of life terms, was an even bigger deal, but that's maybe eccentric.
In terms of the thread, though, I think education can potentially be an element in "success" broadly defined, i.e., beyond payoff in earning potential. That perception will be individual, of course.
1 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Here's something on the minimum wage thing that seems pretty reasoned: https://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/politifact-majority-of-minimum-wage-earners-in-1968-could-support-family/2171338/.
I question possible bias in this article based on source mentioned:
Robin Gahan, director of programs at the Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy, pointed us to a December 2013 report by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank that advocates boosting the wage
Do you dispute any of the facts in the article? Nothing seemed unusual to me2 -
Personally, I do think it's regrettable that we've pretty much lost the affordability of higher education for most anyone who wants it as life enhancement (which I think it is, or can be), and is willing to put in a few years of effort (work + the education itself) to get there.
I agree -- that's why I wish there was some way to have at least some state options that mimicked what used to be. In looking at my own (private) alma mater, I see some changes that I think are part of the problem -- it is much more luxurious, and there is significant admin bloat. But that school (like many other private schools of its type) does provide a lot of need-based aid now, as back when I went there (even if you still cannot generally work your way through).
When I was in high school I was obsessed with colleges, and there were various good (or just funny) college guides that were up-to-date, but I found this late '60s (maybe early '70s) guide aimed at people who were part of/attracted to the counter culture. I found that part bizarre/amusing (the college I ended up going to was dismissed as largely straight or establishment or some such), but the tuition and room and board numbers blew my mind in an opposite way as those today.
That all aside, I think the rhetoric about the problem being that too few people go to college and that everyone should is damaging. We should instead do a better job at giving people alternatives that also lead to good, well-paying careers, like in the trades. My high school had a career training option for jrs and srs where you eventually got matched with internships and got good job training as well as a high school education, and I think that kind of thing would be great for some. While I loved school and would have wanted to go to college regardless of my later career, I think it's true that many do not, and have no need for or value from college (and many, many "colleges" these days are glorified and overly expensive trade schools anyway), so if one can have a track that leads there without that cost, that would be better. I think one problem is most policy-makers tend to be people like you and me who loved school and therefore assume most would if they had the same basic experience. I don't think that's a fair assumption.2 -
Personally, I do think it's regrettable that we've pretty much lost the affordability of higher education for most anyone who wants it as life enhancement (which I think it is, or can be), and is willing to put in a few years of effort (work + the education itself) to get there.
I agree -- that's why I wish there was some way to have at least some state options that mimicked what used to be. In looking at my own (private) alma mater, I see some changes that I think are part of the problem -- it is much more luxurious, and there is significant admin bloat. But that school (like many other private schools of its type) does provide a lot of need-based aid now, as back when I went there (even if you still cannot generally work your way through).
When I was in high school I was obsessed with colleges, and there were various good (or just funny) college guides that were up-to-date, but I found this late '60s (maybe early '70s) guide aimed at people who were part of/attracted to the counter culture. I found that part bizarre/amusing (the college I ended up going to was dismissed as largely straight or establishment or some such), but the tuition and room and board numbers blew my mind in an opposite way as those today.
I worked at the university for 30 years after graduating from it. Part - definitely not all! - of the administrative bloat was regulatory. The scope of higher-ed-specific regulation increased a lot starting in the 1970s, ditto for research and research-funding regulation. (I'm not saying that's a bad thing - mostly positive, in fact, IMO: Research safety and ethics, careful accounting for grant research funds, nondiscrimination, and more.) We had whole big departments devoted to various areas of regulatory compliance, and they weren't sitting on their hands.
An unappreciated aspect of large universities is that so. many. kinds. of regulations apply. Education and research, sure; but many also run health centers and hospitals, some have full police departments (ours did), all the employment regs apply, etc.
Higher ed is staffing-centric, too. Like other institutions depending on people-centric functions, the impact of things like health care cost increases were massive. Over my work life, health care costs went from literally a small number of bucks a month per person to hundreds. With a workforce of 10,000 or so full time workers (faculty, dorms, grounds, admin, etc.) that's a big deal.
I went to a hippie-esque residential college within the giant state university, BTW. It was a good resting place for slackers, but also a good place for people who really wanted to dig into diverse multidisciplinary topics. I had a self-designed (faculty overseen) concentration in computer programming and applications, within the hippie-dippie-liberal-artsy context (analyze! synthesize! integrate!). That was triggered by a computer graphics class (so primitive, then!) that I probably wouldn't have been exposed to in another setting. It worked out well, for my tastes.0 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Here's something on the minimum wage thing that seems pretty reasoned: https://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/politifact-majority-of-minimum-wage-earners-in-1968-could-support-family/2171338/.
I question possible bias in this article based on source mentioned:
Robin Gahan, director of programs at the Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy, pointed us to a December 2013 report by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank that advocates boosting the wage
Do you dispute any of the facts in the article? Nothing seemed unusual to me
To be honest I didn't fact check it but the antennae always go up when I see something coming from a liberal/conservative think tank.
To be clear, you don't even suspect that any of the facts are untrue but you don't believe it anyway? Ok.2 -
Just interested in people's perspective is all.
How far does our beginning in life go towards creating who we are? And what other factors do you feel come into play?
I attribute a lot of where I am now to my Christian upbringing, and the fact that my parents read to me and encouraged me to read from a very early age, and the fact that my family travelled, and the fact that my parents got me onto a bicycle at the age of 5 or 6.
We were probably a little below middle class most of my early years .. actually probably until my 30s. So wealth didn't come into it and still doesn't. I had to work hard and didn't have a lot of things just handed to me and that's still the case in many respects.
Am I successful? I suppose I am in some areas. Not in the fame and fortune sense, and that doesn't interest me. But in the sense of being reasonably content with a bit of restlessness and curiosity thrown in.
2 -
The reason we need to raise the minimum wage is that people working full time qualify for and collect welfare. I don't like my tax dollars subsidizing Walmart shareholders, and I'm guessing you don't either. Anybody working full time should make enough not to qualify for food stamps.6
-
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.)4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »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 1 -
NorthCascades 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.
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: »NorthCascades 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.
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.)3 -
4 -
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.2 -
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.1 -
4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
Exactly! Those blizzards aren't gonna make themselves!0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
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.3 -
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.1 -
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. ☹️4
-
NorthCascades 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. ☹️
The primary goal of a corporation is to increase the wealth of the shareholders. Employees are resources. That's why we call it the Human Resources Department. We used to call it Personnel. Well, now that (in the USA) corporations "are people," we call it HR. Employees are expendable. Like the old growth forests of our past, they are there to harvest and collect wealth from.
Employers who only hire part time workers to avoid paying benefits, employers who pay less than a living wage such that employees have to go on the public dole to survive, and employers who in so many ways mistreat employees.... They are the only reason that I think hell should exist. It doesn't, and all we have is this one spin of the wheel, so we should just recognize these practices as evil and do our best to reduce the wealth of the shareholders.
As long as I'm stirring this pot, can I please urge anyone who can to make at least a small financial contribution to your LOCAL food bank. Putting food in people's bellies is one of the greatest gifts. Giving cans of food in can drives is fine, but the food bank has resources to buy so much MORE food for equivalent dollars - please just give them money. Please.
Please.
6 -
NorthCascades 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.
0 -
paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades 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.3 -
I've realized another factor that determines how your life will be....what country were you born in?
Given the wide range of governments, laws, and societal norms, the part of the world in which you are born in/live can have a considerable impact on your likelihood to succeed in life.
I'm not JUST talking about countries that provide universal health care, family leave, etc.
I mean that it's a serious detriment to success if you are born in a country that does not guarantee equal rights for everyone, and openly suppresses certain populations.8 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades 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.3 -
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 wages0 -
paperpudding wrote: »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.1 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades 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.0 -
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.2 -
paperpudding wrote: »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.
yes the whole system seems different - here in Aus you can't work permanant full time or permanant part time and NOT get annual leave, sick leave etc
All employers have to follow Award conditions and wages and those are basic requirements.
Casual is different - but the hourly rate is higher to compensate for lack of leave benifits.
and of course the whole health insurance issue is null and void - everyone is covered by medicare and if people want private health insurance on top of that they take it out themselves, is not an employer issue.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396.8K Introduce Yourself
- 44.2K Getting Started
- 260.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 450 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.3K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.5K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3.1K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions