McDonald's Can't Figure Out How Its Workers Survive on Minimum Wage

[1AugustSon7]

Your dad was prescient on that point. When it became common for both parents to work, it very soon became a necessity for them both to work. That’s not a particularly good thing, but I don’t know how to put that genie back in the bottle.

I wondered about this trend too. I sometimes think more modern models have no conception of over-employment, something former Soviet bloc countries had to deal with. The difficulty with our model is that over-employment would seem to encourage unnecessary indebtedness in order for consumption to keep up with production. I think that this might be happenig. In our age even more than in the industrial one our capacity to produce is bewildering. I know factories in China that can -I kid you not- produce over 250,000 microvwaves in a single day.

That’s one factory.

 

[1AugustSon7]

You seem to be arguing for a pay differential based on the size of an employee’s family. That is, if an employee has a family to support, then he should be paid more than one who doesn’t. So, to take the prior example of Julianna about a General Schedule job in the Civil Service: two employees doing the exact same job, one single, one with ten kids. The one with ten kids should be paid substantially more in order to support his family?

There may have been some support for that sort of idea at one time. I mentioned previously that my first employer did actually pay married men more for the same job than single men.

But now, whether in civil service or in private employment, it would be entirely illegal to do so. The EEOC, the NLRB, the Justice Department and a few other agencies would be all over such an employer imposing draconian penalties. There would be lawsuits and big settlements.

Also, one has to remember that wage payments are income to the employee but an expense item to an employer. All expenses have to be recovered in prices if any employer is to be profitable. And if expenses including wage expenses increase, so will prices. Rising prices hurt consumers and make it more difficult for the poor to live.

However, another way to equalize things for those with dependents is to greatly increase the dependency exemption and the child care credit. Those have never kept up with inflation.

That was a very parient and thoughtful analysis, thank you for it. But no I am not thinking of anything rigid at all; more based on the needs of the employee or his family and in consideration, naturally, of the business. I am not thinking of anything like a rigid equation or an absolute payment value or ratio. I’m thinking more in terms of negotations, so to speak, between workers and their employers, with the belief that employers should be especially sensitive and considerate of the needs of families. I am not, as Julianna seems to be thinking, talking about some new hierarchical caste system of wages.

 

[JimG]

I wondered about this trend too. I sometimes think modern models had no conception of over-employment, something former Soviet bloc countries had to deal with. The difficulty with our model is that over-employment would seem to encourage unnecessary indebtedness in order for consumption to keep up with production. I think that this might be happenig. In our age even more than in the industrial one our capacity to produce is bewildering. I know factories in China that can -I kid you not- produce over 250,000 microvwaves in a single day.

That’s one factory.

There was a time when a mortgage agency underwriting home loans would not consider a spouse’s income as part of the qualifying income because it was thought to be impermanent. Only the primary breadwinner’s income was considered. That policy didn’t last long and was soon abolished in favor of considering all income equally.

Soon, two income families were the rule. Family incomes went up, so they bought higher priced homes with more expensive upkeep. But home prices also went up. There was more demand for them and more money chasing them. The Fed was giving away money at near zero rates, driving up prices even more. Naturally when the bubble burst, everybody got hurt.

But now, we’ve all gotten locked into the “two incomes are necessary” way of life. Stay at home moms feel guilty about not making money, so they go to work. Kids are the losers.

 

[aemcpa]

But now, we’ve all gotten locked into the “two incomes are necessary” way of life. Stay at home moms feel guilty about not making money, so they go to work. Kids are the losers.

Not everyone buys the lie, thank God.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Finally, we all have care for one another. It’s called being responsible and social. The worker is working: we’re not talking about some hippie who wants to just smoke pot all day, eat Doritos and be paid by the government for doing so.

So my not-for-profit business can’t afford to pay for my family? Curious why I am taking all of this time to run and manage a business wherein I am apparently only making a living wage. Why not just work at McDonald’s? Oh wait, that’s minimum wage!

Your are free to take every last single dollar of yours and help everyone you want.

The problem with these discussions is that the people commenting is that none of them actually runs their own business by their own standards…it’s very obvious.

People treat businesses like that are just simply endless money pits that can throw money at people whenever they want or need it. 99% of businesses simply can’t do this. Take the profit incentive away, and the owner just shuts the business down. Or start giving one employee more money for reasons other than productivity, and the other employees and business suffer as a result.

Do you mean do I try to take of my employees and make sure they aren’t starving? Or if someone has just had a child and comes into my office and I know why? Why I would be a practical man and take your advice, of course, and I would the former employee starve and laugh the latter out of my office or - if I am in an especially good mood - I let them tell me how they’re struggling and, after they’re done whining, tell them, “If I had a son do you think I should cut into other people’s wages ? Is it my fault you got your wife pergnant? No. Now go put some more coal on the fire, Bob Cratchit. And I suppose you’ll be wanting the whole day off on Christmas now, too, eh? Just another excuse to pick a man’s pocket!”

You are free to take all of your money and do what you wish with it. You are not free to take other people’s money and do what you wish with it. The Founding Father’s stated what happens when a society discovers they can spend other people’s money.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

But now, we’ve all gotten locked into the “two incomes are necessary” way of life. Stay at home moms feel guilty about not making money, so they go to work. Kids are the losers.

I’m old fashioned in this regard…my wife stayed home for the first several years we had young kids. Only recently did she start working again, and it is during the kids school hours. I also didn’t expect the people I was working for at the time to pay me for having children and having my wife stay home. I got off my butt, bettered myself, and started my own business. That’s what the head of a household is supposed to do for their family. Complaining gets one nowhere.

 

[JimG]

I’m old fashioned in this regard…my wife stayed home for the first several years we had young kids. Only recently did she start working again, and it is during the kids school hours. I also didn’t expect the people I was working for at the time to pay me for having children and having my wife stay home. I got off my butt, bettered myself, and started my own business. That’s what the head of a household is supposed to do for their family. Complaining gets one nowhere.

Maybe old fashioned is making a small comeback. My niece and her husband were on of the few people I know who got jobs right out of college, he in tech, she in teaching. She planned on continuing to work even with kids, but when the first one arrived, she changed her mind, because being a mom really is a full time job.

 

[1AugustSon7]

There was a time when a mortgage agency underwriting home loans would not consider a spouse’s income as part of the qualifying income because it was thought to be impermanent. Only the primary breadwinner’s income was considered. That policy didn’t last long and was soon abolished in favor of considering all income equally.

Soon, two income families were the rule. Family incomes went up, so they bought higher priced homes with more expensive upkeep. But home prices also went up.

I think the increase in home prices could only be explained by perceived demand and consumers’ willingness to pay. House prices like to disregard other products in their tendency to -when production of them is sustained and continues- decrease over time. Computers are much cheaper than they were before, for example.

There was more demand for them and more money chasing them. The Fed was giving away money at near zero rates, driving up prices even more. Naturally when the bubble burst, everybody got hurt.

Well to be sure the whole world knows that there were plenty of loans that were prima facie insane being given out during that period for houses. Canadian banks were aware of this going on in the States and avoided the whole sordid affair like the pest. I don’t think low interest loans were necessarily the problem nor even the acquisition of property by some, but rather that it was the excess of it (people playing the property baron) and the subsequent speculation.

But now, we’ve all gotten locked into the “two incomes are necessary” way of life. Stay at home moms feel guilty about not making money, so they go to work. Kids are the losers.

Yes I agree it is the kids that are the losers. And yes this generation is locked in it. My friend who married some seven or eight years back worked three jobs at one point while his wife worked full time also. He’s 29 and he looks like he’s 40 now. It of course nearly cost him his marriage to boot; he was never home. This was to pay for a small house (his brother and his wife rented the basement) and their 2 kids. There were four jobs between two people. They’ve patched things up now and I think he’s managing on his primary source of income- it’s a pretty good job the way they and wages go, though it’s unionized and there’s no doubt the new owner wants to be rid of it. They made moves recently that might allow them to shift increasngly to non-union work.

I still think there is a connection between over-employment and indebtedness, though, in our modern system: the whole fear is entirely around a drop in consumer consumption. Consumers must buy; to buy, they must produce, even if it means buying more stuff (or junk) they would or could ever need and spending more time at work then they would otherwise dream of doing; and even if it means accumulating truly absurd amounts of debt. I think this plays a large part in the wonkiness and perplexity of modern economics.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Your are free to take every last single dollar of yours and help everyone you want.

The problem with these discussions is that the people commenting is that none of them actually runs their own business by their own standards…it’s very obvious.

The context here is not, as we’d say, ‘mom and pop shops’, which from my perspective would include even large regional chains. I am talking multi-nationals. If you knew how they worked and thought you wouldn’t have any problems demanding they paid a living wage to their employees; I sympathize completely with small or simply even smaller businesses. They tend to work and think in much more human terms.

People treat businesses like that are just simply endless money pits that can throw money at people whenever they want or need it.

I don’t think that. The living wage, e.g., is not an absurd demand. Here, where I live, it would be $14. That’s a joke; this city is exceptionally expensive to live in thanks in part to our Commie mayor but also the large university it hosts, which drives up rents to levels you see in much, much larger cities. A single person here might reasonably get by on $14. He won’t, however, be dating.

99% of businesses simply can’t do this.

The way you framed it no business can or would.

Take the profit incentive away, and the owner just shuts the business down.

Of course.

Or start giving one employee more money for reasons other than productivity, and the other employees and business suffer as a result.

Productivity does not determine wages in a lot of businesses. Wage is based on what the company can get away with and sustain itself; it has nothing to do with productivity or value added considerations. Profit motivation can become a double-edged sword: it also becomes an incentive and excuse or pseudo-justification to be rapacious. The way people trained in modern neoliberal economics think, it is simply impossible to justify thinking in terms of justice or fairness: it’s not enough to ensure you made economic profit this quarter: No! You must be sure you are making it again and still more next quarter, otherwise you’re headed to oblivion. This mentality is so consuming that any expense is seen as a dangerous liability and eyed for destruction. Any proposed increase in especially labour costs at the lowest level - general labour - is heresy. Why do you think these guys took off to China whenever they could? And they are even sometimes leaving there (at least the East Coast of China, especially around Hong Kong) to the West or Bangledash or wherever to flee any kind of wage increases or trend, which was happening.

You are free to take all of your money and do what you wish with it. You are not free to take other people’s money and do what you wish with it. The Founding Father’s stated what happens when a society discovers they can spend other people’s money.

I am not insensitive to your concerns here. I am also not blind to real social needs. Economics cannot be divorced from justice or reality; business cannot be divorced from ethics. Free trade, for instance, did not bring the magical universal increase in wages for workers and pofits for everyone that it was prophesied to. There were and are problems with it; a few people benefited, most haven’t. And they’re still not, certainly not in the West. We can’t just ignore the poorest and weakest members of society or turn a blind eye to the realities we are asking them to live in. It’s terribly difficult to see how someone earning a minimum wage in most places could reasonably be hoped to elevate themselves from that position to something more optimistic or realistic. A living wage is, by its definition, what is enough to live off of. It is not exorbitant; if it’s only $14 here, it will be much less than that in the US I am sure.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I don’t think that. The living wage, e.g., is not an absurd demand.

It actually is. If everybody makes a living wage, purchasing power goes way up, and everything gets more expensive, and we’re right back to square one. At least that’s the way it works in a capitalist country. It has been done in non-capitalist economies, but basically you have to be self sufficient, and most people wouldn’t want to live in any of those countries.

Here, where I live, it would be $14. That’s a joke; this city is exceptionally expensive to live in thanks in part to our Commie mayor but also the large university it hosts, which drives up rents to levels you see in much, much larger cities. A single person here might reasonably get by on $14. He won’t, however, be dating.

Does that $14 include benefits, employer-paid SS taxes, etc.? Because if it does, it’s not $14 per hour, it is more.

Productivity does not determine wages in a lot of businesses. Wage is based on what the company can get away with and sustain itself; it has nothing to do with productivity or value added considerations.

Any job I’ve been in paid based on productivity, and that includes fast food (more than one chain, BTW), and catering businesses.

Any proposed increase in especially labour costs at the lowest level - general labour - is heresy.

The problem is that labor is a fixed cost, and often the biggest cost. There must be a cushion. If not, it can mean constant layoffs or bankruptcy.

Why do you think these guys took off to China whenever they could? And they are even sometimes leaving there (at least the East Coast of China, especially around Hong Kong) to the West or Bangledash or wherever to flee any kind of wage increases or trend, which was happening.

The every-increasing regulations, which includes wages that are excessive for a given job, are choking the life out of businesses; that’s why they are leaving. Furthermore, the Asian countries are more than happy to take these jobs. And unlike people in the west, there are many people that are truly poor, and are grateful to be making a living and eating. In other words, by moving the business, they have helped a huge number of people in these foreign countries that actually need it. And it also results in less expensive products back home.

There were and are problems with it; a few people benefited, most haven’t. And they’re still not, certainly not in the West. We can’t just ignore the poorest and weakest members of society or turn a blind eye to the realities we are asking them to live in.

Interesting that you mention the West. I don’t know about other countries, but nobody starves in the U.S. unless they want to. There are plenty of places to go.

OTOH, the poorer countries have benefited hugely. In three decades China has gone from a Communist utopia where nobody had anything, and most were dirt poor, to a thriving capitalist economy. Is your point only to help those at home? A greater number of people who actually lived in poverty were helped by moving these companies overseas.

 

[Julianna]

Oh I see what’s important for you: it’s not what might be best for children or families and even society as a whole thinking rationally, but your pride.

I guess women should forget going to college…seems like a waste. If hubby loses his job and the family is out on the street, I am sure August, you will take them in.

As my husband’s “helpmate”, when he lost his job (we were newlyweds), I pounded the pavement looking for another job. I used an old IBM typewriter to type up resumes for him…I mailed countless resumes. I was his “job coach” and in the meantime worked a job myself to pay the bills. My male co workers in the “same” job, were paid equal to my salary.

I guess, I should have whined, and said, “oh well, I think I’ll go make a meatloaf…oh wait, we don’t have any food.”

 

[markomalley]

Now that it appears the bickering has settled down a bit, there are a couple of things I can add to this (maybe).

First, the military has an interesting way of accomplishing the “family wage” goal. They have a base pay based upon the rank (experience & presumed leadership required) of the individual. They then provide support (in the form of meals and housing) or provide cash “allowances” that are tax exempt if the member doesn’t utilize those provided services:

• Basic Allowance for Subsistence (provides a cash amount needed to feed the military member throughout the month). When I retired 11 years ago, that worked about to be a little better than $200 a month – which was plenty to pay for groceries for a month for the member – obviously a family’s grocery bill could be a whole lot larger, depending on the size of the family.
• Basic Allowance for Housing (provides a cash amount needed for the member to get a reasonable residence based upon his rank and whether he is responsible for dependents or is single). This was augmented by locality based adjustments to make up the difference if the person was stationed in a high cost area, like Silicon Valley, the NYC metro, or DC.

The tax code does not allow for such a thing for civilian employment (it is truly unique to the military), but the tax code is just a statute and it could easily be adjusted to allow for such a thing (if you look at it, the tax code does already make allowances for “family men” – in as much as health/dental insurance covers either the employee or the employee+family and is pre-tax regardless of whether family members are covered or not)

A change to the tax code would not require employers to provide compensation in that fashion, but would allow it for employers who chose to do so. Obviously, it would be to the advantage for both employers and employees, as tax would not be taken out on tax-exempt “allowances” (including the employer portion of FICA).

I am curious if our GS-6 Julianna would regard such an arrangement as “unequal pay” for “equal work.”

I am torn about the idea of a “family wage” myself, even as expressed above. On one hand, the idea of “equal pay for equal work” seems appropriate in the terms of distributive justice (which regulates what the community owes its citizens in proportion to their contributions and needs); on the other hand, helping an employee provide for their families is also a requirement of distributive justice ( which regulates what the community owes its citizens **in proportion to their **contributions and needs).

Perhaps if Congress could be convinced to modify tax law to allow employers to establish a salary (taxable) + allowance (non-taxable) compensation scheme, both conflicting needs could be accommodated.

(More later)

 

[Julianna]

Now that it appears the bickering has settled down a bit, there are a couple of things I can add to this (maybe).

First, the military has an interesting way of accomplishing the “family wage” goal. They have a base pay based upon the rank (experience & presumed leadership required) of the individual. They then provide support (in the form of meals and housing) or provide cash “allowances” that are tax exempt if the member doesn’t utilize those provided services:

• Basic Allowance for Subsistence (provides a cash amount needed to feed the military member throughout the month). When I retired 11 years ago, that worked about to be a little better than $200 a month – which was plenty to pay for groceries for a month for the member – obviously a family’s grocery bill could be a whole lot larger, depending on the size of the family.
• Basic Allowance for Housing (provides a cash amount needed for the member to get a reasonable residence based upon his rank and whether he is responsible for dependents or is single). This was augmented by locality based adjustments to make up the difference if the person was stationed in a high cost area, like Silicon Valley, the NYC metro, or DC.

The tax code does not allow for such a thing for civilian employment (it is truly unique to the military), but the tax code is just a statute and it could easily be adjusted to allow for such a thing (if you look at it, the tax code does already make allowances for “family men” – in as much as health/dental insurance covers either the employee or the employee+family and is pre-tax regardless of whether family members are covered or not)

A change to the tax code would not require employers to provide compensation in that fashion, but would allow it for employers who chose to do so. Obviously, it would be to the advantage for both employers and employees, as tax would not be taken out on tax-exempt “allowances” (including the employer portion of FICA).

I am curious if our GS-6 Julianna would regard such an arrangement as “unequal pay” for “equal work.”

I am torn about the idea of a “family wage” myself, even as expressed above. On one hand, the idea of “equal pay for equal work” seems appropriate in the terms of distributive justice (which regulates what the community owes its citizens in proportion to their contributions and needs); on the other hand, helping an employee provide for their families is also a requirement of distributive justice ( which regulates what the community owes its citizens **in proportion to their **contributions and needs).

Perhaps if Congress could be convinced to modify tax law to allow employers to establish a salary (taxable) + allowance (non-taxable) compensation scheme, both conflicting needs could be accommodated.

(More later)

Thanks Mark. I work for the warfighter. What you have stated is true. In civil service too, there is a base pay with steps for GS. And also for WG. The bennies the all volunteer military get and deserve (I don’t get shot at, nor do I have to shoot anyone), are recruiting tool to get folks to join. College money is also an incentive. Another benefit is that the spouse, male or female has first crack at a civil service job opening. And in both military and civil service these benefits extend to same-sex couples and domestic partners (but that’s whole other fight on another thread, )

My DH is retired cs under the old CSRS retirement. We have health insurance through him, vs. me, as now I am on furlough and the health insurance would eat up my pay.

Some say the GS and WG pay plan is outdated. I don’t know…haven’t thought about. However, it is good to know that there is a GS6 male counterpart, married, 1/2 my age with kids, doing the “same” job, making the same pay grade. The steps vary depending on years of service. Step 1 and Step 2 are usual starting points and yes, there is locality pay like the military.

I love my Marines! Semper Fi

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I’ll state the obvious: The military has nothing to do with a free market system, and can only work for a relatively small amount of the population. Sustainability of that system requires that others pay for it. That obviously cannot work for the population as a whole.

 

[markomalley]

Thanks Mark. I work for the warfighter. What you have stated is true. In civil service too, there is a base pay with steps for GS. And also for WG. The bennies the all volunteer military get and deserve (I don’t get shot at, nor do I have to shoot anyone), are recruiting tool to get folks to join. College money is also an incentive. Another benefit is that the spouse, male or female has first crack at a civil service job opening. And in both military and civil service these benefits extend to same-sex couples and domestic partners (but that’s whole other fight on another thread, )

My DH is retired cs under the old CSRS retirement. We have health insurance through him, vs. me, as now I am on furlough and the health insurance would eat up my pay.

Some say the GS and WG pay plan is outdated. I don’t know…haven’t thought about. However, it is good to know that there is a GS6 male counterpart, married, 1/2 my age with kids, doing the “same” job, making the same pay grade. The steps vary depending on years of service. Step 1 and Step 2 are usual starting points and yes, there is locality pay like the military.

I love my Marines! Semper Fi

Hoo-ah.

The question is, though, if you would support having a portion of your pay being provided as a tax-exempt “housing allowance.” – with the amount of that allowance being dependent upon whether you had to pay for housing family members or just yourself? (Obviously, with this, there would have to be some type of mechanism to assure that only one spouse could draw the “with dependents” rate if the spouses worked for different employers).

 

[markomalley]

I’ll state the obvious: The military has nothing to do with a free market system, and can only work for a relatively small amount of the population. Sustainability of that system requires that others pay for it. That obviously cannot work for the population as a whole.

I’m not talking about paying “extra” – I’m talking about apportioning income into “taxable” compensation vice “non-taxable” allowances and then making those non-taxable allowances appropriate based upon the family situation of the employee. I am also not talking about making this a requirement…just about making something possible for employers who would like to do so (probably most wouldn’t).

There are employers out there who would like to be able to take better care of employees with families but who are unable to do so because of the “equal pay for equal work” principle.

 

[Julianna]

Hoo-ah.

The question is, though, if you would support having a portion of your pay being provided as a tax-exempt “housing allowance.” – with the amount of that allowance being dependent upon whether you had to pay for housing family members or just yourself? (Obviously, with this, there would have to be some type of mechanism to assure that only one spouse could draw the “with dependents” rate if the spouses worked for different employers).

I’m not sure I understand what you mean. I don’t need or want a housing allowance. When I took the job, I “knew” ahead time when the job was advertised how much it would pay. With civil service you can look up pay scales depending on your location and budget from there. In the private sector, 9 times out of 10, you don’t know what they will pay until the interview, and the interviewer will take the low ball bid employee. In civil service, in my case, I wasn’t interviewed, I submitted my application on line, and was called, “hey you want the job?”

I also had my DH pay as a WG10 as my back up. WG10 who are female he worked with, were paid the same as he performing the same job.

 

[markomalley]

I’m not sure I understand what you mean. I don’t need or want a housing allowance. When I took the job, I “knew” ahead time when the job was advertised how much it would pay. With civil service you can look up pay scales depending on your location and budget from there. In the private sector, 9 times out of 10, you don’t know what they will pay until the interview, and the interviewer will take the low ball bid employee. In civil service, in my case, I wasn’t interviewed, I submitted my application on line, and was called, “hey you want the job?”

I also had my DH pay as a WG10 as my back up. WG10 who are female he worked with, were paid the same as he performing the same job.

In the military, the military is required to provide housing and subsistence for its members (that’s why you see mess halls, barracks, and military family housing on military bases). If the military doesn’t provide that housing or subsistence, they pay a cash allowance “in lieu of” that housing or subsistence. That cash allowance is “tax free.”

For example, when I retired, I was an E-7 with >20 years of service. Using current 2013 pay numbers, my base pay would be $4,328.58 per month. If I was living on base and eating in the mess hall, that would be my pay.

If I was not required to eat in the mess hall, I would draw a tax free “subsistence” allowance of $352.27 per month.

I might live in military-provided housing. If I didn’t, then I would draw a housing allowance. In the DC area, that housing allowance would be $2724.00 per month if I had dependents or $2043.00 per month if I didn’t have dependents. (Obviously, a person with a family would have different housing needs than a person without a family)

On the other hand, if I lived in Memphis TN (a much lower cost area), my housing allowance would be $1431.00 per month if I had dependents or $1233.00 per month if I didn’t have dependents.

You can calculate it…just like a GS wage.

Back to the point, what the military is saying is that ___ amount is paying you for the work that you perform and ____ amount is being given to you to take care of your needs. For a military E-7 living in the DC area with family members, it adds up to $88,858.20 per year. But rather than saying it’s all “pay”, they are saying that part of it is taxable “pay” and part of it is non-taxable “allowances.” The taxable “pay” is given without regard to a person’s family situation or where you live. The non-taxable “allowances” part of the equation is contingent upon your family situation and the local costs.

The thought I had was if Congress could re-work the tax code to allow something similar for civilians (if an employer so chose to do so).

The reason why I think this would be a good way to do it is that, as far as I’ve seen, that way of providing compensation would far more in line with Catholic Social Teaching than anything else I’ve seen. It doesn’t violate distributive justice, as it allows for distribution according to the relative honor and contribution of the object. It allows for commutative justice, as it allows for the “base pay” part to be freely agreed upon by employer and employee.

Again, I’m not suggesting that such a scheme be mandatory…I would just suggest that something along those lines would be a really good option for an employer who wanted to do so, if the tax code could be adjusted correspondingly.

 

[Tarpeian]

"Ifone wants to earn a "living wage: they need to acquire the skills to make them worth being paid a “living wage”

That is true! There will always be those who aren’t able to but they should be by far the exception or we are in big trouble already. I don’t see how it benefits people to let them set a low bar for themselves.

What “skills” are needed in a consumer economy? Even if one were to acquire the skills, the jobs to pay a living wage are gone. The opportunity is gone. The few kids that take college seriously, and graduate with a degree, can’t find work that pays the rent, let alone their college loan’s. Forget about starting a business. The barrier to entry is nearly impossible thank’s to capitalism killing competition. My kids will learn a trade even if they go to college. They will know welding, plumbing, engine maintenance, etc. I hope they go to Christendom college or another school for a classical education, but it will be mapped out, and practical. If everything fails they will be able to use their hands, and speak Latin at the same time

Pax,
Tarpeian

 

[markomalley]

What “skills” are needed in a consumer economy? Even if one were to acquire the skills, the jobs to pay a living wage are gone. The opportunity is gone. The few kids that take college seriously, and graduate with a degree, can’t find work that pays the rent, let alone their college loan’s. Forget about starting a business. The barrier to entry is nearly impossible thank’s to capitalism killing competition. My kids will learn a trade even if they go to college. They will know welding, plumbing, engine maintenance, etc. I hope they go to Christendom college or another school for a classical education, but it will be mapped out, and practical. If everything fails they will be able to use their hands, and speak Latin at the same time

Pax,
Tarpeian

That is a patently false statement. There are any number of opportunities out there for people with skills and education in the correct fields. If you are in engineering, computer science, IT, bio-tech, or (much of) health care, you will have no issues finding a job. There is an incredible lack of skilled trades out there…people who learn those skills will have very little issue with finding employment. You acknowledge that for your own kids: because that is where the jobs are.

If somebody went out and invested years into getting a history, English, psychology, or theater degree, they are going to have a far harder time of it. That’s always been the case, though, hasn’t it?