There’s also a trap I think people get stuck in about earning more. It doesn’t make the job any less shit. If I had to choose, I’d take conditions and culture over pay any day. I’m at a point in life where I earn a good living. But last year I turned down a higher paying job because I didn’t want to deal with the shit I knew was going to be involved. $30K more a year and I definitely could do with that, but none of that means anything when you’ve hit the third month and you’re miserable and anxious and know this is what you’re in for now, everyday
Okay, but now what about the people that have this part,
none of that means anything when you’ve hit the third month and you’re miserable and anxious and know this is what you’re in for now, everyday
But not this part,
** I’m** at a point in life where I earn a good living
(Emphasis mine)
Unless I misread the tone of your message, its frankly useless and more than little insulting. No shit some jobs suck, but if its the difference between homelessness, or going hungry that’s not a choice at all.
Yeah, you misread it. Somehow quite terribly…
Unsurprisingly, I didn’t start life earning a good living. In order to earn a good living, a point after the start obviously is reached. As I said, that is now the point I am at—at least by my own personal standards. Nor am I lacking the experience of working my ass off so much I burn out and hate living. Thus the value of enjoying my time spent is more valuable than the financial compensation for my time spent. People that think otherwise seem to be naive of their innevitable end and what that actually means.
And in my experience, homelessness is actually quite liberating the moment you accept it and stop worrying about the things you don’t have and start paying attention to yourself and what you do have. It’s a very profound chapter in life and why I still go out alone into the wilderness so often whenever I miss it.
MINIMUM WAGE MINIMUM EFFORT
I consider it a great business tactic to hire the good people from my competitors for $2 more, treat them well, and then watch the competition slowly flame out and crash.
You know, it always makes me laugh when I see restaurant owners or similar bosses try to say they can’t find people because nobody wants to work.
Damn bro, nobody wants to work as hard as a concrete guy for minimum wage.
Hang on hang on hang on let me spend $100,000 on consultants to tell me what I want to think.
Add a zero bud. That’s when you know you’re getting truly valuable power point content.
The part I add is “for me”. Cause if NOBODY wants to work for you, the only thing they have in common is YOU. You need to start considering that you might be the problem.
Get your shit together.
I was talking to a business owner the other day, and she offered me a wearhouse job out of the blue. Talking about how she can’t find good help, and how everyone slacks off or stops showing up on time. I refused but before I left I asked her maybe she has been looking for employees in the wrong place. If they’re all dumb and lazy, the common element is either her or wherever she’s looking. Needless to say she did not agree with my analysis and then called me dumb and lazy, but hey sometimes it’s just a failure to communicate. Some men, you just can’t reach. So you get what we had here last week. Which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it! And, now I don’t like, it anymore than you men.
-We offer a competitive salary.
-Places X, Y and Z offer much more.
-We don’t compete with them.
Stupidly enough - not satire. I’ve had this conversation with three different companies. They struggle to attract talent for some weird reason.
We don’t compete with them
“Yes you do, and you’re losing.” Then walk out.
One of them was my current employer when I was arguing about not managing to keep people on my team.
And I said exactly that, except didn’t walk out naturally. In another frustrated discussion I almost yelled “You can’t CHOOSE not to compete with them!”
–We don’t compete with them.
Yes you do; you compete with them for employees. Walks out of interview
I’ve heard this a million times.
That’s why we want passionate people. If they’re not passionate about the product, they’ll just leave us for somewhere that pays more.
So… pay more?
Why should you stay when we don’t pay competitively? We have difficult problems to solve.
Sure, will my landlady accept that as legal tender? Because they also have those at the other company.
A capitalist company with a CEO earning what CEOs earn, and a board of directors maximizing profit, does not get to shame me for wanting to get paid as much as I can.
Well they get paid more to shame you
True. But also I get paid more by taking my employment elsewhere. So win?win? I guess.
Middle class wages, adjusted, start at $83.17/hr. If you’re making less than that and call yourself middle class you’re only fooling yourself. There’s a reason you’re not told what that line is.
The “middle class” is a myth man.
“Middle class” was a (very successful) psyops campaign to get people to stop thinking in terms of ‘working class’ vs ‘owning class’
Yes, I too have read books by Michael Parenti lol
That was more for the sake of other commenters/readers, I figured you knew :P
Never assume I know anything. I’m famously stupid.
Agreed, as are generational lines like millennial or zoomer. But it’s still used for now.
They exist but are used out of context.
Generation changes are when birth rates show a shift in increasing or decreasing. Usually this is in line with the national economy. Because of globalisation, we tend to see large groups of nations have birth rates shift within several years of each other as their economies are quite intertwined and do the same things. And that’s also why people always argue about what year a new generation started. It is different for each country.
Outside of (mostly) economical context, they have little purpose in discussion. And even then, they’re more used to refer to an era of economical positive or negative in households, which was reflected in birth rates.
90% of the time people use them in everyday conversation, it’s “old” and “new”, which can be easily said without mention of generations since that’s how society has always been as time goes on.
Based on which definition?
I feel like by most commonly used definitions I would be. About half my income (before taxes) goes into savings, my position is considered management, I make between 75%-200% of median national income, I have a graduate degree.
I don’t make half that rate though.
Not sure I think middle class is a useful method of classification though, but still curious why that specific number.
It’s area dependent, I just picked one that wasn’t too high or too low.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/07/23/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/
Picked my area and 29K puts you in the middle class, which is like $13/hr, and its pretty close to the national average for COL.
Bases on a line you don’t tell us?
Did you miss the whole first sentence somehow?
Not only that, but also under these conditions. Blaming others for one’s own problems used to be a sign of mental unhealth, but now it is considered a sign of “proper management”!:-P
Those who think that labor market under capitalism gives uncompetitive salaries (that is below that what market would give in equilibrium) are wrong. The salaries are higher than supply and demand in equilibrium would give. This is why people do not want to lose the job, because they are afraid that other jobs would pay less (meaning that they are getting more than equilibrium would give) or that they just become unemployed. This is also why there is unemployment - businesses prefer to have less work places and pay more, so that they get the best employees.
This is actually classical example where market (labor market) does not work as wished by market supporters (achieving no unemployment)- there always will be unemployment and at the same time there will be always unhappy people who are afraid of losing their jobs. But uncompetitive salaries is not one of the problems of the free labor market. Small salaries, maybe, but not uncompetitive.
Although I don’t agree with “The salaries are higher than supply and demand in equilibrium would dictate,” I believe that your point is overall true. One truly cannot assess whether the price is too high or too low in isolation from the law of supply and demand. The role of the buyer (of any good, including labor) is to purchase as cheaply as possible, and the role of the seller is to sell as high as possible. I’m somewhat saddened that now this negotiation has turned kinda toxic. Companies attempt to play the victim card, claiming “no one wants to work,” while labor responds with mere satire, without directly addressing the problem.
At least we know you can afford crack.
