260,000 graduates in minimum wage jobs

Aazadan

WarminIndy
I see now that you have no idea just exactly who I am talking about.

Guess what? There's dishonest poor people and there's dishonest rich people. The dishonest rich people conduct white collar crimes like insider trading or run HFT systems. The dishonest poor people sell prescription pills and work under the table for cash while collecting benefits.

I also didn't mention much about the poor because they collectively don't have or drain enough money to significantly impact our economy. Corporate welfare, foreign aid, insane defense spending... all things that aren't needed and cost far more than it costs to keep poor people comfortable enough to not commit more serious crimes.

I don't hate the rich but they're not saints, very often they get their money through exploiting stupid people. Look at the people that designed Candy Crush, it's the digital equivalent of being a drug dealer by creating a good enough addictive monetized loop.

When it comes to coal I live in SE Ohio, it's coal country here. During the 2012 election practically every sign was about how Obama has a war on coal. I'm against coal for power, it's the most dangerous method we have for electricity generation. And before you bring it up, I'm not for solar or wind either those are worthless technologies. Most of what coal provides is electricity which runs manufacturing, there's other ways to provide that electricity that don't have the same lethality per kwh.

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Aazadan

 

Go on thinking that way. The folks who see life as a competition will just eat you alive. Then you will be sitting and whining about how it isn't fair, and how you still deserve a "livable wage". Despite doing nothing to deserve it other than living.

Your constitution guarantees you the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. It doesn't guarantee you will have it. You will only have that which you are willing to get.

It isn't a "Participants" world. "Participants" flip burgers and whine about "livable wage". It is a competitive world. You better get to stretching and warming up....the race has already started.

Competition to me implies that if one person is winning another person is losing, economics however aren't 0 sum and it's possible to make an exchange in which both parties come out ahead. Before writing this I just got turned down for a job, does that somehow mean I lost or that I'm a less valuable person? Or does it mean that someone with a subjective set of standards which I have no control over went in another direction?

That happens day in and day out to everyone, competition means winning yet people mostly lose. The premise is flawed.

AWW coal is the most dangerous you say?

Nuclear is really more dangerous, didn't Fukishima. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl teach you anything? I know South East Ohio, I'm from Ohio and my dad was from West Virginia.

You really are living in a dream world. The product of this modern education. Tell me then, do you celebrate the Steelers, the Browns, the Bengals? Or are you against sports also?

Bigfatfurrytexan is absolutely correct and the sooner you figure out that you've already lost because you didn't even try, then don't blame me or Bigfatfurrytexan when you lose your job flipping burgers because you couldn't compete there either. Competition implies to you that you don't even have to try, well now, where's that street of gold? West Virginia? Ohio? Pennsylvania?

The Yellow Brick Road doesn't exist. But here, just for you...



OZ never did give nothin' to the Tin Man, that he didn't already have. The Tin Man had drive and ambition, he was the middle class laborer. Who is Oz and why are you waiting for him to give you anything? The man behind the curtain with all the bells, whistles and blowing smoke, running the world, you think he's the guy in charge? He's got nothing, he can't do anything except make you think he can, so don't even try to do anything.

Oz didn't give anything, the Tin Man already had it. Do you get it now?

WarminIndy
AWW coal is the most dangerous you say?

Nuclear is really more dangerous, didn't Fukishima. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl teach you anything? I know South East Ohio, I'm from Ohio and my dad was from West Virginia.

Yes, coal is the most dangerous. Different power generation methods are measured by something called the harm index. This index is how many deaths/serious injuries are attributed to that power generation per twh generated. Here's a link, if you don't want to check the link:

Coal – global average 170,000 (50% global electricity)
Coal – China 280,000 (75% China’s electricity)
Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)
Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)
Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)
Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)
Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)
Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)
Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)

If you don't like that one Here's another

What they don't mention is geothermal, which I don't know the numbers on but it's probably safe to say it's somewhere inbetween hydro and wind. While nuclear can cause extensive damage to a localized area (and no, it's not anywhere near a significant amount on the US's shores) and kill a few people, the pollution caused by coal plants for the same amount of power production is tremendous. It poisons the air and water and causes untold numbers of cancers, respiratory ailments, and others. So called clean coal does not fix this. Clean coal doesn't actually eliminate the waste, it just prevents most of it from escaping into the air as smoke. Instead the waste is kept in underground pools (most of which leak), and is pumped into rivers as concentrated waste over time. Did you know that coal waste is so radioactive that there have been serious attempts made to recover the uranium in it for use in nuclear reactors/weapons? And we pump that into the air, the concentrated coal ash we pump into the water to dilute it is so dangerous that you have a 100% chance of developing a life threatening cancer with any skin contact. Coal is not clean and it is not safe. Wind is safe but limited in scope. Solar is also safe but not space efficient enough for mass generation, though it's a great option for home owners that want to go off the grid.

If you want clean power generation, the US could meet 1/3 of it's needs from geothermal (mostly on the western side... Utah and further west is amazing for that) with existing proven technology. More could perhaps be generated from new technology. Wind can contribute a little bit (7% is very optimistic) in the midwest but not much. Natural gas is relatively safe and we have huge reserves, it could easily provide 25%. Nuclear could make up the rest quite safely (most plants in existence today including Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island were second generation plants... we're currently on fourth generation) using Uranium/Plutonium to start and phasing in Thorium as the technology is developed.

You really are living in a dream world. The product of this modern education. Tell me then, do you celebrate the Steelers, the Browns, the Bengals? Or are you against sports also?

I don't watch sports, I have no interest in it. Football I find to be especially distasteful. I do have some interest in competitive gaming but it's more of a work thing to keep up with trends than to cheer for favorites, I don't particularly care who wins or loses.

The Yellow Brick Road doesn't exist. But here, just for you...

You're right it doesn't exist. My complaint and the complaint of the OP is that jobs don't exist for graduates. I've detailed how to fix that but I don't think we have the political will to make such a change. Therefore my more realistic approach is to create my own job, which I think I've mentioned a couple times in this thread. That way I can provide for both myself and others in a similar situation. I don't know if you have any experience trying to develop complicated software, especially when you have no budget to pay employees but it takes awhile because it means I have to do everything myself (fortunately I have the skills to do that). I've been at it for about 2 years, and estimate another 3-4 before I have a product in a marketable form.

In the meantime I don't think it's unreasonable to expect my job (which requires a college degree) to pay a living wage that lets me keep the lights on and cover food/rent/transportation.

reply to post by Aazadan


Do you realize how much water it takes to run a nuclear power plant? Water is an important resource that the cons of nuclear just doesn't outweigh the pros. Not only that, nuclear waste being carried across country on our interstates, the safeguards that ensure someone doesn't steal the nuclear waste, doesn't that give you pause?

The amount of cooling required by any steam-cycle power plant (of a given size) is determined by its thermal efficiency. It has essentially nothing to do with whether it is fuelled by coal, gas or uranium.
However, currently operating nuclear plants often do have slightly lower thermal efficiency than coal counterparts of similar age, and coal plants discharge some waste heat with combustion gases, whereas nuclear plants rely on water.
Nuclear power plants have greater flexibility in location than coal-fired plants due to fuel logistics, giving them more potential for their siting to be determined by cooling considerations.

Nulear Cooling

But if that isn't enough to convince you the importance that coal still plays in our society...

Coal Uses

The biggest market for coal is Asia, which currently accounts for over 67% of global coal consumption; although China is responsible for a significant proportion of this. Many countries do not have natural energy resources sufficient to cover their energy needs, and therefore need to import energy to help meet their requirements. Japan, Chinese Taipei and Korea, for example, import significant quantities of steam coal for electricity generation and coking coal for steel production.

So can you still use coal and not nuclear? Yes, you can, because nuclear still uses coal, imagine that.

Not only is it used for energy, but manufacturing and construction. So take away coal, how many jobs are lost now?

Coal = steel = manufacture = cars = roads = retail = jobs.

Cars = roads = tertiary retail = jobs.

Roads = shopping centers = jobs.

Shopping centers = jobs = money.

Money = you driving your car to the store to buy food transported across country on above mentioned roads = you not going hungry. Is there anything else you want to add? Oh yes, the trucking industry depends on it, would you be a truck driver if the job were offered to you?

Say what you want about clean energy, that's all good and well, but tell me, are you buying your own cow and butchering it? If you aren't then you depend on someone else doing that. Do you eat fruits and vegetables? Unless you live in a tropical area, coal is still needed to build ships to transport your pineapples. This society is dependent upon coal, whether you like it or not, every job out there is somehow connected to coal.

Except maybe if you build something with wood, and use wood tools. But then again, wouldn't that be destroying forests? No matter how you look at it, we are dependent upon coal. Take your pick, transported food or going hungry, that's your choice.

Driving down I-20 to MIdland yesterday. I had an air conditioner for my basement that I had to return to Lowe's. The wind is blowing really hard. The cotton fields are ready for planting (bare and dry). Stanton, as is typical, was wholly shrouded in a dust cloud. Completely reminiscent of Mad Max and his wasteland.

On at least half dozen occasions I could see the familiar flame coming from a pipe on a well. They were unable to capture the natural gas in the well, and were burning it off. This happens alot. WTG is one of the larger NG refiners in the area. They are the go to for natural gas related stuff. They are building infrastructure as fast as they possibly can to handle the volume of NG being produced in Cline Shale fracking ops. Natural gas burns very clean.

It can also now be converted to a liquid diesel product that is far lower in sulphur than diesel, and about 25% cheaper than diesel. What was typically considered a commodity that could be wasted without regard will have the potential to really alter the way we see petrofuels.

There are very, very rich men with plans to free the US market up for domestic use. And they plan to make billions doing it. There is enormous potential for a win/win. Of course, it likely won't work out that way.

I like this thread being that I am a college graduate and now in 60 grand worth of debt and have just an above minimum wage job not in my field. I have two recruiters and constantly send my resume out to companies on my own. Own thing I learned in life is 80% of the time its all about who you know. Connections will get you a good job not just because you have a degree.

bigfatfurrytexan
Driving down I-20 to MIdland yesterday. I had an air conditioner for my basement that I had to return to Lowe's. The wind is blowing really hard. The cotton fields are ready for planting (bare and dry). Stanton, as is typical, was wholly shrouded in a dust cloud. Completely reminiscent of Mad Max and his wasteland.

On at least half dozen occasions I could see the familiar flame coming from a pipe on a well. They were unable to capture the natural gas in the well, and were burning it off. This happens alot. WTG is one of the larger NG refiners in the area. They are the go to for natural gas related stuff. They are building infrastructure as fast as they possibly can to handle the volume of NG being produced in Cline Shale fracking ops. Natural gas burns very clean.

It can also now be converted to a liquid diesel product that is far lower in sulphur than diesel, and about 25% cheaper than diesel. What was typically considered a commodity that could be wasted without regard will have the potential to really alter the way we see petrofuels.

There are very, very rich men with plans to free the US market up for domestic use. And they plan to make billions doing it. There is enormous potential for a win/win. Of course, it likely won't work out that way.

And by getting the natural gas can perhaps run the energy needed, but that would only counterbalance the effect that coal still provides. What's the point of natural gas and diesel for trucking when there are no roads? We still have a dependency on coal and always will unless we start building things from other materials not made of steel. That's the catch, how would natural gas make a bigger effect, considering the infrastructure still relies on coal?

We could go back to making our buildings out of sand blocks, like the Egyptian pyramids, but then we would still have to transport it.

Of course they will make billions from it, but at least that keeps jobs for people working for them. There are no easy solutions to the problem, but we shouldn't think there is no more hope. But the other posters don't realize that the status quo now might change by 2050. I don't think I will be alive when it does change.

OP here, hi.

I just wanted to put my 2 cents in. I went for my bachelors, had loans, whole 9 yards. Held an almost 4.0, had about a year or so to go, this was from '10 to '12. My loans ran dry and I wasn't about to pull any more out so I had to stop my schooling and can't finish or get my degree til I repay that 57k. The entire degree was 89k.

Don't ask. Without a vehicle, I had no means to get to any other school so online classes it was.
Now no classes it is.

I'm in the process of getting 2 jobs; either a full time 40 hr a week job and a second part time job at 20 hrs a week, or I'll get three part time jobs at 20 a week. I need that 1700 a month pre tax income to kind of survive. My rent is 400 a month, but I still have electric, gas, water, sewer, garbage, and net. and my mobile. oh and food. The jobs I'm able to go for are min wage. I'm 41. Such has been my life since I started working when I was in 5th grade doing summer help with my mom at her office. I do what I have to do to survive. My bills total about let's see. 60 for the water/sewer/garbage, 100 for the elect, gas is only winter and I didn't put it on this winter. Net is 45, mobile was 50 (cheap 20 dollar pay as you go from net 10) but i found a thing online to get 1000 min for 25 dollars. Oh yeah.
so my entire bills a month are like
700 or so? Then food but I trained myself to not eat a lot at all, maybe a sandwich once a day or two. My 19yo son eats the most so groceries are like 200 to 300 a month. I dont have a vehicle. no insurance for health or dental but that's been my entire life, so whatever. No television or cable; got rid of that crap in '10 and never looked back. I walk where I need to go.

Point is, ya do what you have to do to survive and if you're lucky, save some money. Out of my costs a month, I'll be able to save about 500 to 600 once taxes are out. That's a good amount I think. I think for once in my life I can stop living check to check, being broke 4 days before payday arrives again. Just keep me in prayers that I get these jobs. Anything less than 60 hrs a week and I"ll be in trouble financially wise.

I finally feel optimistic about my future. It's going to be rough, but I only have to hold down those two or three jobs til about August when I can get my own vehicle and then nab that 16 dollar an hour job, min 40 hrs a week at the auto manufacturing place here in town. Then after 2 ish years, I'll move up to more money once I transition. Guys, when you live on min wage, even 12 an hour is RICH. I've learned how to live on nothing much. I sure will NOT go over my means when I start making over 10 an hour. It'd be stupid. Most I'd do is get a 500 /mth place and maybe speed up my net a few mb/s and pay 55 or 60 a month. Living the good life then

^_^ what I went to college for my bachelors was for a good field: web design/graphic design and animation. I was going to get into video game development along with it. Right now I just compose music and do voice over work for things here and there. Unpaid but good experience.

reply to post by sarra1833


You have been where most of us have been, perhaps it is our generation. When I first went to college way back in 1985, my first job paid $2.18, I had to work full time getting paid the same as those still in high school. I lived 20 miles away from my college so I still lived at home, but I still needed a car.

When I got married, my husband could not get a job because we lived in an area that just lost our main source of employment for our area, Huffy Bikes. With that gone, the only place he could go to was a small factory that processed eggs and his wage was still well under minimum wage and for two years we only ate hamburger helper every night. Then I was getting sick all the time and we didn't know it yet that I had MS. It took me out of college and I couldn't work all the time. Then I was better for a while and then went to work at a factory that paid $9.28. He then found a better job and slowly we moved up the ladder until we were middle class. But we were married and had no children, so we paid the marriage penalty taxes and actually had more taken out every week on top of the amount already taken. This bumped my points for Social Security up. But we were finally middle class.Just before that we had one car and I had to walk across town to get to the low pay job. But I was so grateful to have a job.

There are many reasons why people can't get to finish college, mine was an illness that wasn't diagnosed yet. But I had to still get in there when I could. Right now I have enough credits but am completely disabled. But when I was able, I decided to go to film school after spending several years in a playwrights forum. I have published some articles on film. I was given the opportunity to go to USC film school, then bam, another MS exacerbation, put in the hospital for a long time, now have to live in a building for disabled. Hospital bills are over $10,000 for the one month I was there. This doesn't count for the many clinical visits and medications I have to take, which are over $1,300 a month. My husband had died, so I am left alone with no children.

But I decided that while I am disabled with no hope of cure, I still write articles on film, have written screenplays and have a fairly good portfolio, however, because I am disabled, I am still competing with young people to get my name out there. I pitched one that became a TV show, but I didn't get paid for it because they knew how to steal the idea.

I think this, independent films are the way to go. And even Steven Spielberg himself said the Hollywood studio system is going to implode. My advice, get out there with a camera, make your own films. That way you can hire people who draw the storyboards, and grips and every little job that people don't think about. Film is an industry, because film production relies on so many jobs. So the guy setting up the lights aren't getting paid like the director is, but it's still an important job. Everyone wants to be a director, though. Young people think they are just going to become the next big director. Many started out as the screenwriter.

I have a negative cash flow, but have a lot of experience in life and by that, I don't think of myself as poor. Everyone has heard of the starving artist, they usually become valuable after they die. But as you point out, you do what you have to do, you will get there if you keep trying.

As someone who has been a director in short films, just because one thinks an actor is just given a job because their mom or dad is an actor, I would make that actor go through the same audition process and if I don't think they will fit the role, they aren't getting hired. It has nothing to do with their name for me, and I have met very famous people. It is a competition there as well. I am sorry that I couldn't hire every actor, but I had a product to put out and it had to be a good product.

Right now, I have several screenplays I am working on. If they aren't bought, I still have friends who can make them independent. I'm in a wheelchair but it hasn't taken my mind, just my body. If I sat here and said that I don't have to try anymore, I might as well be dead.

reply to post by dukeofjive696969


IMHO, which doesn't happen often, one should never look down on any occupation -- including cleaning toilets or sweeping streets. I know a few people in Mensa who do exactly that. I don't know why for sure they made that choice, but at least they can go home and sleep well at night if the rest of their life is comfortable enough for them. From what I understand their choice was made to have low stress jobs that don't require much attention and can be 100% left behind when they go home.

I've always been of the opinion that you should either enjoy your occupation or at least your leisure if you are neutral to your occupation. There's nothing worse than doing something for 50 years that you don't enjoy or aren't suited (in what ever way) to doing. Trades can be a great occupation for some people. I'd probably like that somewhat because I like creating things which did not exist before. But I like what I do immensely and I'm not in the least tempted to do anything else full time. Yet few would choose what I do even if they find it interesting once in a while.

WarminIndy
reply to post by Aazadan

 

But if that isn't enough to convince you the importance that coal still plays in our society...

No one is saying outlaw coal. They're saying to stop using it for electricity generation. It's dirty, inefficient, and quite frankly is killing us. The reason it's popular is because it's cheap which makes it a solid economical choice. Options like nuclear and geothermal while quite healthy aren't cheap, though I think we would make back the higher electricity costs over time in lower health care overhead.

bigfatfurrytexan
It can also now be converted to a liquid diesel product that is far lower in sulphur than diesel, and about 25% cheaper than diesel. What was typically considered a commodity that could be wasted without regard will have the potential to really alter the way we see petrofuels.

There are very, very rich men with plans to free the US market up for domestic use. And they plan to make billions doing it. There is enormous potential for a win/win. Of course, it likely won't work out that way.

If we have to drill to meet our energy needs (and I don't see how not drilling is a realistic option right now) natural gas is where it's at. We have very large reserves, it burns cleaner than coal, and it's as cheap or cheaper than coal while being better for the environment. Natural Gas seems like a no brainer to me, but congress doesn't approve because they don't know what a good energy plan is and the coal lobby sure isn't helping matters.

WarminIndy
reply to post by sarra1833

 

You have been where most of us have been, perhaps it is our generation. When I first went to college way back in 1985, my first job paid $2.18, I had to work full time getting paid the same as those still in high school. I lived 20 miles away from my college so I still lived at home, but I still needed a car.

This wouldn't be a bad thing if the purchasing power of wages around minimum were still the same as they were in 1985, or better yet 1967. The purchasing power is less, the cost of education is more, and there aren't any good jobs once you get out of college.

BayesLike
reply to post by dukeofjive696969

 

IMHO, which doesn't happen often, one should never look down on any occupation -- including cleaning toilets or sweeping streets. I know a few people in Mensa who do exactly that. I don't know why for sure they made that choice, but at least they can go home and sleep well at night if the rest of their life is comfortable enough for them. From what I understand their choice was made to have low stress jobs that don't require much attention and can be 100% left behind when they go home.

I wish we put more emphasis on trades. The option after high school shouldn't be college or McDonalds. The option after college shouldn't be McDonalds. There should be valid choices to have a decent life that don't rely on going to college. Learning on the job, apprenticeships, and so on. These days however we've gone from paying someone and teaching them to the world of unpaid internships. Some internships these days even require you pay the company a fee in order to work for them for free to get that experience.

Aazadan

WarminIndy
reply to post by Aazadan

 

But if that isn't enough to convince you the importance that coal still plays in our society...

No one is saying outlaw coal. They're saying to stop using it for electricity generation. It's dirty, inefficient, and quite frankly is killing us. The reason it's popular is because it's cheap which makes it a solid economical choice. Options like nuclear and geothermal while quite healthy aren't cheap, though I think we would make back the higher electricity costs over time in lower health care overhead.

bigfatfurrytexan
It can also now be converted to a liquid diesel product that is far lower in sulphur than diesel, and about 25% cheaper than diesel. What was typically considered a commodity that could be wasted without regard will have the potential to really alter the way we see petrofuels.

There are very, very rich men with plans to free the US market up for domestic use. And they plan to make billions doing it. There is enormous potential for a win/win. Of course, it likely won't work out that way.

If we have to drill to meet our energy needs (and I don't see how not drilling is a realistic option right now) natural gas is where it's at. We have very large reserves, it burns cleaner than coal, and it's as cheap or cheaper than coal while being better for the environment. Natural Gas seems like a no brainer to me, but congress doesn't approve because they don't know what a good energy plan is and the coal lobby sure isn't helping matters.

WarminIndy
reply to post by sarra1833

 

You have been where most of us have been, perhaps it is our generation. When I first went to college way back in 1985, my first job paid $2.18, I had to work full time getting paid the same as those still in high school. I lived 20 miles away from my college so I still lived at home, but I still needed a car.

This wouldn't be a bad thing if the purchasing power of wages around minimum were still the same as they were in 1985, or better yet 1967. The purchasing power is less, the cost of education is more, and there aren't any good jobs once you get out of college.

BayesLike
reply to post by dukeofjive696969

 

IMHO, which doesn't happen often, one should never look down on any occupation -- including cleaning toilets or sweeping streets. I know a few people in Mensa who do exactly that. I don't know why for sure they made that choice, but at least they can go home and sleep well at night if the rest of their life is comfortable enough for them. From what I understand their choice was made to have low stress jobs that don't require much attention and can be 100% left behind when they go home.

I wish we put more emphasis on trades. The option after high school shouldn't be college or McDonalds. The option after college shouldn't be McDonalds. There should be valid choices to have a decent life that don't rely on going to college. Learning on the job, apprenticeships, and so on. These days however we've gone from paying someone and teaching them to the world of unpaid internships. Some internships these days even require you pay the company a fee in order to work for them for free to get that experience.

Hmm, purchasing power of 1985. Well, $2.18 was probably comparable as it is today. With $90 a week, and that's it for the week, you still have to consider the gas, which cost back then for those gas guzzlers, and my first car was a 1976 Chevy Nova, but then add onto that the next obvious need for insurance and then payments for another car. In 1988 I purchased a car, payments were $150 a month, with higher insurance because I was still considered young. My parents didn't have the ability to get tax breaks for me at that time. I had to pay for medical expenses myself.

So what are you guys complaining about? People were poor back then also. McDonald's should not be an option? Did you realize that most management in McDonald's HAVE been to college and yes, their management also started at the bottom, cleaning toilets and flipping burgers. Every fast food restaurant had management that worked their way up.

I have also noticed something, today when you go to McDonald's or some other restaurant, it takes longer for them to take your order and for you to get your food because the workers don't care enough about their job. What madness is this? There was a time when one took pride in their job, even if it was flipping burgers.

WarminIndy
Hmm, purchasing power of 1985. Well, $2.18 was probably comparable as it is today. With $90 a week, and that's it for the week, you still have to consider the gas, which cost back then for those gas guzzlers, and my first car was a 1976 Chevy Nova, but then add onto that the next obvious need for insurance and then payments for another car. In 1988 I purchased a car, payments were $150 a month, with higher insurance because I was still considered young. My parents didn't have the ability to get tax breaks for me at that time. I had to pay for medical expenses myself.

I'm going to start off by saying it's not about rich and poor. Those things are relative. The person that makes $20/hour is rich compared to his group of friends that make minimum wage. The person that only makes $1 million per year is poor compared to billionaires. There's some arguments one can make about wage gaps, such as how Plato lobbied for a gap of 4:1, JP Morgan went for 20:1, the current Japanese culture is around 30:1, and in the US it's roughly 4200:1 but those aren't really relevant to this discussion you're trying to make, instead it's about how long you have to work at the lower end of the spectrum to afford something.

I'll start by saying if you compare CPI numbers between 1985 and now you'll find that the minimum wage is roughly the same, it actually makes the argument that minimum wage today has slightly higher value than minimum wage in 1985. The problem with this approach however is that CPI has been twisted and deformed to present the image the government wants to present... that wages are keeping pace with the cost of living. The truth would be absolutely disastrous to those in power, and CPI has been corrupted to prevent that from happening. So lets compare time worked to afford something.

In 1985 the average house cost 75,500. Obviously a minimum wage worker wouldn't be purchasing an average home but we need a consistent datapoint to measure these things. At a minimum wage of $3.35 that's 22537.31 hours of work to purchase. Or at your below minimum wage 34,633.02 hours (I assume you were a waitress or other tipped position and weren't including tips in your earnings?). The average home today costs $203,500 as of mid 2013 which is 27,315.44 hours. An increase over the 1985 cost of 21.2%. So when it comes to housing you can say it's 21% more expensive today.

Since I've used their numbers in the past and I know they're readily available I'm going to point out tuition costs as well. A year of tuition at UPenn in 1985 cost $12,086 which is 3607.76 hours of work. Their tuition today costs $55,512 when not including housing (wasn't listed in the 1985 tuition, though meals were). That's 7451.28 hours of work. So one can say it costs 2.07x as much to attend today as it did in 1985.

Gas in 1985 cost $1.17/gallon. That is .3492 hours of work or 20.95 minutes to buy a gallon. Today the average gas price (using the 2013 average price) is $3.49/gallon. Which works out to .4684 hours or 28.11 minutes to buy a gallon of gas. So it can be said gas is 38.18% more expensive, however you introduced a new argument here with fuel efficiency. So lets account for that. The average gas mileage of a 1985 car according to CAFE standards is 27.5 MPG in 1985 and 30.2 at present day. So cars are 9.8% more fuel efficient now. Applying this to the above numbers fuel is actually only 23.4% more expensive.

We can do this for many more goods, but I think it gets the point across. A low wage today, is worth considerably less than a low wage in previous decades. If you go back to the 50's, 60's, or 70's it really gets eye opening as the 80's are when everything went to hell.

reply to post by WarminIndy


well i dont know what your educational background or history is but i dont go around insulting people's grammar for no reason in particular. And my house is $350 A WEEK, not a month. And i hold a bachelors in Environmental Science & management from the University of Newcastle, its one of the top 10 research universitires in the world thank you very much. And i said im a scientist, not a fking englishj major so sod off with your grammer Nazi bull#e. and by the way im a damn good scientist, and yes i come from a blue collar working class family and i had to do everything for myself, i wasnt born into some posh aristocracy, just the outer suburds of half bush towns in Australia

Oh and my salary is actually 56K a year, $830 is what i take home after tax.

and if your so clever and well educated why are you on such a low wage?

BeReasonable
and if your so clever and well educated why are you on such a low wage?

Not that I've agreed with Warmindy much in this thread, but the question you just asked is the entire point of it. In the US once you get an education a job doesn't exist for you. Our productivity is to the point where the needs and wants of the entire population are covered without requiring as many employees.

The only fixes are to either reduce the work week so that more people are needed, or create an economic system where not everyone is expected to work.

QueenofSpades

People on welfare who aren't doing anything DO need to either be working or in school. The responsibility to society should be well balanced. If there are more people than jobs, than at least people without jobs ccan be developing themselves to be ready to take on a job; if nothing, they should be educatig themselves so that we have more thinkers, making them at least somewhat productive to the society.

you do have a point, but answer this WHO PAYS for all this? school costs a hell of a lot of money. most of those "who aren't doing anything". in general are barely surviving as it is, how can they afford to go back to school? personally i would LOVE the chance to go to collage or university. but since i didn't qualify for any grants or "special government deals" it would have meant starting off life with a huge debt load, seeing how most people i know have never been able to find a job in their "field" and end up working the SAME low paying job and trying to pay off this debt, makes me think i made the right choice. people i know and worked with have said i should go back to school to become an engineer, that i have what it takes to be a good one. but here is the thing. not only would i need the money for school, but money to live on as well while i am in school. so WHO PAYS for this? the government constantly goes on about how they can not afford to keep paying more people who don't have a job. people already are freaking out about these freeloaders getting money just to (barely) live on, and you want to add far more to that cost? there is still no guarantee of them getting a job afterwards. so according to your thought, they should go back to school yet again, and take even more money. so where does this money for continual education come from? we are talking from about possibly over $30,000 per year per student. or do you expect someone who likely has bad credit to try to get loans for this with a good chance of not being able to pay it back when they still can't find a job. talk about one heck of a risk for a bank.

generik
you do have a point, but answer this WHO PAYS for all this? school costs a hell of a lot of money. most of those "who aren't doing anything". in general are barely surviving as it is, how can they afford to go back to school? personally i would LOVE the chance to go to collage or university.

Well... I'm fairly well versed on this subject since I have multiple degrees and no job to show for it. However, I also happen to have no student loan debt.

When I started out I went homeless. I went to school off of pell grants and a campus job. My typical schedule would be something along the lines of sleeping in the school library from 6 am-10am, attending class from 10am-2pm, working from 2pm-6pm, washing up on campus from 6pm-7pm, sleeping in the library from 7pm-11pm, walking to a 24 hour restaurant like tim hortons from 10pm-11pm (no car is fun), doing my homework and studying from 11pm-5 am, and then walking back to the library. That was my typical weekday routine. These days I have an apartment and a bed to sleep in (or not, due to insomnia) but it's still very frugal living. I don't suspect that will ever change unless I ever get hired for one of these good jobs that are supposedly out there (or I manage to create my own).

How did I pay for college on 20 hours of work (which was also paying for my upkeep) and pell grants? Easy: Pick a school that doesn't cost $50,000 a year. There are MANY smaller colleges in the US. The one I'm attending now is ranked 3rd in the nation in the field I'm in yet it only costs $3532 per semester. Even picking a weak/cheap school is fine because what matters (in theory) is a degree. If you feel like the cheaper school doesn't meet your educational needs, then use the internet or supplement your classes by buying books to add to whatever you learn (or don't learn) in the classroom. You're mainly just paying for a piece of paper, what you choose to learn regardless of the school is up to you.

Oh, and unless you absolutely have to have the book to do homework (such as a math class), do not buy your textbooks. Buy similar books from previous years that have almost no value but still have the same knowledge. Books are the biggest scam in the entire system.

Edit: The video the poster above listed touches on this but under no circumstances should you take a student loan. Sell a lung or a kidney on the black market before you consider any student loans. They are designed to trap you in debt for life. A friend of mine went to Ohio University a couple years back, like most people out on his own for the first time in his life he made some bad decisions which essentially came to taking out a years worth of loans, not working which added more debt, and then failing out of college. For his trouble he ended up with around $35,000 in loans for that one year (20k tuition, 15k living expenses). At this point that was 4 years ago, since then he has only worked minimum wage 30 hour/week jobs... not enough to make loan payments. This resulted in him defaulting and getting an $8750 penalty which brought him to about $44,000 in debt. Tack on 4 years of 6.8% compound interest with no payments made and he's sitting at $54,000 in debt.

That is a debt he will never be able to repay.

Do not take loans, the #1 rule of college even before study hard and learn the material is do not take student loans. They are predatory and will ruin your life.