If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Why is it so hard for Americans to get a decent raise? Monopsony   ( slate.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, labor market concentration, Employment, inflation-adjusted hourly pay, local labor market, lower pay, outsize power, biggest job board, local labor markets  
•       •       •

2779 clicks; posted to Business » on 22 Jan 2018 at 12:18 AM (25 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



61 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-01-21 09:22:36 PM  
Good article for the layperson.

/not subby
 
2018-01-21 09:39:04 PM  
Avarice
 
2018-01-21 10:11:11 PM  
I've said it before but the best thing business ever did is get workers to turn on unions. Once they got rid of the unions the only way workers had to get better pay and conditions is for business to give it out of the goodness of their hearts. Of course the only reason we ever had unions is because business doesn't have a heart.
 
2018-01-21 10:17:05 PM  
It's them damn ferriners takin' our jerbs!
 
2018-01-21 10:32:25 PM  

RTOGUY: I've said it before but the best thing business ever did is get workers to turn on unions. Once they got rid of the unions the only way workers had to get better pay and conditions is for business to give it out of the goodness of their hearts. Of course the only reason we ever had unions is because business doesn't have a heart.


I don't think it is a total coincidence that the increasing rate of wage stagnation happens to coincide with the decrease in union membership.  There may be other factors at play, such as automation.  However, you are right IMHO businesses getting people to turn on unions.
 
2018-01-22 12:26:38 AM  

Brosephus: RTOGUY: I've said it before but the best thing business ever did is get workers to turn on unions. Once they got rid of the unions the only way workers had to get better pay and conditions is for business to give it out of the goodness of their hearts. Of course the only reason we ever had unions is because business doesn't have a heart.

I don't think it is a total coincidence that the increasing rate of wage stagnation happens to coincide with the decrease in union membership.  There may be other factors at play, such as automation.  However, you are right IMHO businesses getting people to turn on unions.


Police unions are alive and well.
 
2018-01-22 12:50:52 AM  
For those of you expecting something else....

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-01-22 02:18:03 AM  

RTOGUY: I've said it before but the best thing business ever did is get workers to turn on unions. Once they got rid of the unions the only way workers had to get better pay and conditions is for business to give it out of the goodness of their hearts. Of course the only reason we ever had unions is because business doesn't have a heart.


In Europe, where the governments and companies have a better relationship with unions, it is not my perception that people are paid more.

Having worked for a multinational that had offices near London, it had crossed my mind whether it should be my goal to go work there. However, salaries seem to scale with the published exchange rate, while things you buy cost as many pounds as they would dollars in the US.
 
2018-01-22 02:19:52 AM  

Harry_Seldon: For those of you expecting something else....

[img.fark.net image 425x319]


Shouldn't that be "Monopony"?
 
2018-01-22 03:20:22 AM  
People aren't paid more in Europe despite being more unionized.
 
2018-01-22 03:44:54 AM  
TLDR version: There's no such thing anymore as "small business". All industries are ultimately controlled by a handful of megacorporate fiefdoms that are too large and too entrenched to want to compete with each other over employees, products or marketshare.
 
2018-01-22 04:44:00 AM  

Grahor: People aren't paid more in Europe despite being more unionized.


In Europe total compensation is much higher.  There are national retirement plans (defined benefit pensions), much more vacation time (typically 5 weeks to start), and health care is much better run and isn't tied to employment.  College education is also a lot less expensive.  They also work less hours, so on a time basis they make more than Americans.
 
2018-01-22 05:17:13 AM  

Northern: Grahor: People aren't paid more in Europe despite being more unionized.

In Europe total compensation is much higher.  There are national retirement plans (defined benefit pensions), much more vacation time (typically 5 weeks to start), and health care is much better run and isn't tied to employment.  College education is also a lot less expensive.  They also work less hours, so on a time basis they make more than Americans.


It is true, but it's the result of nanny state regulations, and not free-market negotiations between unions and companies. Nothing stops US citizens from enacting similar nanny state regulations (as an example, see minimum wage in Seattle, say. It can be done if the people want it. Nothing stops it.)

However, the People of the United States have reject this kind of nanny state regulations and are actively voting to dismantle even those regulations which were enacted (see: Trump's elections). Somehow I doubt any unions will be able to force people to do what they don't want.
 
2018-01-22 05:41:20 AM  

Grahor: It is true, but it's the result of nanny state regulations, and not free-market negotiations between unions and companies.


If the study in TFA has merit, then that would mean these "nanny state regulations" are actually corrections to inefficiencies in the labor "free market."  It would be a classic case where deregulation/laissez-faire thr​eatens free markets instead of fostering them.
 
2018-01-22 06:12:44 AM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: Grahor: It is true, but it's the result of nanny state regulations, and not free-market negotiations between unions and companies.

If the study in TFA has merit, then that would mean these "nanny state regulations" are actually corrections to inefficiencies in the labor "free market."  It would be a classic case where deregulation/laissez-faire threa​tens free markets instead of fostering them.


Yes, absolutely. I agree. However, good luck convincing the People about it.
 
2018-01-22 06:52:26 AM  
Homer Union Interview
Youtube vAiJ1DLU0IU
 
2018-01-22 07:04:23 AM  

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: Brosephus: RTOGUY: I've said it before but the best thing business ever did is get workers to turn on unions. Once they got rid of the unions the only way workers had to get better pay and conditions is for business to give it out of the goodness of their hearts. Of course the only reason we

Police unions are alive and well.


 And the police in Maryland have no trouble making $100K per year. Even Baltimore City cops.

https://data.baltimorecity.gov/City-G​o​vernment/Baltimore-City-Employee-Salar​ies-FY2017/fh59-3d3c/data
 
2018-01-22 07:12:03 AM  

Grahor: Northern: Grahor: People aren't paid more in Europe despite being more unionized.

In Europe total compensation is much higher.  There are national retirement plans (defined benefit pensions), much more vacation time (typically 5 weeks to start), and health care is much better run and isn't tied to employment.  College education is also a lot less expensive.  They also work less hours, so on a time basis they make more than Americans.

It is true, but it's the result of nanny state regulations, and not free-market negotiations between unions and companies. Nothing stops US citizens from enacting similar nanny state regulations (as an example, see minimum wage in Seattle, say. It can be done if the people want it. Nothing stops it.)

However, the People of the United States have reject this kind of nanny state regulations and are actively voting to dismantle even those regulations which were enacted (see: Trump's elections). Somehow I doubt any unions will be able to force people to do what they don't want.


So a minority of the country wants to live in squalor

Too bad they aren't concentrated to one geographic area
 
2018-01-22 07:30:24 AM  
Doo Doo Do Do Do

vignette.wikia.nocookie.netView Full Size
 
2018-01-22 08:14:19 AM  

Grahor: It is true, but it's the result of nanny state regulations


You say that like it's a bad thing.
 
2018-01-22 08:28:39 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-01-22 08:35:26 AM  

RTOGUY: I've said it before but the best thing business ever did is get workers to turn on unions. Once they got rid of the unions the only way workers had to get better pay and conditions is for business to give it out of the goodness of their hearts. Of course the only reason we ever had unions is because business doesn't have a heart.


Unions were replaced by outsourcing to contract houses.  Businesses get the benefit of unions -- the ability to negotiate with a single representative for compensation -- without the negatives like having to listen to workers complaints.  Contract houses have an nice advantage in that the company can be a major shareholder in the business allowing then to skim a little cream off the top of the employees compensation.
 
2018-01-22 08:41:29 AM  

gameshowhost: Good article for the layperson.

/not subby


Farking move. Go where the opportunities are. That, more than anything else, is the strength for a worker in the US. During WW2, relocation became commonplace (after the government spent time shifting population around for war production) and stayed that way until the past 20 or so years (about the time the Dotcom bubble popped). Hell, I've seen a lot of people on Fark complain that [x] job isn't available where they live, but they have a sheer animal unwillingness to go where those jobs are common and paying well.

/That said, the article is a good read
 
2018-01-22 08:51:57 AM  

Grahor: Northern: Grahor: People aren't paid more in Europe despite being more unionized.

In Europe total compensation is much higher.  There are national retirement plans (defined benefit pensions), much more vacation time (typically 5 weeks to start), and health care is much better run and isn't tied to employment.  College education is also a lot less expensive.  They also work less hours, so on a time basis they make more than Americans.

It is true, but it's the result of nanny state regulations, and not free-market negotiations between unions and companies. Nothing stops US citizens from enacting similar nanny state regulations (as an example, see minimum wage in Seattle, say. It can be done if the people want it. Nothing stops it.)

However, the People of the United States have reject this kind of nanny state regulations and are actively voting to dismantle even those regulations which were enacted (see: Trump's elections). Somehow I doubt any unions will be able to force people to do what they don't want.


There isn't much money behind strategically manipulating public opinion for their best interests.
 
2018-01-22 08:56:32 AM  

Carousel Beast: Farking move. Go where the opportunities are.


B--Bu-But:
"My daddy was a coal miner, and his daddy was a coal miner and this is our town. We need jobs here in Barkfark, Westbygod Virginny".
and:
"This is my 'hood. And no one going to make me move out of my hood. We need jobs in this hood. Why don't Amazon put the HQ in the Hood here?"
and: Iowa. the entire state.
 
2018-01-22 09:01:17 AM  

Carousel Beast: Farking move. Go where the opportunities are. That, more than anything else, is the strength for a worker in the US. During WW2, relocation became commonplace (after the government spent time shifting population around for war production) and stayed that way until the past 20 or so years (about the time the Dotcom bubble popped). Hell, I've seen a lot of people on Fark complain that [x] job isn't available where they live, but they have a sheer animal unwillingness to go where those jobs are common and paying well.


Goes without saying: move, or an immigrant will, and take those jerbs
 
2018-01-22 09:04:42 AM  

Carousel Beast: gameshowhost: Good article for the layperson.

/not subby

Farking move. Go where the opportunities are. That, more than anything else, is the strength for a worker in the US. During WW2, relocation became commonplace (after the government spent time shifting population around for war production) and stayed that way until the past 20 or so years (about the time the Dotcom bubble popped). Hell, I've seen a lot of people on Fark complain that [x] job isn't available where they live, but they have a sheer animal unwillingness to go where those jobs are common and paying well.

/That said, the article is a good read


Yep, I see the the same thing.

My grandfather after the great depression heard there was a job in New Orleans, so he and grandmother got the money together for a one way ticket and she packed him a bunch of sandwiches.

He got the job.

My father moved us twice for employment in, once in the 70s, and the 80s.  In the the 1980s we lived in a hotel room for a month until they could fund us an affordable place to stay.
 
2018-01-22 09:35:05 AM  

itcamefromschenectady: RTOGUY: I've said it before but the best thing business ever did is get workers to turn on unions. Once they got rid of the unions the only way workers had to get better pay and conditions is for business to give it out of the goodness of their hearts. Of course the only reason we ever had unions is because business doesn't have a heart.

In Europe, where the governments and companies have a better relationship with unions, it is not my perception that people are paid more.

Having worked for a multinational that had offices near London, it had crossed my mind whether it should be my goal to go work there. However, salaries seem to scale with the published exchange rate, while things you buy cost as many pounds as they would dollars in the US.


Having worked for a multinational, I agree that the base salary was not very different for my counterparts. The major difference was in the benefits that my overseas co-workers enjoyed that were just part of the job there: family leave, more vacation, universal health care, etc. They were much happier and more productive than we were and the consensus was that it was due to their being more relaxed in general.
 
2018-01-22 09:51:09 AM  

Northern: Grahor: People aren't paid more in Europe despite being more unionized.

In Europe total compensation is much higher.  There are national retirement plans (defined benefit pensions), much more vacation time (typically 5 weeks to start), and health care is much better run and isn't tied to employment.  College education is also a lot less expensive.  They also work less hours, so on a time basis they make more than Americans.


I was going to respond to the cluelessness but I knew someone would have already been along to do so. Ty.
 
2018-01-22 09:58:19 AM  

Carousel Beast: gameshowhost: Good article for the layperson.

/not subby

Farking move. Go where the opportunities are. That, more than anything else, is the strength for a worker in the US. During WW2, relocation became commonplace (after the government spent time shifting population around for war production) and stayed that way until the past 20 or so years (about the time the Dotcom bubble popped). Hell, I've seen a lot of people on Fark complain that [x] job isn't available where they live, but they have a sheer animal unwillingness to go where those jobs are common and paying well.

/That said, the article is a good read


But flyover country is full of Red States.
 
2018-01-22 10:01:38 AM  

quo vadimus: Northern: Grahor: People aren't paid more in Europe despite being more unionized.

In Europe total compensation is much higher.  There are national retirement plans (defined benefit pensions), much more vacation time (typically 5 weeks to start), and health care is much better run and isn't tied to employment.  College education is also a lot less expensive.  They also work less hours, so on a time basis they make more than Americans.

I was going to respond to the cluelessness but I knew someone would have already been along to do so. Ty.


Yep.  When I worked in Colombia i was paid a bit less but:

1.Six weeks of vacation
2.Pension that was paid into not government fund but a financial firm of my choice(ING)
3.Health Insurance, everything was a 2 dollar copay
4.13 national 3 day weekends outside of my vacation
5.two weeks off for xmas, outside of my vacation
6.In december you get a prima, which is bonus based on your time with the company, 1 month salary per time per year spent with the company.

So yeah, the guys argument does not take things into account like.  It like an American saying "they have to wait for a doctors appointment in Canada." Then not equating having to wait three months to get an mri in the US, and then having the pleasure of paying for it.
 
2018-01-22 10:03:06 AM  

Grahor: Northern: Grahor: People aren't paid more in Europe despite being more unionized.

In Europe total compensation is much higher.  There are national retirement plans (defined benefit pensions), much more vacation time (typically 5 weeks to start), and health care is much better run and isn't tied to employment.  College education is also a lot less expensive.  They also work less hours, so on a time basis they make more than Americans.

It is true, but it's the result of nanny state regulations, and not free-market negotiations between unions and companies. Nothing stops US citizens from enacting similar nanny state regulations (as an example, see minimum wage in Seattle, say. It can be done if the people want it. Nothing stops it.)

However, the People of the United States have reject this kind of nanny state regulations and are actively voting to dismantle even those regulations which were enacted (see: Trump's elections). Somehow I doubt any unions will be able to force people to do what they don't want.


Germany is one example of union, government, and companies working together.
I agree that most Americans are ignorant of their poor compensation for work, one of the lowest in developed countries.  My parents were just before the baby boomers, and retired comfortably with pensions, social security, 401k and IRAs.  They make more than I do, and the income is virtually risk free.  Very few Americans now have that kind of benefit and financial security, where in Europe it still exists for now.  With the change to the US tax code, I do wonder if many industries like biotech, high tech, and finance will move here because of the ultra-low corporate tax and significantly lower labor costs for the bottom 97% of employees.
 
2018-01-22 10:12:35 AM  
A shortage of employers? Hmmm. That almost sounds like money is flowing to fewer and fewer people.
 
2018-01-22 10:13:20 AM  
The same damn Slate link was posted in the same damn tab THREE DAYS AGO:

Fri January 19, 2018: Business
(Slate) Why can't Americans get decent raises? Slate has some theories about that, some union-related
 
2018-01-22 10:15:50 AM  
I got a decent raise last year so I don't know what y'all's problem is.
 
2018-01-22 10:36:22 AM  

Grahor: People aren't paid more in Europe despite being more unionized.


Yes, they are.  Especially once you get outside of the focus the U.S. has on fixed base salaries.

Europeans working similar jobs have very similar base salaries to the U.S., but much more generous benefits, more vacation, holiday, and sick time (and actual ability to use them), and work shorter hours.  There are certainly trade offs in other areas of the national economy, but workers are definitely paid more per work hour.
 
2018-01-22 10:48:40 AM  

Carousel Beast: gameshowhost: Good article for the layperson.

/not subby

Farking move. Go where the opportunities are. That, more than anything else, is the strength for a worker in the US. During WW2, relocation became commonplace (after the government spent time shifting population around for war production) and stayed that way until the past 20 or so years (about the time the Dotcom bubble popped). Hell, I've seen a lot of people on Fark complain that [x] job isn't available where they live, but they have a sheer animal unwillingness to go where those jobs are common and paying well.

/That said, the article is a good read


So much this.  Once you work someplace, they don't give a fark, offer a 5% annual raise.  Meanwhile, their competitor will offer a 30% raise and a 10k signing bonus.  fark me?  No, fark YOU!
 
2018-01-22 10:53:07 AM  

AcneVulgaris: Carousel Beast: gameshowhost: Good article for the layperson.

/not subby

Farking move. Go where the opportunities are. That, more than anything else, is the strength for a worker in the US. During WW2, relocation became commonplace (after the government spent time shifting population around for war production) and stayed that way until the past 20 or so years (about the time the Dotcom bubble popped). Hell, I've seen a lot of people on Fark complain that [x] job isn't available where they live, but they have a sheer animal unwillingness to go where those jobs are common and paying well.

/That said, the article is a good read

So much this.  Once you work someplace, they don't give a fark, offer a 5% annual raise.  Meanwhile, their competitor will offer a 30% raise and a 10k signing bonus.  fark me?  No, fark YOU!


You do realize that not everybody is able to just pick up and move. If you are young and untethered to a region by spouse family or whatever, then yes, follow the opportunity. Many people who could benefit from that move are living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford to take that risk, every move is a gamble.

Please don't issue blanket statements telling us how easy it is for everybody to move to a new region.
 
2018-01-22 10:59:16 AM  
Once companies stopped being loyal to their employees and treating them as resources to be used up and thrown away ("human resources" anybody) then employees stopped being loyal to their companies.  Many people have learned that the only way to get a decent raise is to switch companies.
 
2018-01-22 11:02:14 AM  

theflatline: Yep, I see the the same thing.

My grandfather after the great depression heard there was a job in New Orleans, so he and grandmother got the money together for a one way ticket and she packed him a bunch of sandwiches.

He got the job.

My father moved us twice for employment in, once in the 70s, and the 80s. In the the 1980s we lived in a hotel room for a month until they could fund us an affordable place to stay.


That's the kicker with stagnating wages. It has to be worth it to move, and a lot of the time it ain't. You can make $10/hr where you are or $12/hr where you might be able to go, you don't have any money to afford a month of living in a hotel, and there's the very real danger that your job will evaporate before you've even recouped the costs of moving.

I've moved for work. Took a chance on an internship with a Verizon subsidiary doing work on cellphone software. Spent my six months living apart from the wife, finally got a full time position, moved the wife up with me, and two months later they laid everyone off without so much as a warning and outsourced the work to Eastern Europe.

Yeah, there's the coalminers who are too stupid to do anything but hope the mine comes back, but there are more people who do the mental math and figure they're screwed no matter where they are, so play it much, much safer.
 
2018-01-22 11:05:15 AM  

theflatline: Carousel Beast: gameshowhost: Good article for the layperson.

/not subby

Farking move. Go where the opportunities are. That, more than anything else, is the strength for a worker in the US. During WW2, relocation became commonplace (after the government spent time shifting population around for war production) and stayed that way until the past 20 or so years (about the time the Dotcom bubble popped). Hell, I've seen a lot of people on Fark complain that [x] job isn't available where they live, but they have a sheer animal unwillingness to go where those jobs are common and paying well.

/That said, the article is a good read

Yep, I see the the same thing.

My grandfather after the great depression heard there was a job in New Orleans, so he and grandmother got the money together for a one way ticket and she packed him a bunch of sandwiches.

He got the job.

My father moved us twice for employment in, once in the 70s, and the 80s.  In the the 1980s we lived in a hotel room for a month until they could fund us an affordable place to stay.


It's worked out well for my family and our parents on both sides too. But I think it wouldn't if everybody did it.

Maybe it's fair to rationalize that we don't have bigger problems to solve as long as we aren't overflowing with folks willing to take the steps to solve the problem for themselves.
 
2018-01-22 11:07:43 AM  

OccamsWhiskers: Maybe it's fair to rationalize that we don't have bigger problems to solve as long as we aren't overflowing with folks willing to take the steps to solve the problem for themselves.


I think that mischaracterizes the problem. Without the likes of unions, everyone everywhere trying to move for work is just a crabs in a bucket scenario.
 
2018-01-22 11:10:23 AM  

AcneVulgaris: Carousel Beast: gameshowhost: Good article for the layperson.

/not subby

Farking move. Go where the opportunities are. That, more than anything else, is the strength for a worker in the US. During WW2, relocation became commonplace (after the government spent time shifting population around for war production) and stayed that way until the past 20 or so years (about the time the Dotcom bubble popped). Hell, I've seen a lot of people on Fark complain that [x] job isn't available where they live, but they have a sheer animal unwillingness to go where those jobs are common and paying well.

/That said, the article is a good read

So much this.  Once you work someplace, they don't give a fark, offer a 5% annual raise.  Meanwhile, their competitor will offer a 30% raise and a 10k signing bonus.  fark me?  No, fark YOU!


You got a 5% raise??
 
2018-01-22 11:11:44 AM  

Sophont: theflatline: Yep, I see the the same thing.

My grandfather after the great depression heard there was a job in New Orleans, so he and grandmother got the money together for a one way ticket and she packed him a bunch of sandwiches.

He got the job.

My father moved us twice for employment in, once in the 70s, and the 80s. In the the 1980s we lived in a hotel room for a month until they could fund us an affordable place to stay.

That's the kicker with stagnating wages. It has to be worth it to move, and a lot of the time it ain't. You can make $10/hr where you are or $12/hr where you might be able to go, you don't have any money to afford a month of living in a hotel, and there's the very real danger that your job will evaporate before you've even recouped the costs of moving.

I've moved for work. Took a chance on an internship with a Verizon subsidiary doing work on cellphone software. Spent my six months living apart from the wife, finally got a full time position, moved the wife up with me, and two months later they laid everyone off without so much as a warning and outsourced the work to Eastern Europe.

Yeah, there's the coalminers who are too stupid to do anything but hope the mine comes back, but there are more people who do the mental math and figure they're screwed no matter where they are, so play it much, much safer.


And then they get on the internet to anonymously biatch about what a shiatty (yet safe) life they have. Almost as if something better is owed to them without them having to do a damn thing themselves.

Personally, i've relocated twice in my career, both times to areas of the country where i had no family, friends, or prior connections. Yes, it was risky and I could very well have failed. But that is where the jobs (and money) were, and it was much better than taking the "safe" route of parents basement + pumping gas.

Want a better life and employment? Get off you ass, go look for it elsewhere, and be prepared to take the opportunity even if it means moving.
 
2018-01-22 11:16:27 AM  

Grahor: People aren't paid more in Europe despite being more unionized.


Are you including the fact that they don't pay out of pocket for Healthcare?
 
2018-01-22 11:22:49 AM  

Dick Gozinya: Almost as if something better is owed to them without them having to do a damn thing themselves.


It used to be the American Dream to be afforded the chance to work hard and prosper without the risk of losing everything. People are willing to work, but the raw deal they're often expected to put up with can be seen from a mile off and it gets bigger every day.

Dick Gozinya: Personally, i've relocated twice in my career, both times to areas of the country where i had no family, friends, or prior connections. Yes, it was risky and I could very well have failed. But that is where the jobs (and money) were, and it was much better than taking the "safe" route of parents basement + pumping gas.


And if you had failed?
And you also assume that the only people unwilling to try are the type to live in their parents' basement. I suppose you think most min. wage workers are teenagers looking for Xbox money?
 
2018-01-22 11:23:21 AM  

Sophont: OccamsWhiskers: Maybe it's fair to rationalize that we don't have bigger problems to solve as long as we aren't overflowing with folks willing to take the steps to solve the problem for themselves.

I think that mischaracterizes the problem. Without the likes of unions, everyone everywhere trying to move for work is just a crabs in a bucket scenario.


I think I agree with you - currently I think anyone can solve this problem for themselves. But if everyone took those steps, it would reveal that it is definitely not possible for everyone to solve their problem. And it's crazy that a place with as much abundance as the US demands risk and sacrifice in order to obtain things like a month per year of leisure time, quality health care, education, basic financial security for retirement. We're doing it wrong.
 
2018-01-22 11:24:10 AM  

Dick Gozinya: Sophont: theflatline: Yep, I see the the same thing.

My grandfather after the great depression heard there was a job in New Orleans, so he and grandmother got the money together for a one way ticket and she packed him a bunch of sandwiches.

He got the job.

My father moved us twice for employment in, once in the 70s, and the 80s. In the the 1980s we lived in a hotel room for a month until they could fund us an affordable place to stay.

That's the kicker with stagnating wages. It has to be worth it to move, and a lot of the time it ain't. You can make $10/hr where you are or $12/hr where you might be able to go, you don't have any money to afford a month of living in a hotel, and there's the very real danger that your job will evaporate before you've even recouped the costs of moving.

I've moved for work. Took a chance on an internship with a Verizon subsidiary doing work on cellphone software. Spent my six months living apart from the wife, finally got a full time position, moved the wife up with me, and two months later they laid everyone off without so much as a warning and outsourced the work to Eastern Europe.

Yeah, there's the coalminers who are too stupid to do anything but hope the mine comes back, but there are more people who do the mental math and figure they're screwed no matter where they are, so play it much, much safer.

And then they get on the internet to anonymously biatch about what a shiatty (yet safe) life they have. Almost as if something better is owed to them without them having to do a damn thing themselves.

Personally, i've relocated twice in my career, both times to areas of the country where i had no family, friends, or prior connections. Yes, it was risky and I could very well have failed. But that is where the jobs (and money) were, and it was much better than taking the "safe" route of parents basement + pumping gas.

Want a better life and employment? Get off you ass, go look for it elsewhere, and be prepared to take the opportun ...


How many kids do you have? Is your spouse currently employed in a place that treats them well? Do you have a mortgage? If not then awesome for you being able to move.

Don't call people lazy simply because they have more to lose than you if the move doesn't work out.
 
2018-01-22 11:26:34 AM  
Hit send too soon. What exactly is the coal miner going to do? They have no skills that don't require a pickaxe and they are so far below the poverty line in some cases that their kids will never even have a chance to succeed. I can understand the fear of the coal miner, this life is all they know. What job exactly are they going to move to?

The world isn't as mobile as you seem to believe it is.
 
2018-01-22 11:28:22 AM  

OccamsWhiskers: Sophont: OccamsWhiskers: Maybe it's fair to rationalize that we don't have bigger problems to solve as long as we aren't overflowing with folks willing to take the steps to solve the problem for themselves.

I think that mischaracterizes the problem. Without the likes of unions, everyone everywhere trying to move for work is just a crabs in a bucket scenario.

I think I agree with you - currently I think anyone can solve this problem for themselves. But if everyone took those steps, it would reveal that it is definitely not possible for everyone to solve their problem. And it's crazy that a place with as much abundance as the US demands risk and sacrifice in order to obtain things like a month per year of leisure time, quality health care, education, basic financial security for retirement. We're doing it wrong.


We mostly agree.
Just having moved twice to completely new areas and having been laid off both times, I'm gunshy about telling anyone to move again. The deck gets stacked more and more against a move being a good choice unless you have some, any kind of guarantee you can get a return on the move before it all gets ripped away.
 
Displayed 50 of 61 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report