Do People Just Not Want To Work Anymore?

[cyanne]

May 16, 2021 21:33:23 GMT -5 ktunes said:

While I'm sure there is a portion of the workforce not able to work because of child care options, fact is schools should all be open a full 5 days a week for in person learning...many states and schools have been with no issues...my area has help wanted signs almost everywhere and not just restaurants...distribution centers are offing decent wages with signing bonuses...seems to me we should stop paying people more to sit at home...there was not an issue staffing most of these jobs prior to the pandemic...

Not all children are school aged. There are not enough affordable daycare options. Why would someone take a job at $10-$15 per hour if childcare costs that much or more? 

Who is going to provide childcare if you can make more money working for someone else?

[giramomma]

May 17, 2021 8:22:44 GMT -5 TheOtherMe said:

There isn't a single one of those jobs I would apply for.  No guaranteed hours, horrible jobs, no benefits.  

On the flip side, there are good, lower-paying jobs at the university that never get filled.

Anything related to custodian/maintenance is one of them.

We're talking 40 hour work week, first shift.

Even if you only make 2600 a month, gross. It's pretty manageable. Family HDHP coverage is $85/month, plus the university gives you 1500 in an HSA a year.

It comes with sick leave, 2 weeks PTO, paid holidays, paying into the pension system that is a good one.

Sure, it's not enough to support my family of 6 in a 4 bedroom house. But for a single mom of a school aged kid that maybe needs either before or after school care, it's really quite doable.

So, 10 years ago, these positions WOULD be filled by the single mom type, at least in my building. 7 years ago, it was mostly immigrants that filled the positions. 5 years ago, no one was filling them.

There's something else going on in the labor market.

[giramomma]

I also think you all are discounting that some folks also know how to "get it done."

When I worked with my poor kids, one mom ran a daycare. She took two shifts, first and second. There was no way she charged her clients $10-$15 an hour. She was charging them like $2-3 an hour.

Of course she was unlicensed. But. She was always full. It filled a need. Was it easy? No. That family also had four kids. But, it was just enough to make sure to ensure extra above her husband's income. They were actually one of the more stable poor families that we knew. Active in their community, in their church, kids did alright, and they actually owned their own home.

When we made less money, I bartered for childcare. 

I think we've lost some of our collective ability to think outside the box to make things happen.

The choices aren't binary. The more we say "it's either SAH, or I have to pay  daycare center 2K a month for infant care." the less inclined we are able to figure out real solutions, both personally and at a national level.

ETA: Or maybe I'm just a special snowflake that can't conduct my life in a "either this or that" sort of way.

[cyanne]

May 17, 2021 8:41:53 GMT -5 giramomma said:

I also think you all are discounting that some folks also know how to "get it done."

When I worked with my poor kids, one mom ran a daycare. She took two shifts, first and second. There was no way she charged her clients $10-$15 an hour. She was charging them like $2-3 an hour.

Of course she was unlicensed. But. She was always full. It filled a need. Was it easy? No. That family also had four kids. But, it was just enough to make sure to ensure extra above her husband's income. They were actually one of the more stable poor families that we knew. Active in their community, in their church, kids did alright, and they actually owned their own home.

When we made less money, I bartered for childcare. 

I think we've lost some of our collective ability to think outside the box to make things happen.

The choices aren't binary. The more we say "it's either SAH, or I have to pay  daycare center 2K a month for infant care." the less inclined we are able to figure out real solutions, both personally and at a national level.

ETA: Or maybe I'm just a special snowflake that can't conduct my life in a "either this or that" sort of way.

I don’t think it’s binary but not everyone has a skill that can be bartered. If a person doesn’t know someone who will do daycare for that price it doesn’t help them. When I was a single mom I did use a family daycare because it was cheaper than a center but is was more than $3 an hour 25 years ago. I made $10 per hour. If my ex hadn’t paid child support which was enough to cover daycare (and only daycare) I would have been screwed.

[Lizard Queen]

We loved our home daycare, but it was no longer an option once the kids started elementary school. The school offers before/after care, but it is expensive, and much more limited due to covid. We are saving oodles of money working from home with the kids home with us after school and during the summer. That would have not been allowed by my employer pre-covid, as the prior remote work agreement did not permit it if there were children that needed care during work hours.

[giramomma]

May 17, 2021 9:33:15 GMT -5 cyanne said:

May 17, 2021 8:41:53 GMT -5 giramomma said:

I also think you all are discounting that some folks also know how to "get it done."

When I worked with my poor kids, one mom ran a daycare. She took two shifts, first and second. There was no way she charged her clients $10-$15 an hour. She was charging them like $2-3 an hour.

Of course she was unlicensed. But. She was always full. It filled a need. Was it easy? No. That family also had four kids. But, it was just enough to make sure to ensure extra above her husband's income. They were actually one of the more stable poor families that we knew. Active in their community, in their church, kids did alright, and they actually owned their own home.

When we made less money, I bartered for childcare. 

I think we've lost some of our collective ability to think outside the box to make things happen.

The choices aren't binary. The more we say "it's either SAH, or I have to pay  daycare center 2K a month for infant care." the less inclined we are able to figure out real solutions, both personally and at a national level.

ETA: Or maybe I'm just a special snowflake that can't conduct my life in a "either this or that" sort of way.

I don’t think it’s binary but not everyone has a skill that can be bartered. If a person doesn’t know someone who will do daycare for that price it doesn’t help them. When I was a single mom I did use a family daycare because it was cheaper than a center but is was more than $3 an hour 25 years ago. I made $10 per hour. If my ex hadn’t paid child support which was enough to cover daycare (and only daycare) I would have been screwed.

OK. I'll maybe buy that folks don't have a skill that can be bartered (though, cooking, cleaning, raking leaves and what not aren't high skilled tasks to barter), but maybe bartering isn't the only solution. The family I bartered with charged us $3.00 to watch my son 15 years ago. We still did owe her some money, because I normally charged $13/half hour for my services. But, it wasn't much, usually $20 for the week for a day and a half of daycare.

For a good while, some of my clients were low income grad families. Yes, they were living in family student housing on campus, which immediately gave them a network. But, one of my clients formed an informal child care co-op because they couldn't afford child care and still had needs for it, even with one parent SAH.  They could even barely afford my services. (I tried cashing a check at the end of the month and it bounced.)

I will also agree that not every solution will work for every family. But, because every family has different needs, we can't just ask the gov't to come up with one solution to serve everyone.

I think we'd all agree that my family shouldn't be getting tens of thousands right now from the gov't because we are middle class. But, that's what happens when you try for one solution that doesn't fit needs.

[TheOtherMe]

At the 3 private colleges here in town, wages are abysmally low.  I made $10.25 per hour when I worked there, 20 hours per week max.  And they insisted I had to do 5 days a week for 4 hours each week.

They always have job listings for maintenance type workers, security and receptionist.

Those guys shoveled snow by hand because of all the steps on the campus.

There was a job yesterday that someone posted:  bookkeeper must know Quickbooks, Excel and Word, a/p, a/r, etc.  $15 per hour 10-15 hours a week.  That would be a decent job if it was full time, but for 10-15 hours a week?

[minnesotapaintlady]

Carrot went to a $3/hour daycare.  She was even licensed and as far as I know, not even a drug addict!    Actually, she was really awesome and we both cried when it was time to pull him for kindy.

Covid wrecked havoc with after school programs at first and I just bowed out because I could.  They had options for essential workers, but I knew it was limited and didn't want to take a spot from someone that really needed it.   The school is going to run a summer program at $4.20/hour for kids entering K-6 but there's a lot of "scholarship" money from the church for folks that can't swing that. There are ways to get creative with childcare, but I'm glad those days are mostly past me now.  

[Lizard Queen]

You know who barter a lot? People in 3rd world countries. It may work great for people with the right personality/who have a lot of connections, but it shouldn't be required unless we want to look like a 3rd world country.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

I'll admit if I had unemployment that actually covered our bills I would have taken more time and been more selective.

it would have kept me from the really bad situation I got myself into at BT. I saw major red flags in the interview but the clock was ticking and I needed health insurance. It was my only offer so I took it.

Nobody should hate a job so much they fantasize about driving into the Missouri. It did eventually lead back to UNMC but if I could have I'd have liked to skip the BT step.

So I can see people doing some soul searching. I still disagree that being a server is a shit job too I know people who make bank and pay less in taxes because they don't report all their cash tips.

But that might not work for some people anymore. They may want something different.

I think in part we're also seeing people realize life is too short to force yourself to take any job that ain't nailed down. We'll probably see upticks again as people decide to go back or others decide to fill the niches left behind.

And some jobs will probably become obsolete and technology will take over.

The pandemic has probably sped up a lot of the cultural shifts that were already coming. We're more aware of it now because of the ripple effect. It's easy to ignore the trucker shortage till all of a sudden you need TP or your company has to cut back your hours because no trucks equals no work.

I don't buy it's UE nor do I buy suddenly what was a good wage in 2019 is suddenly poverty level in 2021. This was all going to come to a head eventually. We should have started planning for it years ago.

[giramomma]

May 17, 2021 11:20:03 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

You know who barter a lot?

So did one of the folks that I knew growing up. Her parents lived in one of the more expensive/elite suburbs close to where I grew up. Her mom was a SAHM. Dad was a jewelry store owner. She also grew up as an only child and managed to have a hell of a lot more nice things/opportunities than I ever did.

Of course. Not required. But, I didn't say that everyone should be required to do so. The more tools in the tool chest, the easier it is to fix things.

[Tiny]

May 16, 2021 21:33:23 GMT -5 ktunes said:

While I'm sure there is a portion of the workforce not able to work because of child care options, fact is schools should all be open a full 5 days a week for in person learning...many states and schools have been with no issues...my area has help wanted signs almost everywhere and not just restaurants...distribution centers are offing decent wages with signing bonuses...seems to me we should stop paying people more to sit at home...there was not an issue staffing most of these jobs prior to the pandemic...

Just a general thought (not really aimed at ktunes) -
There seems to be the assumption that everyone laid off of work back in March and April of 2020 - hasn't worked a day since they were laid off and have been enjoying the bounteous.  What if they found different jobs (and are still working them) in the last 13 months?   

What if the majority of workers who got laid off back in March 2020 and thru out 2020  have moved on to other things (jobs, started their own business, went back to school, determined their family didn't need to be a Double Income family, or something else?) 
 
How many people are "being paid to sit at home"?   


FWIW:  my  employer - always has atleast 10 to 15 positions per bigger office (employs at least 100 people or more)   that I'm fairly confident they have NO intention to ever fill.   I assume this serves some purpose in the bigger picture - the feel good of saying "why yes we are hiring go look at our list of open positions... (that we aren't attempting to fill)."   Or something else? 

[Deleted]

May 17, 2021 8:17:09 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

I think low paid workers who have been treated like shit should strike and unionize.

America was "great" because unions protected workers and were one factor in the rise of the middle class. As unions disappeared, so did our 'greatness'.

I know a lot of people on the boards are anti-union, but I have to say that as soon as we all figured out we were in the midst of a pandemic and what it all meant, the unions that cover the employees at my job got on the ball, negotiating temporary agreements with my employer to try to help us.

Some of you may remember how I was so freaked out and stressed about my job at first, one day because we didn’t even have soap in one break room to wash our hands. The agreements that were made included making sure we had sanitizer, masks, gloves, etc readily available.

When I had to quarantine because of a coworker, my Union President contacted me and stayed in contact to make sure everything was done correctly, including my pay.

I’ve been at my job long enough to know that things would’ve been very different if not for the unions standing up for us IRT the pandemic.

[Tiny]

May 17, 2021 11:20:03 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

You know who barter a lot? People in 3rd world countries. It may work great for people with the right personality/who have a lot of connections, but it shouldn't be required unless we want to look like a 3rd world country.

Isn't that the way VBRO and AirBnB  started?   Wealthy people (as in people who vacation for a month at a time or have second homes or vacation homes) "bartering" with other people like themselves to find long stay places to stay by letting someone else use their place for a long term stay?   and maybe getting the benefit of their property not being "empty" (someone to watch their dog, mow the lawn,  pick up the mail, etc...)   Wasn't it an informal network - since the owner of the house would be "letting in a stranger" - and they'd want to have some assurance that the "stranger" wasn't a total deadbeat?  So, it was by recommendation or "known friend"?  

[Deleted]

I think that for some people, losing jobs and/or income during the pandemic was a push to go ahead and pursue something else they already had been thinking about doing, like a better job, different career, or self employment.

It seems like a lot of younger people who we would think would be willing to work some of these jobs aren’t really interested in punching a clock or working for someone else. They’ve realized that there are countless ways to make money without doing either and they are making it work for them. A lot of it involves technology, the internet and social media, but not all of it.

Employers are going to have to adapt to how the world has changed too, and maybe offer better compensation and/or perks or something, if they need employees to stay in business.

[haapai]

May 17, 2021 8:32:38 GMT -5 giramomma said:

May 17, 2021 8:22:44 GMT -5 TheOtherMe said:

There isn't a single one of those jobs I would apply for.  No guaranteed hours, horrible jobs, no benefits.  

On the flip side, there are good, lower-paying jobs at the university that never get filled.

Anything related to custodian/maintenance is one of them.

We're talking 40 hour work week, first shift.

Even if you only make 2600 a month, gross. It's pretty manageable. Family HDHP coverage is $85/month, plus the university gives you 1500 in an HSA a year.

It comes with sick leave, 2 weeks PTO, paid holidays, paying into the pension system that is a good one.

Sure, it's not enough to support my family of 6 in a 4 bedroom house. But for a single mom of a school aged kid that maybe needs either before or after school care, it's really quite doable.

So, 10 years ago, these positions WOULD be filled by the single mom type, at least in my building. 7 years ago, it was mostly immigrants that filled the positions. 5 years ago, no one was filling them.

There's something else going on in the labor market.

It might be something going on in the housing market, or the commute, or the parking. 

I make $16 an hour but that's 15 miles from a college town.  The big state college has expanded its enrollment dramatically in the last twenty years.  The days of living in the run-down city adjacent to the college and taking the bus to work in the college town in order to avoid the costs of owning a car are long gone.  Everything on the main bus line is student housing.  Even places with no bus service, or extremely limited bus service, are being taken over by students and their cars.  The commuting time to that maintenance job would be insane and lord only knows where my assigned parking spot on that huge campus might be relative to where I reported for work.  It would be extremely difficult for me to find a housing and transportation combination that would allow me to live on less than 80% of my gross income or spend less than 10 hours a day away from home. 

I've had fixed expenses that exceeded 80% of my gross in the past, it's a scary and frustrating way to live.  You can't afford for anything to go wrong and you can't afford to be wrong about anything. 

[Lizard Queen]

May 17, 2021 13:24:51 GMT -5 Tiny said:

May 17, 2021 11:20:03 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

You know who barter a lot? People in 3rd world countries. It may work great for people with the right personality/who have a lot of connections, but it shouldn't be required unless we want to look like a 3rd world country.

Isn't that the way VBRO and AirBnB  started?   Wealthy people (as in people who vacation for a month at a time or have second homes or vacation homes) "bartering" with other people like themselves to find long stay places to stay by letting someone else use their place for a long term stay?   and maybe getting the benefit of their property not being "empty" (someone to watch their dog, mow the lawn,  pick up the mail, etc...)   Wasn't it an informal network - since the owner of the house would be "letting in a stranger" - and they'd want to have some assurance that the "stranger" wasn't a total deadbeat?  So, it was by recommendation or "known friend"?  

I have no idea, but truly wealthy people likely would not want strangers in their homes for a little extra cash.

[Miss Tequila]

May 17, 2021 13:30:16 GMT -5 @pinkcshmere said:

I think that for some people, losing jobs and/or income during the pandemic was a push to go ahead and pursue something else they already had been thinking about doing, like a better job, different career, or self employment.

It seems like a lot of younger people who we would think would be willing to work some of these jobs aren’t really interested in punching a clock or working for someone else. They’ve realized that there are countless ways to make money without doing either and they are making it work for them. A lot of it involves technology, the internet and social media, but not all of it.

Employers are going to have to adapt to how the world has changed too, and maybe offer better compensation and/or perks or something, if they need employees to stay in business.

I would agree with you if we weren’t subsidizing choices by paying inflated unemployment. Once that is stopped, we will see if people have moved on to greener pastures or if these jobs are suddenly filled.

I know in some parts of the country, unemployment is low. That isn’t the case in my area. Help wanted signs all over but our unemployment was at 9.6% (that was March numbers, April hasn’t been released as far as I can tell). So I do think inflating the unemployment has stopped people from taking jobs and it is really hurting small businesses

[wvugurl26]

I think some might be sitting at home. And I think others have moved onto better jobs. It seems in my area I see help wanted signs at food service/retail jobs. Historically they don't pay great and the hours are crap. I think some of those businesses are going to have to change how they schedule people at a minimum in order to attract employees. We've talked on these boards before how those type of jobs want open availability but only want to give you 25 hours a week and a different schedule every week.

I am seeing people who have created their own businesses and are doing much better out on their own. Those people aren't going back to those service type jobs.

Also I don't see a return to normal school in my area until next fall. I don't think the full slate of summer camps will be available either. My county has gone back to the most in person days and they still do not go on Wednesday. I doubt they have before and after care either. My coworkers in surrounding counties don't have that available.

[Deleted]

May 17, 2021 13:44:24 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

May 17, 2021 13:30:16 GMT -5 @pinkcshmere said:

I think that for some people, losing jobs and/or income during the pandemic was a push to go ahead and pursue something else they already had been thinking about doing, like a better job, different career, or self employment.

It seems like a lot of younger people who we would think would be willing to work some of these jobs aren’t really interested in punching a clock or working for someone else. They’ve realized that there are countless ways to make money without doing either and they are making it work for them. A lot of it involves technology, the internet and social media, but not all of it.

Employers are going to have to adapt to how the world has changed too, and maybe offer better compensation and/or perks or something, if they need employees to stay in business.

I would agree with you if we weren’t subsidizing choices by paying inflated unemployment. Once that is stopped, we will see if people have moved on to greener pastures or if these jobs are suddenly filled.

I know in some parts of the country, unemployment is low. That isn’t the case in my area. Help wanted signs all over but our unemployment was at 9.6% (that was March numbers, April hasn’t been released as far as I can tell). So I do think inflating the unemployment has stopped people from taking jobs and it is really hurting small businesses

Honestly, I didn’t have much of a problem with people “getting paid” to stay home, even though I couldn’t stay home myself.

I’m not a scientist and I don’t work in the medical field, but it seems to ME, that during a pandemic like we’ve been dealing with, the more people we can have stay home, the better. Done correctly (which we did not do), it should help limit the spread of the virus. When we closed things down, people lost income and jobs, but still had to pay to live. So I didn’t care about the federal government filling the gap by giving them money. Keeping as many people at home as possible (again, if we’d actually done it how we should have) should’ve been better for all of us IRT the pandemic.

If I were the ruler of everything, my top priority would’ve been to get through the pandemic with as little suffering and death as we could, even if it meant spending government money to help people be able to hunker down and not become homeless or starve to death.

I’m not surprised that people aren’t eager to take some of these jobs that don’t pay much and require dealing with the public, when so many in  “the public” are major assholes about masks and such. I wouldn’t be in a hurry to risk my and my loved ones’ health and life for a job like that either.

ETA: I wouldn’t be too happy if I had one of the jobs with my employer that require dealing with the public, and the pay is a lot more than minimum wage. The only good thing is that assaulting one of us while we’re on the clock (like I’ve seen videos of people doing to employees, like spitting on them, which would make me lose my mind) is a federal crime. That doesn’t mean people won’t do it, but at least it would hopefully have some consequences.

[Miss Tequila]

May 17, 2021 14:04:01 GMT -5 @pinkcshmere said:

May 17, 2021 13:44:24 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

I would agree with you if we weren’t subsidizing choices by paying inflated unemployment. Once that is stopped, we will see if people have moved on to greener pastures or if these jobs are suddenly filled.

I know in some parts of the country, unemployment is low. That isn’t the case in my area. Help wanted signs all over but our unemployment was at 9.6% (that was March numbers, April hasn’t been released as far as I can tell). So I do think inflating the unemployment has stopped people from taking jobs and it is really hurting small businesses

Honestly, I didn’t have much of a problem with people “getting paid” to stay home, even though I couldn’t stay home myself.

I’m not a scientist and I don’t work in the medical field, but it seems to ME, that during a pandemic like we’ve been dealing with, the more people we can have stay home, the better. Done correctly (which we did not do), it should help limit the spread of the virus. When we closed things down, people lost income and jobs, but still had to pay to live. So I didn’t care about the federal government filling the gap by giving them money. Keeping as many people at home as possible (again, if we’d actually done it how we should have) should’ve been better for all of us IRT the pandemic.

If I were the ruler of everything, my top priority would’ve been to get through the pandemic with as little suffering and death as we could, even if it meant spending government money to help people be able to hunker down and not become homeless or starve to death.

I’m not surprised that people aren’t eager to take some of these jobs that don’t pay much and require dealing with the public, when so many in  “the public” are major assholes about masks and such. I wouldn’t be in a hurry to risk my and my loved ones’ health and life for a job like that either.

ETA: I wouldn’t be too happy if I had one of the jobs with my employer that require dealing with the public, and the pay is a lot more than minimum wage. The only good thing is that assaulting one of us while we’re on the clock (like I’ve seen videos of people doing to employees, like spitting on them, which would make me lose my mind) is a federal crime. That doesn’t mean people won’t do it, but at least it would hopefully have some consequences.

I’m not disagreeing about the height of the pandemic. We now have plenty of vaccinations so if people didn’t get a vaccination, it’s because they chose not to. My state is now open. It is time to stop the extra unemployment and get people back to work

[thyme4change]

May 17, 2021 13:20:21 GMT -5 @pinkcshmere said:

May 17, 2021 8:17:09 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

I think low paid workers who have been treated like shit should strike and unionize.

America was "great" because unions protected workers and were one factor in the rise of the middle class. As unions disappeared, so did our 'greatness'.

I know a lot of people on the boards are anti-union, but I have to say that as soon as we all figured out we were in the midst of a pandemic and what it all meant, the unions that cover the employees at my job got on the ball, negotiating temporary agreements with my employer to try to help us.

Some of you may remember how I was so freaked out and stressed about my job at first, one day because we didn’t even have soap in one break room to wash our hands. The agreements that were made included making sure we had sanitizer, masks, gloves, etc readily available.

When I had to quarantine because of a coworker, my Union President contacted me and stayed in contact to make sure everything was done correctly, including my pay.

I’ve been at my job long enough to know that things would’ve been very different if not for the unions standing up for us IRT the pandemic.

I have mixed thoughts on unions. But if the government isn't going to force companies to make jobs reasonable, and those companies will continue to manipulate the system to get state and federal funding to cover their crappy jobs - then unions is our alternative.

[wvugurl26]

I think we have another month or so to go on vaccinations. It wasn't until mid April that my state opened them up to everyone. I have several coworkers just getting their second dose this week. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that just because you've been fully vaccinated and the state drops restrictions that everyone who wants to be vaccinated has completed it. Not everyone qualified to be vaccinated earlier this year. If you were posting in July/August that would be different.

My dad doesn't get his second dose until next week. My sister in law is several weeks off from dose #2.

People may also have children too young to be vaccinated that they worry about. I read an article today on CNN about those who should keep wearing masks even if they are fully vaccinated. They are suspecting it may not work so well for people undergoing chemo, those on immunosuppressive drugs, people with diabetes and those with autoimmune conditions like lupus.

The way I've seen crazy people treat the poor workers during this pandemic, I wouldn't want one of those jobs either.

[Deleted]

May 17, 2021 14:38:33 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

May 17, 2021 14:04:01 GMT -5 @pinkcshmere said:

Honestly, I didn’t have much of a problem with people “getting paid” to stay home, even though I couldn’t stay home myself.

I’m not a scientist and I don’t work in the medical field, but it seems to ME, that during a pandemic like we’ve been dealing with, the more people we can have stay home, the better. Done correctly (which we did not do), it should help limit the spread of the virus. When we closed things down, people lost income and jobs, but still had to pay to live. So I didn’t care about the federal government filling the gap by giving them money. Keeping as many people at home as possible (again, if we’d actually done it how we should have) should’ve been better for all of us IRT the pandemic.

If I were the ruler of everything, my top priority would’ve been to get through the pandemic with as little suffering and death as we could, even if it meant spending government money to help people be able to hunker down and not become homeless or starve to death.

I’m not surprised that people aren’t eager to take some of these jobs that don’t pay much and require dealing with the public, when so many in  “the public” are major assholes about masks and such. I wouldn’t be in a hurry to risk my and my loved ones’ health and life for a job like that either.

ETA: I wouldn’t be too happy if I had one of the jobs with my employer that require dealing with the public, and the pay is a lot more than minimum wage. The only good thing is that assaulting one of us while we’re on the clock (like I’ve seen videos of people doing to employees, like spitting on them, which would make me lose my mind) is a federal crime. That doesn’t mean people won’t do it, but at least it would hopefully have some consequences.

I’m not disagreeing about the height of the pandemic. We now have plenty of vaccinations so if people didn’t get a vaccination, it’s because they chose not to. My state is now open. It is time to stop the extra unemployment and get people back to work

Even with the vaccines, I still wouldn’t be excited about working with the public for low pay. I have grandchildren and Mister has a young child, and they’re all too young to get the vaccine. And I’m still wary of exposing my Mom to it, even if with help from the vaccine, it would be mild or without symptoms if she got it. I don’t want to be the reason her body is stressed any more than it already is with all her other health issues.

[thyme4change]

May 17, 2021 15:54:26 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

May 17, 2021 8:17:09 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

I think low paid workers who have been treated like shit should strike and unionize.

America was "great" because unions protected workers and were one factor in the rise of the middle class. As unions disappeared, so did our 'greatness'.

I don’t agree with you contention that “America was”great”” because of unions.  If that were true, wouldn’t the European countries that are more heavily unionized than the US be great?

I think that America’s greatness is tied to our massive manufacturing capability.  And the fact that we are blessed with more natural resources than most other countries.  Couple these two factors with the fact that much of the manufacturing in the rest of the world was destroyed during WW II, and it’s kind of hard not to look like the top dog.  Phrases used to describe the US such as “the arsenal of democracy” and “breadbasket to the world” are likely more the result of protective geography than any other single factor.

I guess we need to define "great" because satisfaction and quality of life is better in many of the European countries if which you speak. But if you are just talking pure GDP - sure, we were the only ones that didn't have their entire industry sector smashed to rubble during a war, and therefore manufactured a lot.

[tskeeter]

May 17, 2021 8:17:09 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

I think low paid workers who have been treated like shit should strike and unionize.



America was "great" because unions protected workers and were one factor in the rise of the middle class. As unions disappeared, so did our 'greatness'.

I don’t agree with you contention that “America was”great”” because of unions.  If that were true, wouldn’t European countries that are more heavily unionized than the US be great?



I think that America’s greatness is tied to our massive manufacturing capability.  And the fact that we are blessed with more natural resources than most other countries.  Couple these two factors with the fact that much of the manufacturing in the rest of the world was destroyed during WWII, and it’s kind of hard not to look like the top dog.  Phrases used to describe the US such as “the arsenal of democracy” and “breadbasket to the world” are likely more the result of the protective geography of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans than any other single factor.

It’s worth noting that union membership today is about at pre WWII levels.  Union membership spiked during WWII because the US military (read the Roosevelt administration) required that war production workers be union members.  This artificially boosted union membership during and after the War years.

I do agree that unionization contributed to the American middle class.  After all, the UAW made it possible for my high school graduate uncle to earn more than his PHD holding, college professor brother, and my EdD father.

[billisonboard]

May 17, 2021 15:54:26 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

May 17, 2021 8:17:09 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

I think low paid workers who have been treated like shit should strike and unionize.

America was "great" because unions protected workers and were one factor in the rise of the middle class. As unions disappeared, so did our 'greatness'.

I don’t agree with you contention that “America was”great”” because of unions.  If that were true, wouldn’t the European countries that are more heavily unionized than the US be great?

I think that America’s greatness is tied to our massive manufacturing capability.  And the fact that we are blessed with more natural resources than most other countries.  Couple these two factors with the fact that much of the manufacturing in the rest of the world was destroyed during WW II, and it’s kind of hard not to look like the top dog.  Phrases used to describe the US such as “the arsenal of democracy” and “breadbasket to the world” are likely more the result of protective geography than any other single factor.

I like to factor in the impact of former officers and enlisted having been so interdependent in war returning to civilian life. Screwing over in labor negotiations the guy who saved your life over there is tougher than when you have never had that experience.

[tskeeter]

May 17, 2021 16:08:15 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

May 17, 2021 15:54:26 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

I don’t agree with you contention that “America was”great”” because of unions.  If that were true, wouldn’t the European countries that are more heavily unionized than the US be great?

I think that America’s greatness is tied to our massive manufacturing capability.  And the fact that we are blessed with more natural resources than most other countries.  Couple these two factors with the fact that much of the manufacturing in the rest of the world was destroyed during WW II, and it’s kind of hard not to look like the top dog.  Phrases used to describe the US such as “the arsenal of democracy” and “breadbasket to the world” are likely more the result of protective geography than any other single factor.

I guess we need to define "great" because satisfaction and quality of life is better in many of the European countries if which you speak. But if you are just talking pure GDP - sure, we were the only ones that didn't have their entire industry sector smashed to rubble during a war, and therefore manufactured a lot.

My point is that “greatness”, as used by the poster, was more a matter of happenstance than it was the result of the efforts of any person or group.

By-the-way, I do admire the lifestyle choices of the people who live in a lot of European countries.  To the point that after some lifestyle observations during a trip to France, I quit my 70 - 80 hour a week job and took a less prestigious job that was closer to 40 hours a week.  I’m not convinced that the work philosophies that many American businesses promote are all that good for anyone but the business.

[tskeeter]

May 17, 2021 16:09:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 17, 2021 15:54:26 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

I don’t agree with you contention that “America was”great”” because of unions.  If that were true, wouldn’t the European countries that are more heavily unionized than the US be great?

I think that America’s greatness is tied to our massive manufacturing capability.  And the fact that we are blessed with more natural resources than most other countries.  Couple these two factors with the fact that much of the manufacturing in the rest of the world was destroyed during WW II, and it’s kind of hard not to look like the top dog.  Phrases used to describe the US such as “the arsenal of democracy” and “breadbasket to the world” are likely more the result of protective geography than any other single factor.

I like to factor in the impact of former officers and enlisted having been so interdependent in war returning to civilian life. Screwing over in labor negotiations the guy who saved your life over there is tougher than when you have never had that experience.

Great point!  I’m sure that the idea of caring for the troops carried over into the business world after the war.  Doesn’t it seem like these days caring for the troops is more lip service than reality?

[haapai]

May 17, 2021 16:09:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 17, 2021 15:54:26 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

I don’t agree with you contention that “America was”great”” because of unions.  If that were true, wouldn’t the European countries that are more heavily unionized than the US be great?

I think that America’s greatness is tied to our massive manufacturing capability.  And the fact that we are blessed with more natural resources than most other countries.  Couple these two factors with the fact that much of the manufacturing in the rest of the world was destroyed during WW II, and it’s kind of hard not to look like the top dog.  Phrases used to describe the US such as “the arsenal of democracy” and “breadbasket to the world” are likely more the result of protective geography than any other single factor.

I like to factor in the impact of former officers and enlisted having been so interdependent in war returning to civilian life. Screwing over in labor negotiations the guy who saved your life over there is tougher than when you have never had that experience.

White veterans might have been treated this way.  It might even have been significant. 

Black vets, not so much.