Minimum Wage and is Walmart underpaying?

[MrMoogle]

There are some employers who find the minimum wage a burden, be they small businesses or billionaire overlords. Lacking any government controls altogether, they would actually pay a lower wage than whatever federal or local mandate that oversees them.

Walmart, a great example, relies heavily on SNAP, ACA, EITC, etc. for its "associates". Without such overreaching governmental interference, they might actually need to pay a living wage and real-world benefits. The horrors.

These programs definitely play a part, but to me it's a chicken and egg thing, they're tied together and rely on each other. 

Fewer and fewer companies need low skilled and unskilled.  The supply of these people have probably lowered slightly over the years, but the demand has dropped dramatically.  Because of this, Walmart has more applicants than it knows what to do with, all willing to be paid minimum wage, it can be fully staffed with mostly paying minimum wage.

Because the demand for low skilled and unskilled workers has dropped, society has slowly added these programs because we are seeing more and more friends who are suffering.  These programs help alleviate the pain, but also make it more financially acceptable to work a lower wage.  So because Walmart pays minimum wage, we made these programs.  And because we made these programs, Walmart can more easily pay minimum wage. 

What I think we need is more companies similar to Walmart, who go after low skilled and unskilled workers.  This increases the demand of these people, and wages will increase as a result.  But it needs to be on the order of Walmart: millions of employees.  Anyone have a good idea and wants to start a company?

[mm1970]

There are some employers who find the minimum wage a burden, be they small businesses or billionaire overlords. Lacking any government controls altogether, they would actually pay a lower wage than whatever federal or local mandate that oversees them.

Walmart, a great example, relies heavily on SNAP, ACA, EITC, etc. for its "associates". Without such overreaching governmental interference, they might actually need to pay a living wage and real-world benefits. The horrors.

These programs definitely play a part, but to me it's a chicken and egg thing, they're tied together and rely on each other. 

Fewer and fewer companies need low skilled and unskilled.  The supply of these people have probably lowered slightly over the years, but the demand has dropped dramatically.  Because of this, Walmart has more applicants than it knows what to do with, all willing to be paid minimum wage, it can be fully staffed with mostly paying minimum wage.

Because the demand for low skilled and unskilled workers has dropped, society has slowly added these programs because we are seeing more and more friends who are suffering.  These programs help alleviate the pain, but also make it more financially acceptable to work a lower wage.  So because Walmart pays minimum wage, we made these programs.  And because we made these programs, Walmart can more easily pay minimum wage. 

What I think we need is more companies similar to Walmart, who go after low skilled and unskilled workers.  This increases the demand of these people, and wages will increase as a result.  But it needs to be on the order of Walmart: millions of employees.  Anyone have a good idea and wants to start a company?

That's interesting, because I always thought it was the other way around.

The "partially skilled" jobs are going away, leaving many people jobless.  Few people are going to go from the manufacturing floor to programming, so you look for any job you can find.  I assumed that the increase in the # of people looking for low skilled jobs is because the jobs they WERE qualified for, are now gone.

[kayvent]

A lot of bootstrapper type arguments in here.
I agree that it's better to always do your best in school and work hard, but for some people even following that advice comes with hurdles and obstacles. IMO minimum wage should keep up with inflation at the very least. Whether or not someone shoulda coulda woulda did better in life as to avoid having to take those jobs is irrelevant to me.

I disagree with that. That actually just sidesteps the issue. Instead of politicians and voters deciding when/how to affect the minimum wage, it could be political appointees who do. (A slight issue is that an inflation index is not static over time. If it was static and minimum wage was pegged to the CPI in the 1940s, the minimum wage would be far lower in the USA than it is nowadays. This dynamic composition of an index means some set of humans are still responsible to decide how the index may grow, and if tied to the minimum wage, how to manipulate its growth or shrinkage.)

I also think pegging it to an index would be redundant. The last time I bothered hand calculating inflation-adjusted minimum wages¹ many start/end year pairs have the federal minimum wage roughly track the CPI².

¹ How boring is my life?
² There are some major outlier pairs because of stagflation. A situation like that though, I posit, would be the nightmare situation for a pegged minimum wage. Employers would suddenly see a huge uptick in employee costs at a time when the economy is slowing and their own balance sheets are being erased

[teen persuasion]

Minimum wage should support a high school kid living with their parents, a college student just needing spending money, or a few young friends sharing an apartment, vehicle, etc while they learn skills the marketplace will pay more for.  It should NOT provide enough money to support a family on as a family to support is not something people with no marketable skills should have in the first place and we shouldn't force employers to pay an unskilled high school kid living with his parents enough money to support a family on their own. Their lack of skills isn't worth that much and their situation shouldn't demand it from society, even if there are a small fraction of people who have made decisions in their life that may have gotten them a family before they developed the skills to earn a paycheck which could support a family.

The risky thing here, and the thing that always makes me pause, is the increase in jobs that are deemed "minimum wage" and "unworthy" by ... well ... people.

I grew up in a rural area where, as EnjoyIt claims, people can live well on minimum wage.  Now, it's not really all that true for many reasons, but the ACA has certainly helped a bit.

What have I seen change over the years?  Well, when I was a kid, there were a few manufacturing plants that paid fairly well.  There were the public union type jobs that paid well - Electric company, gas company, teaching.  There were not that many other "professional" jobs around, but we did have a college.  My family members worked at various jobs - truck driving, at the bank, selling cell phones, teaching, working as a bookkeeper, managing a Gap store, working as an officer manager, etc.  My dad was an auto mechanic.

Aside from all of those jobs, there were other "decent" paying jobs.  I myself worked at the grocery store for a bit in summers and on college breaks.  That was a place where you started at the bottom.  But you were soon making above minimum wage.  You started as a bagger - and most baggers were college students, but not all.  The people who were not quickly got moved into stocking, or the deli, or the bakery, or produce, or to work as a cashier.  Now, these people, once they got moved, were able to get close to full time hours, and eventually full time hours.  There were a limited number of "full time" jobs (with benefits), so you might have to wait to get benefits.  I had several weeks one summer of picking up extra hours to get 36+, and they stopped that because they were required to offer me benefits.  (I was making $3.35/hr, I didn't care, I needed the money.)

You were not going to be living high on the hog on these jobs.  But 2 of these jobs in a family, and you could afford a trailer or mobile home in a mobile home park, and some vacations camping, and TV and cable.  You could afford hunting and fishing gear.  It was a solid job that required hard work and some level of skill.

Fast forward to 30 years later, and I'm ... disturbed by the number of people I hear making fun of these jobs, suggesting that they are for "teenagers".  Maybe I'm in a different bubble, but I feel like 30 years ago, people didn't make fun of grocery store cashiers for being stupid and lazy and unskilled.  My home town was rural and not highly paid - I had a friend in a different state who was making $16-24 an hour working as a grocery store cashier in the early 90's.

So in these discussions, I always return to "options".  It appears to me that a few things have happened.
- We've lost "skilled" jobs - manufacturing, bookkeeping, etc
- We've lost partially skilled jobs that require customer service skills - grocery clerk, banker
- We've gained "service" jobs - barista, fast food worker
- We've gained automation - ATMs, self check-out, powerful computers that will do the math for you
- We've redefined jobs that used to be solid jobs with a future, where you can make a decent living if you work hard - as now "for teenagers"
- In my hometown, we lost jobs at the local grocery stores and other small stores to Walmart.  They put a Walmart in when I was in college or out of college, and lost many other jobs to them.  Walmart pays less than the other grocery stores.
- We've changed the rules - now, to be a receptionist at my company, you have to have a college degree.  My sister started as a receptionist, then became the office manager at an insurance company.  No degree.  She's skilled and learned on the job (even got licensed to sell insurance.  Sold one policy.  Then the boss realized he would be losing his own commission.  Wouldn't let her sell anymore.)  Anyway, you get to go into debt to get a college degree to answer phones.

So, what % of jobs today are minimum wage and "unworthy", compared to 30 years ago?

Very well said - this echoes my experiences in the rural area we've lived in for 22 years now.

DH worked at Wal-Mart when we first moved here (replacement job for his banking position that went away).  At that time you could get full-time but it was minimum wage or just barely above from what I remember.  Wal-Mart was just coming into our area then, DH was helping with store set-up initially, and then moved into various departments as needed.  Wal-Mart built a new building on open land, directly across from abandoned plazas that would have been better to reuse (poor for the local business district).  Within a few years they began a campaign to create a Super Wal-Mart, and the only location they would accept was the site of the local mall - still functioning, but sliding a bit.  Small businesses in the mall left in droves, some eventually relocating, ironically, to those abandoned plazas, but anchor stores and the only movie theater closed entirely.  The now abandoned mall got tied up in political NIMBY wrangling for nearly a decade.  Then birds nesting areas in the abandoned parking lot delayed the finally approved build of our Super Wal-Mart for another year.  So now we have a new abandoned building - the original Wal-Mart.

The new Super Wal-Mart is most definitely not an improvement over the existing store.  Yes, they now carry groceries, but they are seriously overpriced.  Making room for a grocery store seems to have crowded out much of the inventory they used to carry, and we cannot find elsewhere as there's no longer a mall.  And then there's the madness that they call their newly created parking lot.  Someone actually designed it that way, on purpose?  It seems a recipe for fender benders daily, because it forces drivers thru serpentine turns trying to find the exit, with no clear right of ways.


When DH was working at Wal-Mart, he was full time, and had benefits, such as they were.  A large chunk of his pay went to his portion of our health insurance.  I seem to remember it was $75/week, and I believe he was paid $6/hr then.  At the time, $75/week was much higher than he'd paid thru other employers.  When I became pregnant, we learned that Wal-Mart's insurance was not considered adequate insurance by NYS, and thus I was eligible for Medicaid for my pregnancy!  So we were contributing a much larger than normal (for the time) amount for health insurance that the state considered inadequate.  I believe the state cracked down on them after that, but DH had moved on to better employment: printing boxes for garbage bags.  It drove DH crazy that he was paid to make something literally intended to be thrown away, but it was a good place to work.  Of course, NAFTA eventually shut that employer down.  DH used offered training to move on to teaching (but earned less). 

Sometimes it doesn't matter how intelligent and educated you are if the local businesses close, transfer, relocate, merge, downsize, etc.  There are only so many jobs to fight over.

[calimom]

Isn't it funny how that works, teenpersuation? You pay a huge amount of premiums only to find that you're not really covered under the Walmart "plan" and need government assistance on top of that. And what do you want to bet Walmart got enormous tax breaks and concessions for that Superstore in the form of traffic lights and anything else they felt the municipality should kick in. They get it on all ends. And the low wage workers are the pawns.

Anyone who wants to see how this really works should check out "Walmart: The High Cost of  Low Price" from 2005.

[WhiteTrashCash]

The saddest thing when Walmart moved to the town where I used to work for them was how they completely obliterated all the small businesses. They actually had a strategy board in the manager's office targeting the various small businesses with product they would sell at a loss until their competitor went under. Then, they would jack the price. With no competition, Walmart could offer whatever wages they wanted, since there were no longer other places to work.

When you drive through the formerly bustling downtown of that little rural village, it now looks like a ghost town from a Wild West movie. Boarded up shops everywhere and completely abandoned, except for the shiny Walmart supercenter on the edge of town.

[mizzourah2006]

Minimum wage should support a high school kid living with their parents, a college student just needing spending money, or a few young friends sharing an apartment, vehicle, etc while they learn skills the marketplace will pay more for.  It should NOT provide enough money to support a family on as a family to support is not something people with no marketable skills should have in the first place and we shouldn't force employers to pay an unskilled high school kid living with his parents enough money to support a family on their own. Their lack of skills isn't worth that much and their situation shouldn't demand it from society, even if there are a small fraction of people who have made decisions in their life that may have gotten them a family before they developed the skills to earn a paycheck which could support a family.

The risky thing here, and the thing that always makes me pause, is the increase in jobs that are deemed "minimum wage" and "unworthy" by ... well ... people.

I grew up in a rural area where, as EnjoyIt claims, people can live well on minimum wage.  Now, it's not really all that true for many reasons, but the ACA has certainly helped a bit.

What have I seen change over the years?  Well, when I was a kid, there were a few manufacturing plants that paid fairly well.  There were the public union type jobs that paid well - Electric company, gas company, teaching.  There were not that many other "professional" jobs around, but we did have a college.  My family members worked at various jobs - truck driving, at the bank, selling cell phones, teaching, working as a bookkeeper, managing a Gap store, working as an officer manager, etc.  My dad was an auto mechanic.

Aside from all of those jobs, there were other "decent" paying jobs.  I myself worked at the grocery store for a bit in summers and on college breaks.  That was a place where you started at the bottom.  But you were soon making above minimum wage.  You started as a bagger - and most baggers were college students, but not all.  The people who were not quickly got moved into stocking, or the deli, or the bakery, or produce, or to work as a cashier.  Now, these people, once they got moved, were able to get close to full time hours, and eventually full time hours.  There were a limited number of "full time" jobs (with benefits), so you might have to wait to get benefits.  I had several weeks one summer of picking up extra hours to get 36+, and they stopped that because they were required to offer me benefits.  (I was making $3.35/hr, I didn't care, I needed the money.)

You were not going to be living high on the hog on these jobs.  But 2 of these jobs in a family, and you could afford a trailer or mobile home in a mobile home park, and some vacations camping, and TV and cable.  You could afford hunting and fishing gear.  It was a solid job that required hard work and some level of skill.

Fast forward to 30 years later, and I'm ... disturbed by the number of people I hear making fun of these jobs, suggesting that they are for "teenagers".  Maybe I'm in a different bubble, but I feel like 30 years ago, people didn't make fun of grocery store cashiers for being stupid and lazy and unskilled.  My home town was rural and not highly paid - I had a friend in a different state who was making $16-24 an hour working as a grocery store cashier in the early 90's.

So in these discussions, I always return to "options".  It appears to me that a few things have happened.
- We've lost "skilled" jobs - manufacturing, bookkeeping, etc
- We've lost partially skilled jobs that require customer service skills - grocery clerk, banker
- We've gained "service" jobs - barista, fast food worker
- We've gained automation - ATMs, self check-out, powerful computers that will do the math for you
- We've redefined jobs that used to be solid jobs with a future, where you can make a decent living if you work hard - as now "for teenagers"
- In my hometown, we lost jobs at the local grocery stores and other small stores to Walmart.  They put a Walmart in when I was in college or out of college, and lost many other jobs to them.  Walmart pays less than the other grocery stores.
- We've changed the rules - now, to be a receptionist at my company, you have to have a college degree.  My sister started as a receptionist, then became the office manager at an insurance company.  No degree.  She's skilled and learned on the job (even got licensed to sell insurance.  Sold one policy.  Then the boss realized he would be losing his own commission.  Wouldn't let her sell anymore.)  Anyway, you get to go into debt to get a college degree to answer phones.

So, what % of jobs today are minimum wage and "unworthy", compared to 30 years ago?

Very well said - this echoes my experiences in the rural area we've lived in for 22 years now.

DH worked at Wal-Mart when we first moved here (replacement job for his banking position that went away).  At that time you could get full-time but it was minimum wage or just barely above from what I remember.  Wal-Mart was just coming into our area then, DH was helping with store set-up initially, and then moved into various departments as needed.  Wal-Mart built a new building on open land, directly across from abandoned plazas that would have been better to reuse (poor for the local business district).  Within a few years they began a campaign to create a Super Wal-Mart, and the only location they would accept was the site of the local mall - still functioning, but sliding a bit.  Small businesses in the mall left in droves, some eventually relocating, ironically, to those abandoned plazas, but anchor stores and the only movie theater closed entirely.  The now abandoned mall got tied up in political NIMBY wrangling for nearly a decade.  Then birds nesting areas in the abandoned parking lot delayed the finally approved build of our Super Wal-Mart for another year.  So now we have a new abandoned building - the original Wal-Mart.

The new Super Wal-Mart is most definitely not an improvement over the existing store.  Yes, they now carry groceries, but they are seriously overpriced.  Making room for a grocery store seems to have crowded out much of the inventory they used to carry, and we cannot find elsewhere as there's no longer a mall.  And then there's the madness that they call their newly created parking lot.  Someone actually designed it that way, on purpose?  It seems a recipe for fender benders daily, because it forces drivers thru serpentine turns trying to find the exit, with no clear right of ways.


When DH was working at Wal-Mart, he was full time, and had benefits, such as they were.  A large chunk of his pay went to his portion of our health insurance.  I seem to remember it was $75/week, and I believe he was paid $6/hr then.  At the time, $75/week was much higher than he'd paid thru other employers.  When I became pregnant, we learned that Wal-Mart's insurance was not considered adequate insurance by NYS, and thus I was eligible for Medicaid for my pregnancy!  So we were contributing a much larger than normal (for the time) amount for health insurance that the state considered inadequate.  I believe the state cracked down on them after that, but DH had moved on to better employment: printing boxes for garbage bags.  It drove DH crazy that he was paid to make something literally intended to be thrown away, but it was a good place to work.  Of course, NAFTA eventually shut that employer down.  DH used offered training to move on to teaching (but earned less). 

Sometimes it doesn't matter how intelligent and educated you are if the local businesses close, transfer, relocate, merge, downsize, etc.  There are only so many jobs to fight over.

I know several people that work for Walmart and unless something has changed I think those #s are off. I saw the open enrollment booklet last year. For an employee that chooses the HSA and is a non-smoker it's $21/check or $546/yr. for an employee and all dependents its $41/check or $1,066/yr.

[jlcnuke]

Minimum wage should support a high school kid living with their parents, a college student just needing spending money, or a few young friends sharing an apartment, vehicle, etc while they learn skills the marketplace will pay more for.  It should NOT provide enough money to support a family on as a family to support is not something people with no marketable skills should have in the first place and we shouldn't force employers to pay an unskilled high school kid living with his parents enough money to support a family on their own.

It's worth noting that this is a perversion of the original purpose of minimum wage, which was explicitly to make sure that companies had to pay their labor, at minimum, a living wage. FDR had some stuff to say about it: https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/07/f-d-r-makes-the-case-for-the-minimum-wage/

“No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country” is pretty unambiguous.

You may not agree that the minimum wage as such should exist, but its purpose in the market is definitely not to give teenagers spending money.

It's the easiest way to explain the minimum wage's purpose without having to get into the whole "relative quality of life" thing that is the natural evolution of the discussion, but since you want to "go there", let us do so.  Inflation adjusted, FDR's minimum wage would be much less than our current minimum wage ($4.71/hour would be minimum wage if just tied to inflation since 1933). So, why is that?

Well, what people don't want to consider when discussing this "living wage" is that a "living wage" that FDR talked about was a 700 sq ft home for a family that likely had no car, may or may not have had electricity, probably grew food and/or raised animals for food, their children likely worked (child labor laws didn't exist as we know then for years after that), etc. They didn't have central air conditioning, televisions (those at the "living wage" likely didn't have a radio) etc.

In pretty much all aspects, relative to today's "standard of living", they didn't have a "living wage". Now, if proponents of a living wage wanted to acquiesce that their standard would be 3-4 working people sharing a "tiny house" without a car or modern electronics or even air conditioning while growing much of their own food is what they want the "living wage" to afford, then I'd be all for that standard. However, we'd have to drop today's minimum wage to get to that standard.... not raise it (expensive cities being the exception).

[jlcnuke]

Minimum wage should support a high school kid living with their parents, a college student just needing spending money, or a few young friends sharing an apartment, vehicle, etc while they learn skills the marketplace will pay more for.  It should NOT provide enough money to support a family on as a family to support is not something people with no marketable skills should have in the first place and we shouldn't force employers to pay an unskilled high school kid living with his parents enough money to support a family on their own.

It's worth noting that this is a perversion of the original purpose of minimum wage, which was explicitly to make sure that companies had to pay their labor, at minimum, a living wage. FDR had some stuff to say about it: https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/07/f-d-r-makes-the-case-for-the-minimum-wage/

“No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country” is pretty unambiguous.

You may not agree that the minimum wage as such should exist, but its purpose in the market is definitely not to give teenagers spending money.

It's the easiest way to explain the minimum wage's purpose without having to get into the whole "relative quality of life" thing that is the natural evolution of the discussion, but since you want to "go there", let us do so.  Inflation adjusted, FDR's minimum wage would be much less than our current minimum wage ($4.71/hour would be minimum wage if just tied to inflation since 1933). So, why is that?

Well, what people don't want to consider when discussing this "living wage" is that a "living wage" that FDR talked about was a 700 sq ft home for a family that likely had no car, may or may not have had electricity, probably grew food and/or raised animals for food, their children likely worked (child labor laws didn't exist as we know then for years after that), etc. They didn't have central air conditioning, televisions (those at the "living wage" likely didn't have a radio) etc.

In pretty much all aspects, relative to today's "standard of living", they didn't have a "living wage". Now, if proponents of a living wage wanted to acquiesce that their standard would be 3-4 working people sharing a "tiny house" without a car or modern electronics or even air conditioning while growing much of their own food is what they want the "living wage" to afford, then I'd be all for that standard. However, we'd have to drop today's minimum wage to get to that standard.... not raise it (expensive cities being the exception).

I mean, you're not wrong. All of the luxuries of modern day life also cost wildly less as a % of gross income than they would have at that point in history, though - it's a bit apples and oranges to compare standards of living without considering that relativity in your calculation. Which I think you know, since your first sentence alluded to this being the natural response to your point.

Considering that we have vastly more overall wealth and vastly cheaper commodities now, keeping the standard of living we expect from a livable wage exactly the same as it was when there was less wealth and money would buy you less is a pretty weird policy goal, unless we decide as a society that our priority is concentrating more of that wealth to the people who already have most of it. I don't think that's the best choice.

I think concentrating wealth with those who have earned it and established their worth to the marketplace is a great policy. Minimum wage, if granting a "living wage" should be low enough that no reasonable person would consider it an adequate goal, and thus almost everyone earning it would be highly motivated to better themselves in order to better their situation.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

[teen persuasion]

I know several people that work for Walmart and unless something has changed I think those #s are off. I saw the open enrollment booklet last year. For an employee that chooses the HSA and is a non-smoker it's $21/check or $546/yr. for an employee and all dependents its $41/check or $1,066/yr.

T
Yes, things have changed tremendously in in employer provided health insurance in 20ish years.  At that time, we were accustomed to employer provided health insurance being primarily funded by the employer, few made employees kick in more than $10/month, and things were just covered, there was little out of pocket expenses.  Of course, you couldn't get insurance except thru an employer at the time, either.  Now even "good" employer provided insurance requires employees to contribute hundreds/paycheck, and it's a HDHP so you need to fund an HSA for the thousands in OOP expenses before co-pays kick in. 

Also, insurance rules are/were different by state - Wal-Mart had just moved into our state at that time, and it was instances like ours that showed their version of insurance was deemed substandard by NYS rules.  Things did change later, but DH had changed employers.

[mm1970]

The saddest thing when Walmart moved to the town where I used to work for them was how they completely obliterated all the small businesses. They actually had a strategy board in the manager's office targeting the various small businesses with product they would sell at a loss until their competitor went under. Then, they would jack the price. With no competition, Walmart could offer whatever wages they wanted, since there were no longer other places to work.

When you drive through the formerly bustling downtown of that little rural village, it now looks like a ghost town from a Wild West movie. Boarded up shops everywhere and completely abandoned, except for the shiny Walmart supercenter on the edge of town.

Wait, are we related?

[mm1970]

I think concentrating wealth with those who have earned it and established their worth to the marketplace is a great policy. Minimum wage, if granting a "living wage" should be low enough that no reasonable person would consider it an adequate goal, and thus almost everyone earning it would be highly motivated to better themselves in order to better their situation.

But how much of wealth comes from "earning" it and how much comes from "inheriting" it?

And of course, there is also the question of wall street, the whole housing bubble, and whether or not those people are "worth it".  Plus, the whole CEO vs. average worker pay.

[jlcnuke]

I think concentrating wealth with those who have earned it and established their worth to the marketplace is a great policy. Minimum wage, if granting a "living wage" should be low enough that no reasonable person would consider it an adequate goal, and thus almost everyone earning it would be highly motivated to better themselves in order to better their situation.

But how much of wealth comes from "earning" it and how much comes from "inheriting" it?

And of course, there is also the question of wall street, the whole housing bubble, and whether or not those people are "worth it".  Plus, the whole CEO vs. average worker pay.

The statistics on inheritance are easy enough to find via Google. The government publishes reports on it I'm pretty sure every year, and the vast majority of "wealth" is not inherited based on the data. Either way, if the money was "earned" (whether by the person or the person who gave it to them or the person who gave it to them), it was still earned by someone. Lottery winnings - not earned. My paycheck - earned.

If someone is willing to pay XYZ voluntarily, that is the "worth" of the thing they are paying for (whether that be an item or an employees time). How much a CEO makes vs. anyone else doesn't change that fact. Someone, or a group of people, has/have decided that employee is worth that compensation or they wouldn't pay it.  That a bunch of people are jealous or otherwise emotionally upset that they don't make nearly as much doesn't change that simple fact.

[kayvent]

The conflict over whether extremely rich people on average earned it or inherited is an innately Eurocentric debate. I personally find it an offensive one. It presupposes that one person earns money, cultivates the wealth, and eventually dispenses of it to their heirs and charity. Other non-European cultures, who view the person as a member of a cohesive family unit, may see it as the person being one of many that contributes to the family's wealth and that wealth (the family's wealth) is a shared asset common to the family in toto; the present mature living members of the family merely being stewards of the family's assets.

[scottish]

There was an interesting study on the impact of the minimum wage increases in Seattle from the University of Washington:

https://evans.uw.edu/sites/default/files/NBER%20Working%20Paper.pdf

Economics is a tough field in which to do quantitative studies!   The biggest takeaway was that with the second wage increase, workers earning under $19/hr had an average net loss of about $125/week as a result of reduced hours.

Unfortunately, the study has become very political.   Proponents of increases in minimum wage are claiming that it's flawed, and opponents of increases in minimum wage are using it to declare the Seattle changes a disaster!    In reality, I think this just provides another (rather fuzzy) data point.

But the paper does demonstrate just how difficult it is to analyze the effect of this sort of change, let alone how to predict the effects in advance. 

[EnjoyIt]

In many parts of the US a family can sustain a happy lifestyle making $7.50/hr full time x 2 people or $30k/yr. It is what we talk about on this forum, no?  This is baring any major health condition or this is with healthcare subsidies. So, currently with the ACA $30k/yr is plenty outside of a major metropolitan areas. If people learned how to be happy without fancy cars and newest cell phones maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation. Unfortunately most of the people in the US are consumerist suckas as we like to put it. So, why do tax payers have to pay for those poor lifestyle decisions?

BTW, currently Walmart is paying an average of $13.38/hr
http://news.walmart.com/news-archive/2016/01/20/more-than-one-million-walmart-associates-receive-pay-increase-in-2016.  A family of 2 working full time will be making almost $55k/yr.  Wow, compared to mustachian standards they are rolling in it. They might even be able to save some money for retirement. If they started working there at 18, they have the potential to retire before 45.

Weren't you just in the ACA thread railing about how we can't expect middle class American's to adopt a Mustachian lifestyle?

You need to accept that most Americans are unable to change into a Mustachian lifestyle.  If we hold those people accountable then we should also hold accountable the poor who choose not to get a higher education and better paying jobs. For multiple reasons not worth getting into, most people don't have the understanding or the motivation and therefor are in the situation they are in. We can't expect them to be mustachians just as we can't expect them to get a biotech degree. I believe we simply need to accept that a certain number of taxpayers have taken a significant hit to their healthcare costs because of the ACA.  We also need to accept that just because a family now has subsidized insurance that they are able to afford their deductibles and therefor receive any benefit from their new subsidized insurance policy.

That is a great point.  I Would agree that everyone would benefit from some mustachianism in their lives.  Though, it is one thing to be making a certain living and then have a law take that living away from you as compared to always have a certain income that did not change.  But again, everyone would/should benefit from more mindful spending habits.

[fuzzy math]

When people talk about how MMM lives on $24k, they are forgetting that he is able to cash flow certain expenses. As is exposed every year, some of his expenses are cleverly hidden as business expenses and thus his spending at minimum is closer to $30k a year. With housing costs that could easily be $40k a year. He has the time to make home cooked meals and learn the skills to do extensive home repairs. The lack of 2 workers in the home means they rarely use 1 vehicle, much less 2 vehicles for different shifts. There's no day care.

Take your average low income worker. If they own a home and it needs a significant repair - roof, furnace, flooded basement etc, it can wipe out any savings and put them in a debt spiral that just compounds from that point. If they don't own a home, car problems or medical expenses can still erase all progress.

I love how EnjoyIt is proclaiming regular mental health checkups and other physical health care in this thread which are guaranteed only because of the ACA, but in the ACA thread he was advocating that any service a person could need could be accomplished in the ER because the ACA should be repealed.


I also love the white collar job people in this thread proclaiming that the middle class has "earned their point in society by demonstrating skills that prove their market worth". A generation or so ago, factory line workers occupied this space. If your tech job suddenly disappeared tomorrow due to automation, or an influx of international labor causing wages to fall 65%, I don't think you'd be sitting there going "well the market has decided I'm worth 65% less so I deserve this". People who are lucky enough to be extremely well paid (6 figures) for non back breaking labor should realize it is LUCK (the lottery of the universe) that they have the talent, skills, family background to be in the position they're in. I realize every day when I come home only mildly exhausted from the mental aspects of my job, how damn lucky I am that I'm not out there doing back breaking work.

Compassion, folks. It'll get you far in life.

[shenlong55]

Weren't you just in the ACA thread railing about how we can't expect middle class American's to adopt a Mustachian lifestyle?

That is a great point.  I Would agree that everyone would benefit from some mustachianism in their lives.  Though, it is one thing to be making a certain living and then have a law take that living away from you as compared to always have a certain income that did not change.  But again, everyone would/should benefit from more mindful spending habits.

So, are you saying that you now think we should expect middle-class Americans to adopt a Mustachian lifestyle?  It seems to me like your expecting Americans with less resources available to them to make better choices than Americans with more resources.  I'm not sure that's a reasonable expectation...

[Schaefer Light]

The minimum wage (or any wage, for that matter) should be the rate that an employer is willing to pay and an employee is willing to accept.

[mm1970]

I think concentrating wealth with those who have earned it and established their worth to the marketplace is a great policy. Minimum wage, if granting a "living wage" should be low enough that no reasonable person would consider it an adequate goal, and thus almost everyone earning it would be highly motivated to better themselves in order to better their situation.

But how much of wealth comes from "earning" it and how much comes from "inheriting" it?

And of course, there is also the question of wall street, the whole housing bubble, and whether or not those people are "worth it".  Plus, the whole CEO vs. average worker pay.

The statistics on inheritance are easy enough to find via Google. The government publishes reports on it I'm pretty sure every year, and the vast majority of "wealth" is not inherited based on the data. Either way, if the money was "earned" (whether by the person or the person who gave it to them or the person who gave it to them), it was still earned by someone. Lottery winnings - not earned. My paycheck - earned.

If someone is willing to pay XYZ voluntarily, that is the "worth" of the thing they are paying for (whether that be an item or an employees time). How much a CEO makes vs. anyone else doesn't change that fact. Someone, or a group of people, has/have decided that employee is worth that compensation or they wouldn't pay it.  That a bunch of people are jealous or otherwise emotionally upset that they don't make nearly as much doesn't change that simple fact.

The issue of CEO pay does matter, because it speaks to control.  You cannot separate "worth" or "value" and pay of a typical employee vs. the CEO, without getting into "control".

Who controls CEO pay. (The board)
Who stands to benefit the most when stock prices go up?  The CEO.  The board.
It's not all that different than the things that happen on Wall Street or in Politics.  You have to follow the money.  The people with the big bucks have control. They fund politicians who make favorable laws.  They give large pay and benefits and stock packages to CEOs, who are simply trying to get the stock price up, because who benefits? You got it.

It's all related and doesn't exist in a vacuum.

It's all pretty fascinating stuff.

And from fuzzy math:

I also love the white collar job people in this thread proclaiming that the middle class has "earned their point in society by demonstrating skills that prove their market worth". A generation or so ago, factory line workers occupied this space. If your tech job suddenly disappeared tomorrow due to automation, or an influx of international labor causing wages to fall 65%, I don't think you'd be sitting there going "well the market has decided I'm worth 65% less so I deserve this". People who are lucky enough to be extremely well paid (6 figures) for non back breaking labor should realize it is LUCK (the lottery of the universe) that they have the talent, skills, family background to be in the position they're in. I realize every day when I come home only mildly exhausted from the mental aspects of my job, how damn lucky I am that I'm not out there doing back breaking work.

This is a pretty good point, and something I think about a lot.  I come from a blue collar family and have a white collar job.  We are frugal and well paid.  I was taught to work hard and ADAPT.  And I'm still adapting, at 47.  Grit, flexibility.

So when I think about my kids, and how to ensure their success - I think about all of those things.  If we are lucky, we'll still have our savings to help them out if need be, and send them to college.  But I consider it my duty to teach them how to work hard and how to ADAPT.  Because sure, big kid has his eyes on engineering or computers.  He's bright.  But, what is the world going to be like in 12-15 years when he's in the workplace?   Who knows.  ADAPT.

Whoa, and that's weird in itself.  I am currently reading a book about life in the 50s.  Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era by Elaine Tyler May.  One of the things she pointed out is that by and large, the 50's were a result of national policies that discouraged wives from working.  White middle class Americans "adapted" to the new normal - tried to mold their family life to match.  African Americans, at the same time, were FIGHTING the status quo. 

So I guess it's not unexpected that people who are doing "okay" with the current system try to adapt to changes, while people who are suffering are going to fight tooth and nail because they have little to lose.  Hmm.

[PoutineLover]

Jobs that pay the minimum wage will always exist, and that minimum wage should be at least enough to support a single person. In a perfect world, everyone would get more education and skills and move on to better jobs, but we have never lived in a perfect world and someone will always have to do the grunt work until we manage to automate everything, and then we'll have to deal with much higher unemployment somehow. I personally don't think that 15K pre tax is enough to support anyone above a poverty lifestyle, no matter how frugal they are. It's not because everyone needs fancy phones and cars, it's because rent, food, clothes and savings cost enough that minimum wage won't cover it. And when you have an emergency or god forbid want to start a family or your partner loses their job, then it becomes even more of an issue. You can't afford to buy quality or quantity, so you can't tap into bulk savings, plus there are plenty of aspects of being poor that middle class and up can't even conceive of. And when well off posters here say stuff like "just ditch the car or move for a better job or to a LCOL place" they ignore the cost of moving (deposit, job hunt, the move, the cost to visit family, loss of network and support systems, etc.) and the fact that in the vast majority of north American cities public transit is ineffective/unreliable (maybe more so in LCOL places) and biking is not feasible (and don't face punch me, I do bike and transit but I have lived in places where I couldn't and that is reality for many people) and mostly that it's wrong that we expect people to move just so they can survive so that corporations can have higher profits. My main issue with minimum wage being too low is that companies get to offload the cost of supporting their employees onto the government and society, while the executives and shareholders rake in all the value that employees create.
From reading this forum, I know that the majority of mustachians are making 6 figures and most have never worked for minimum wage or had a disability or grew up in a dysfunctional family or experienced homelessness or single parenthood or an abusive relationship or been to jail or faced systemic discrimination. For those that have experienced any of those things, "get a job" is downright callous and ignores reality. I'm not trying to argue that any of those things mean you can't get any job, but it means that there are significant barriers in place that make it much harder to get and retain good employment. Most minimum wage work also tends to be unstable and precarious since low wage workers are considered expendable. I think the upper and middle classes lack empathy and perspective on the problems faced by minimum wage workers, and the comments on this post make that even more clear. As a society we should agree that everyone deserves food and shelter, and we have to have laws and systems in place to make that happen, including a living wage and robust assistance programs. Not only because it's the right thing to do for people, but also because it benefits society as a whole.

[jlcnuke]

The minimum wage (or any wage, for that matter) should be the rate that an employer is willing to pay and an employee is willing to accept.

I couldn't agree more.

[gardeningandgreen]

Jobs that pay the minimum wage will always exist, and that minimum wage should be at least enough to support a single person. In a perfect world, everyone would get more education and skills and move on to better jobs, but we have never lived in a perfect world and someone will always have to do the grunt work until we manage to automate everything, and then we'll have to deal with much higher unemployment somehow. I personally don't think that 15K pre tax is enough to support anyone above a poverty lifestyle, no matter how frugal they are. It's not because everyone needs fancy phones and cars, it's because rent, food, clothes and savings cost enough that minimum wage won't cover it. And when you have an emergency or god forbid want to start a family or your partner loses their job, then it becomes even more of an issue. You can't afford to buy quality or quantity, so you can't tap into bulk savings, plus there are plenty of aspects of being poor that middle class and up can't even conceive of. And when well off posters here say stuff like "just ditch the car or move for a better job or to a LCOL place" they ignore the cost of moving (deposit, job hunt, the move, the cost to visit family, loss of network and support systems, etc.) and the fact that in the vast majority of north American cities public transit is ineffective/unreliable (maybe more so in LCOL places) and biking is not feasible (and don't face punch me, I do bike and transit but I have lived in places where I couldn't and that is reality for many people) and mostly that it's wrong that we expect people to move just so they can survive so that corporations can have higher profits. My main issue with minimum wage being too low is that companies get to offload the cost of supporting their employees onto the government and society, while the executives and shareholders rake in all the value that employees create.
From reading this forum, I know that the majority of mustachians are making 6 figures and most have never worked for minimum wage or had a disability or grew up in a dysfunctional family or experienced homelessness or single parenthood or an abusive relationship or been to jail or faced systemic discrimination. For those that have experienced any of those things, "get a job" is downright callous and ignores reality. I'm not trying to argue that any of those things mean you can't get any job, but it means that there are significant barriers in place that make it much harder to get and retain good employment. Most minimum wage work also tends to be unstable and precarious since low wage workers are considered expendable. I think the upper and middle classes lack empathy and perspective on the problems faced by minimum wage workers, and the comments on this post make that even more clear. As a society we should agree that everyone deserves food and shelter, and we have to have laws and systems in place to make that happen, including a living wage and robust assistance programs. Not only because it's the right thing to do for people, but also because it benefits society as a whole.

Thank you for eloquently making a wonderful point. It is easy to say make more money when you are making $100,000 a year but sometimes it becomes a spiral that you cant get out of when you are making much less.

[PoutineLover]

The minimum wage (or any wage, for that matter) should be the rate that an employer is willing to pay and an employee is willing to accept.

I couldn't agree more.

This is a race to the bottom that forces people into coercive and dangerous employment relationships. Just because someone is desperate enough to accept a dollar an hour doesn't mean the employer should be allowed get away with virtual slavery.

[jlcnuke]

Jobs that pay the minimum wage will always exist, and that minimum wage should be at least enough to support a single person. In a perfect world, everyone would get more education and skills and move on to better jobs, but we have never lived in a perfect world and someone will always have to do the grunt work until we manage to automate everything, and then we'll have to deal with much higher unemployment somehow. I personally don't think that 15K pre tax is enough to support anyone above a poverty lifestyle, no matter how frugal they are. It's not because everyone needs fancy phones and cars, it's because rent, food, clothes and savings cost enough that minimum wage won't cover it. And when you have an emergency or god forbid want to start a family or your partner loses their job, then it becomes even more of an issue. You can't afford to buy quality or quantity, so you can't tap into bulk savings, plus there are plenty of aspects of being poor that middle class and up can't even conceive of. And when well off posters here say stuff like "just ditch the car or move for a better job or to a LCOL place" they ignore the cost of moving (deposit, job hunt, the move, the cost to visit family, loss of network and support systems, etc.) and the fact that in the vast majority of north American cities public transit is ineffective/unreliable (maybe more so in LCOL places) and biking is not feasible (and don't face punch me, I do bike and transit but I have lived in places where I couldn't and that is reality for many people) and mostly that it's wrong that we expect people to move just so they can survive so that corporations can have higher profits. My main issue with minimum wage being too low is that companies get to offload the cost of supporting their employees onto the government and society, while the executives and shareholders rake in all the value that employees create.
From reading this forum, I know that the majority of mustachians are making 6 figures and most have never worked for minimum wage or had a disability or grew up in a dysfunctional family or experienced homelessness or single parenthood or an abusive relationship or been to jail or faced systemic discrimination. For those that have experienced any of those things, "get a job" is downright callous and ignores reality. I'm not trying to argue that any of those things mean you can't get any job, but it means that there are significant barriers in place that make it much harder to get and retain good employment. Most minimum wage work also tends to be unstable and precarious since low wage workers are considered expendable. I think the upper and middle classes lack empathy and perspective on the problems faced by minimum wage workers, and the comments on this post make that even more clear. As a society we should agree that everyone deserves food and shelter, and we have to have laws and systems in place to make that happen, including a living wage and robust assistance programs. Not only because it's the right thing to do for people, but also because it benefits society as a whole.

Thank you for eloquently making a wonderful point. It is easy to say make more money when you are making $100,000 a year but sometimes it becomes a spiral that you cant get out of when you are making much less.

Most minimum wage employees ever have managed to "get out of" that spiral, including myself (I held 4 different minimum wage jobs in my life, and one that technically paid less than minimum wage (enlisted military, when pay per hour was calculated I was below minimum wage for years in that job). So, given that, and the facts (from the BLS) that almost half of all minimum wage workers are school aged (16-24) "kids", and almost half of the remainder are under 35, the data shows that the overwhelming majority of minimum wage workers manage to find better paying jobs as time passes. So, according to the data, not only "can you" get out of that spiral, most people do.

[index]

Living frugally on minimum wage is possible. There are a ton of posters on the forum that live on less than 30k as a couple. The problem comes about when you are working a minimum wage job and *anything* goes wrong.

Most minimum wage jobs don't provide sick time or insurance. If you get sick, you are double charged for the doctor visit and taking an unpaid day from work. You may even lose your job. Add children into the mix and it gets unmanageable quick. Kids get sick all the time and aren't allowed at daycare forcing a parent to take time off and lose a day of wages.

A few emergencies and you get stuck in the credit card debt/payday loan debt spiral and you are paying a 15-30% "debt tax" for being poor.

I get the argument that the working poor are just consumer suckers and if they just embraced a little frugality they could make it on their salary easily. My question is, how poor should someone making minimum wage look?

There was a comment saying they were entitled to a 1930s lifestyle of no car, no AC, no electronics, and 3-4 wage earners in a 700 sf house. The flipside of a minimum wage earner living unacceptably high on the hog is a 10 yr old car with gas and insurance ($2k), an apartment in the area where other poor people live ($6k), a walmart tracphone ($500), and a window unit and utilities ($1k). That 15k pretax becomes 13.5k post tax, take out the living and transportation expenses and they are blowing $4k/yr or $330/month on food, savings, and undeserved luxuries.   

[Hash Brown]

There is a pernicious argument espoused by those born into good fortune -- that the poor need to "build character", "pay their dues", etc.  When you're working out there in minimum wage world, that sort of finger-pointing and victim-blaming usually comes from the owner and his son. 

These guys like to pretend that they would have figured it all out and risen from obscurity if they hadn't had a company given to them by their daddy (or access to capital to start it).  But they wouldn't have.  When you are in a desperate financial situation, it is impossible to make the correct decision at every fork.  It's like reading about how hikers make poor decisions at high altitude and laughing and thinking "that won't happen to me!".  Yes it will.

[jlcnuke]

The minimum wage (or any wage, for that matter) should be the rate that an employer is willing to pay and an employee is willing to accept.

I couldn't agree more.

This is a race to the bottom that forces people into coercive and dangerous employment relationships. Just because someone is desperate enough to accept a dollar an hour doesn't mean the employer should be allowed get away with virtual slavery.

The problem here is you seem to assume that government mandated minimum wages are the only way to avoid this "virtual slavery". The truth is, the evidence says otherwise. In fact, developed countries without minimum wage laws have lower unemployment rates overall, as well as lower unemployment rates among the young AND they tend to have higher overall pay for low-skilled and no-skill required jobs. Government mandates are not always the best solution and often are worse than other alternatives.

[PoutineLover]

The minimum wage (or any wage, for that matter) should be the rate that an employer is willing to pay and an employee is willing to accept.

I couldn't agree more.

This is a race to the bottom that forces people into coercive and dangerous employment relationships. Just because someone is desperate enough to accept a dollar an hour doesn't mean the employer should be allowed get away with virtual slavery.

The problem here is you seem to assume that government mandated minimum wages are the only way to avoid this "virtual slavery". The truth is, the evidence says otherwise. In fact, developed countries without minimum wage laws have lower unemployment rates overall, as well as lower unemployment rates among the young AND they tend to have higher overall pay for low-skilled and no-skill required jobs. Government mandates are not always the best solution and often are worse than other alternatives.

Most of those countries also have very strong unions, which are declining in North America and are often hated by the same people who oppose minimum wages. Maybe there are other ways of ensuring people are paid a living wage, but the system has to be set up to prevent employers from taking advantage of employees and taxpayers.

[MilesTeg]

The minimum wage (or any wage, for that matter) should be the rate that an employer is willing to pay and an employee is willing to accept.

This is one of those things that sounds super great and fair, but falls down in practice. The reason it falls down is because the relationship between an employer and an employee is not as equals. The bulk of the power (almost always) in that situation lies with the employer and thus it is trivial for the employer to abuse the employee. Desperate people are easy to take advantage of. I've seen it first hand in my family.

Have you ever watched your parents accept a shitty job simply to keep food in your belly, even though that job didn't pay enough for them to get the proper medical care they needed (or some other thing not quite as necessary as keeping belly's full)?

[jlcnuke]

The minimum wage (or any wage, for that matter) should be the rate that an employer is willing to pay and an employee is willing to accept.

I couldn't agree more.

This is a race to the bottom that forces people into coercive and dangerous employment relationships. Just because someone is desperate enough to accept a dollar an hour doesn't mean the employer should be allowed get away with virtual slavery.

The problem here is you seem to assume that government mandated minimum wages are the only way to avoid this "virtual slavery". The truth is, the evidence says otherwise. In fact, developed countries without minimum wage laws have lower unemployment rates overall, as well as lower unemployment rates among the young AND they tend to have higher overall pay for low-skilled and no-skill required jobs. Government mandates are not always the best solution and often are worse than other alternatives.

Most of those countries also have very strong unions, which are declining in North America and are often hated by the same people who oppose minimum wages. Maybe there are other ways of ensuring people are paid a living wage, but the system has to be set up to prevent employers from taking advantage of employees and taxpayers.

Yes they do generally have strong unions. That's in large part because the workers have to fight for themselves instead of just accepting that the government has already decided their "worth". As a bonus, unions in Europe aren't viewed like they are here as the bullshit that pervades unions here (strong arming companies into ridiculous compensation packages that can't be justified or maintained long-term etc) are notably absent in those countries. When the government gets out of it, in developed countries, the people tend to benefit.

[PoutineLover]

The minimum wage (or any wage, for that matter) should be the rate that an employer is willing to pay and an employee is willing to accept.

I couldn't agree more.

This is a race to the bottom that forces people into coercive and dangerous employment relationships. Just because someone is desperate enough to accept a dollar an hour doesn't mean the employer should be allowed get away with virtual slavery.

The problem here is you seem to assume that government mandated minimum wages are the only way to avoid this "virtual slavery". The truth is, the evidence says otherwise. In fact, developed countries without minimum wage laws have lower unemployment rates overall, as well as lower unemployment rates among the young AND they tend to have higher overall pay for low-skilled and no-skill required jobs. Government mandates are not always the best solution and often are worse than other alternatives.

Most of those countries also have very strong unions, which are declining in North America and are often hated by the same people who oppose minimum wages. Maybe there are other ways of ensuring people are paid a living wage, but the system has to be set up to prevent employers from taking advantage of employees and taxpayers.

Yes they do generally have strong unions. That's in large part because the workers have to fight for themselves instead of just accepting that the government has already decided their "worth". As a bonus, unions in Europe aren't viewed like they are here as the bullshit that pervades unions here (strong arming companies into ridiculous compensation packages that can't be justified or maintained long-term etc) are notably absent in those countries. When the government gets out of it, in developed countries, the people tend to benefit.

I think it depends on which institution you trust more, government or private industry. I expect the government to regulate basic minimum requirements to protect workers, and leave companies to determine any compensation and working conditions above and beyond that. Some think that companies will negotiate a mutually beneficial situation for themselves and employees in the absence of regulations, which I think is unrealistic since companies tend to pursue profit over people. I think that unions are overall more beneficial than harmful, whether or not minimum wage laws exist. They sometimes end up shooting themselves and their members in the foot by pursuing overly generous compensation and benefits that doesn't take into account the financial situation of the company, but despite that I think employees are worse off without unions. It also depends if you are looking at skilled work where employees have more bargaining power and employers have to give a competitive offer to get the best worker, or if you look at more unskilled work where each worker is replaceable and the employer can screw them over and move onto the next.

[calimom]

This thread came to mind as I listened to this author being interviewed on Fresh Airyesterday. His new book profiles 4 different companies and the gradual decline of the middle class as something attainable by those who had the ability and interest in working hard, but perhaps not a lot of education beyond high school.

For those interested, full transcript is here:

http://www.npr.org/2017/07/05/535626109/the-end-of-loyalty-and-the-decline-of-good-jobs-in-america#