The only way I ever had money in my pocket to spend was by baby-sitting. I sat for $.50 cents an hour--and was lucky if that was what they gave me.

Some of my clients had 'clout' in the world. One sang at Forrest Lawn for some kind of service that was held there.

I took pains to never eat anything that belonged to the family--except once. There was a candy-bar on the kitchen sink (and, normally I didn't even like candy-bars), but for some reason I took it and ate it.

However, that raised the problem of where to leave the paper cover. All the trash containers in their house had just been emptied, and so they would know that it was I that had eaten the bar if I left the cover in one of them.

This being the case, I decided the only place I could put it was between my bare foot in the sandal shoe I was wearing, and hoped it wouldn't fall out before they took me back home.

I wouldn't have been a good thief, even if I had wanted to.

You wouldn't believe how much money we made cleaning out the pens at the stake welfare farm!!!

Once you get it through your head that cow plop is just wet/dry ground up hay, it's not such a bad gig.

You probably didn’t recognize the spiritual significance at the time. The restoration was just shoveling cow plop writ large. It’s like you were following in the footsteps of the prophet.

I was mid-20s, alcoholic, and living with my teatotaling parents. I would sneak in my 18-oz six packs, but the empties accumulated. I couldn't just throw them in the trash. Or the neighbor's trash--I had trashbags full of them hidden in the attic.

I often drank until two or three in the morning. I'd take those bags, sneak out of the house, then move stealthily from back yard to back yard, up and down the street, quietly depositing small numbers of empties in various trash bins.

One of my favorite examples of alcoholic idiocy. I have no idea what I would have said if somebody called the cops on this "suspicious person" creeping around people's back doors.

You were young, Polly.
I was nuts.

The good babysitting jobs paid 50 cents an hour. Those jobs were for the nonmormons/jack mormons. Most of mine paid 25 cents or 35 cents. I could have never gotten rich. One I had was to earn my piano lessons. The money wasn't mine. I didn't want piano lessons, but my mother wanted us to.

I had so many babysitting jobs.

I also grew up as a farmer's daughter. We worked our asses off. Too bad I don't work on a farm now as I need to work my ass off.

I have yet to find a way to get rich quick.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2020 10:28PM by cl2.

I am farm kid. Started driving tractors when I was 8 or 9. Trucks when I was 10 (I was tall so could reach the pedals)...and all I ever wanted to do was farm with my dad. I got to live that dream.

to be a farmer's child. I never went on to farm, but I spent most of my childhood especially in the summers on the farm. I didn't like the DIRT and the BUGS. We had so many horseflies. But we spent our summers together as siblings and we learned to work HARD. My memories of my father and the farm are some of my fondest.

I unfortunately started driving a tractor when my foot wouldn't reach the pedals--BAM!-- right into the shed. I'm still here and always remember the story of the farmer who won a million dollars in the lottery: A reporter asked him "You're a millionaire, what are you going to do now?" And he replied: "Well, I'll just keep farming 'til the money runs out."

I spent alot of years on the low wage treadmill, and the higher ed indoctrination prison. Economist Intelectual Leaders such as the late Milton Freidman always promoted free-market capitalism and that the market will dictate the wages. And somehow the cream will rise to the top and that wages are determined by how hard you work. That the CEO of walmart makes so much because he works so much harder than you, and is worth so much more!

Of course peoples lived experiences differ from what the intelectuals pontificate. There are many minimum wage jobs that are stressful, and demanding. A living wage job that can feed a family of four isn't necessarily harder or more mentally challenging than working in Retail. And no I don't think a CEO is worth $25 million a year.

"...wages are determined by how hard you work."

I wonder if there is a socialist system that could employ this erroneous philosophy that is utilized by capitalism in promoting the myths of meritocracy?

Ah, the idealism of youth how it transforms into the conservative and religious philosophical leanings of old age.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "...wages are determined by how hard you work."
>
> I wonder if there is a socialist system that could
> employ this erroneous philosophy that is utilized
> by capitalism in promoting the myths of
> meritocracy?

Absent external interference, wages are determined by the value a worker brings to the enterprise. If corporate, does the enterprise make more money? If governmental or philanthropic, is the enterprise more effective?

What constitutes "external interference?" For starters: Minimum wage laws, patronage & nepotism, public relations requirements (e.g. tokenism), socialism, labor law (e.g. featherbedding), affirmative action/quotas, licensing & certification requirements.

External interference can be sourced to both the socio-economic Left and Right. Some make sense, others don't.

> wages are determined
> by the value a worker brings to the enterprise.

Not true. Wages are determined not by the worker's value but by supply and demand for the worker's sort of labor in the overall economy. Enterprises only hire people they think will generate more value than their wages. Smart enterprises hire people at market rates and then extract from them vastly more value than the workers cost.

Take any of the new technology giants. The reason its stock price is so high is that it manages to extract (much) more value from workers than it pays them.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wages are determined not by the
> worker's value but by supply and demand for the
> worker's sort of labor in the overall economy.

The overall economy is secondary, almost irrelevant. A company that is successful gets value (earnings, efficiency, market share, growth, etc.) that exceeds the wages (salary) it pays. Supply & demand is very relevant, but no the final determinant. If a rare, highly trained specialist (supply)cannot be had at an affordable price (demand) the company will forgo that employee--unless they're anticipating future earnings.

> Enterprises only hire people they think will
> generate more value than their wages. Smart
> enterprises hire people at market rates and then
> extract from them vastly more value than the
> workers cost.

No argument. We may be into shades of gray here.
>
> Take any of the new technology giants. The reason
> (their) stock price(s) is (are) so high is that...

...investors either appreciate the current profit (dividends) or anticipate future profits, or both. Wages are simply rolled into operating costs.

Getting back to the the thread's theme, a prospective employee needs to sell himself by learning what an enterprise needs and persuading the HR person that he can be "valuable." Once they agree (i.e. the decision to hire), they negotiate the wages according to demand (number of available applicants) and supply (what comparable companies are offering).

But honestly, LW, aren't we picking nits here?

No, I don't think we are not picking nits. People should know what determines what they are worth. The answer is not value: it is price, meaning what employers will pay for their labor.

Teachers, for example, are not paid for their value, which is immense, but what supply and demand establishes as the market-clearing price. That is one reason why the formal and informal barriers to women entering higher-paying careers in the 1950s or 1960s were so unfair. The upshot was an increase in the supply of teachers relative to demand and hence the suppression of their wages. An much more extreme example was slavery. Slaves generated a lot of value but were paid next to nothing (inferior lodging, food). In these cases the differences between price/wage and value were immense.


----------------------
> The overall economy is secondary, almost
> irrelevant.

But I didn't say "overall economy." I said "supply and demand for the worker's sort of labor in the overall economy." That is correct. Supply and demand for blue-collar workers dictate their wages without regard to the value of their output. Anyone who wants to earn a lot of money must ignore the value of their work and focus on qualifying for a niche in which employers will pay much more.


------------------
> If a rare, highly trained specialist
> (supply)cannot be had at an affordable price
> (demand) the company will forgo that
> employee

Yes, that's what I said. Wages are a price established by the balance of supply and demand, not by the value of the work itself.


---------------
--unless they're anticipating future
> earnings.

Value by definition is forward looking. But no company will ever sit down and say, "what is this worker's value, since we want to pay her that much?" What they will say is, "how much must we pay her?" And that is price as determined by supply and demand.


----------------------
> ...investors either appreciate the current profit
> (dividends) or anticipate future profits, or both.
> Wages are simply rolled into operating costs.

True. But that's a separate question. What we were discussing is what dictates wages for a worker. The answer is what the market-clearing price of her labor is. The greater the divergence between the worker's price and her value, the higher the employer's profits and market valuation.


-----------------
> Getting back to the the thread's theme, a
> prospective employee needs to sell himself by
> learning what an enterprise needs and persuading
> the HR person that he can be "valuable." Once they
> agree (i.e. the decision to hire), they negotiate
> the wages according to demand (number of available
> applicants) and supply (what comparable companies
> are offering).

I think a clearer way to say this is that the prospective employee should focus not on value but on price: what qualifications can I earn that will put me in a niche where the market-clearing price is higher? I was impulsively tempted to finish that sentence with "relative to my value," but that would be incorrect. What matters to the ambitious worker should be price with no consideration of value.

In general greater training and education translate into higher wages, but that is not always the case. There are many, many examples of jobs that produce a lot of value to an employer or society but are not remunerated commensurately.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2020 09:24PM by Lot's Wife.

No, I'm not going to answer you tit-for-tat. My position:

The primary determinant in whether a person gets hired, is "do we get more out of this prospective employee than what we pay him?" What we pay him will be determined mostly, but not exclusively, by supply and demand, e.g. "How many qualified widget makers are available to us?" Insufficient supply of widget makers = high wages = possible reduced value (unless, as mentioned, they're looking forward (i.e. investing).

This is on the macro level. On the micro level, people entering the labor force should examine fields that are not oversupplied, but also must consider their individual preferences and skillsets.

I noticed you did not take issue with my mention of external interference. One I overlooked is imported labor. With all the talk about learning computer skills, we must also consider the large number of foreign (Indian, especially) workers brought in (H1-Bs), happy to work at 1/2 to 2/3 American earnings. Thank you, Mike Lee!

I believe the itch which made you answer at such length is a mild nit infestation. :=) Caffeine is a safe & reliable remedy but may cause L’esprit de l’escalier-induced insomnia.

No need for tit-for-tat.

I believe your position has changed. You originally said,

> wages are determined
> by the value a worker brings to the enterprise.

That is false. Now you are saying that

> What we pay him will be determined mostly, but not exclusively,
> by supply and demand

That is correct. Wages are determined by supply and demand.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2020 10:38PM by Lot's Wife.

We need to consult with somebody from (in)Human Resources.

You need to make up your mind.


--------------
> free-market capitalism
> and that the market will dictate the wages.

That is an accurate summary of capitalism. Supply and demand, and nothing else, determine prices.


---------------
> wages are determined by how hard you work.

There is absolutely nothing in capitalist theory that says this. Your sentiments verge on socialism, a system that asserts that society may dictate economic outcomes.


----------------
No matter what they think, people who demand a predetermined outcome are not capitalists but rather impulsively anti-capitalist.

          I'm joking, I'm joking!!!

When my husband was growing up in Peru, he started working at a young age but it was because he wanted money in his pocket.

When he was 6 years old, he picked corn, harvested strawberries, and picked bugs out of the cotton.

He was 14 years old and raised his own chickens and raised hens for eggs. His relatives told him he would fail at it. He proved them wrong and made a little profit doing it. When the relatives saw how good he was doing, they started asking him for money; he told them all to go jump in a lake.

True! :D

Farmed my whole life. This summer my grandson came and helped with haying. Made 5 generations on the farm.

I'd drive tractor for ya if I could actually climb on it...not a given...

I think every person should, early in life, work in some combination of:

farm work
construction
food preparation/service
a job where tips constitute a major part of wages
work in a hospital, nursing home, hospice, shelter...etc.
the military

To be honest, I'd be in favor of a universal "labor draft" where people must spend two years so occupied, a minimum of 100 miles from their families. No fulfilling the requirement while living with Mom and Dad.

I've done a few of those, and am the better for it.

Okay, so way to make going on a mission look good!

> To be honest, I'd be in favor of a universal
> "labor draft" where people must spend two years
> so occupied, a minimum of 100 miles from their
> families. No fulfilling the requirement while
> living with Mom and Dad.

+1

To refine my idea, I would stipulate:

1) A person must complete high school, and can
2) Begin the commitment at age 18, but must
3) Complete it by age 28, and
4) Is allowed up to a year's interruption only for medical or necessary family care
5) After one year, a person may switch to another service assignment.

This "draft" would be required of everybody, both genders. Only very seriously disabled people would be exempt, as most handicapped persons can still find employment.

Lastly, "Community Organizer" would NOT be a valid fulfillment of the labor requirement.

I think that would be great too. If everyone went to work at 20 years old doing real back breaking work full time and saved that money for two years in a retirement account growing for 40 years, we would eliminate inter generational poverty in one generation. All federal entitlements could end. Taxes would be cut by at least half instead of paying $3500 in federal taxes (I'm going to pay this year) future generations would pay only $1500. The 60,000 homeless in Los Angeles would disappear, All the garbage and human waste on the streets. It would be fantastic!

But the catch would be that we would need to stop more poor unskilled clueless people from streaming into the nation looking for free stuff.

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But the catch would be that we would need to stop
> more poor unskilled clueless people from streaming
> into the nation looking for free stuff.

Because we have plenty of our own?

I hope this is parody because otherwise the absolute lack of economic common sense would deprive me of what little faith I still have in public education.

Putting money, early, into retirement savings will grow, but to really provide for one's old age, one must CONTINUE contributing, every year. Start in your young 20s, keep putting into a Roth iRA every year ($6K), and you'll be very rich at 65.

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 60,000 homeless in Los Angeles would
> disappear, All the garbage and human waste on the
> streets.

We have an "affordability crisis" in my area (BC, Canada) which is now extending to affect formerly (so-called) low to middle class folks. Many parents say their children will never be able to afford to buy a home where they were born and grew up and where the parents still live. Older people who have worked hard all their lives can no longer afford the high rents in the cities and are finding themselves unexpectedly and suddenly living in their vehicles - if they're fortunate enough to have one - otherwise they end up on the street, in a park, or looking for a shelter bed somewhere (older single working women seem especially vulnerable to finding themselves in this predicament). Some of the crisis has been fuelled by speculative real estate practices, dishonest realtors (hiking prices and prompting bidding wars), increased demand, inflation of course, and a relatively new problem of money laundering in the real estate market (wealthy offshore criminal element), among other influences.

I'm sure the people unfortunate enough to find themselves homeless for any of the above reasons, and/or other realities, would be thrilled to hear themselves being called "human waste".

Unless I am misunderstanding you and you are literally meaning human waste. In which case, sorry for misreading you. But otherwise, and in any case, my comments stand, for anyone who does think that way.

Also, even for the people who are homeless for reasons other than financial, they're not "garbage". I often interact with folks in this situation and they each have a story to tell. And they're worth trying to help.

There but for the grace..., for sure.

Very true there is an affordability issue that the nation is dealing with. And re-reading what I wrote above perhaps I wasn't as clear as would have been desirable, I didn't mean the people are garbage, but that homeless encampments create a lot of garbage and waste, which bring diseases, such as hepatitis, lice, scabies, chronic coughs, which can spread to the communities and are caused by not bathing everyday.

And also in response to LW above..,
School didn't do me no good, neither! :)

Just a quick note.

If the supply of manual laborers increases in the way you suggest, the wages earned by those laborers will fall and they will not earn enough to save more than a pittance. If you want to increase wages for less educated people, the better outcome is for more jobs at every level in the workforce. Then you would have more income chasing fewer workers.

Yes, thanks, I thought of that possibility after I re-read your comments. Whew, I'm glad that was your meaning. In any case, even allowing for the possibility that I was misunderstanding you, I went ahead with my remarks and I don't mind letting them stand.

True enough about the waste issues. We have a "homeless camp" in a city park that is in the news every day and at least these things are now being openly discussed. I never once, before getting involved in trying to help out with "soup kitchen" type operations, wondered about hygiene needs for homeless folks. It can be hard to imagine everyday realities in certain tough circumstances that we haven't faced ourselves.

My financial plan was to get to retirement as quickly as possible. Having only one child was a good move, because I was able to provide him a middle class life. A frugal lifestyle was more important than any other factor. I retired early and happily in California. Getting rich was never in the picture, not even once.

You have sufficient for your needs and have no need for their dollar signs and top dollar tokens.

I think with sufficiently hard living, I can reach 70 several years ahead of schedule.

Caffiend's story rings so very very true. I used to do that very thing.