Hacker News Reader

Comment by nxsynonym | Hacker News Reader

It's education inflation.

a college degree is the new highschool diploma. Even with a 4 year degree in a "real" field of study (business/stem/finance/whatever) it's becoming more and more difficult to land entry level jobs. If you pay 30/60/90k for said degree, you are going to feel entitled (rightfully or not) to working in a position that's not for the "uneducated". These positions still need to be filled though, because they are generally the jobs that make day-to-day life happen. Nobody wants to flip burgers but they still want to be able to eat one at lunch.

I'm of the opinion that yes, even minimum wage jobs should be able to get the bare minimum expenses of an average family covered (housing/food/medicine), let alone two incomes making more than minimum wage.

View on HN

We wouldn't need 4 year degrees if we hadn't dumbed down public school. We wouldn't need 4 year degrees if employers were allowed to give potential employees an IQ test. Want to become an electrician? You aren't allowed to take an unpaid internship, so what do you have to do instead? Now you have to pay the electrician to teach you in a classroom setting, putting you in massive debt.

>I'm of the opinion that yes, even minimum wage jobs should be able to get the bare minimum expenses of an average family covered (housing/food/medicine), let alone two incomes making more than minimum wage.

Do you support us immediately ceasing trade with China and Mexico? Or is it only a problem when you can actually see the people that can't afford to live a lifestyle similar to yours?

An electrician union here advertises apprenticeships with (decent for entry level) hourly pay, benefits and no debt upon completion.

It's several years to complete, but the 8000 hours of work experience is then sufficient to get a license to work independently.

What's really important is that we design the system so that incumbent wealth can maintain their position by controlling the market through government regulation (licensing).

That's a great defense of your misstatement about what it takes to become an electrician.

Of course regulation often goes wrong. I'm pretty sure that isn't a reason to do away with it altogether, it is merely a reason to find ways to do it better.

I didn't make a misstatement. Both cases have the same problem. The government has stepped in and made it more difficult for you to enter the market. In one case, you have to pay an electrician to take a class because the government won't let you learn for free. In the other case the government has made it even worse because you now have to perform labor at sub-market wages for 4 years before you're allowed to do work that you likely could've performed on your own after just a few weeks.

There's a difference between the requirements for licensing being excessive and "massive debt".

In both cases the government regulation is making you an indentured servant to incumbent wealth. In one case you're a slave to financiers and the education incumbents and in the other case you're a slave to the labor union who doesn't want you coming in and undercutting them. I'm not interested in debating which one is worse, they're both very similar problems. And neither is necessary.

Should minimum wage jobs pay well enough to raise a family in Palo Alto?

Yes. The minimum wage in Palo Alto must support a family in Palo Alto, or within a very reasonable commute.

In order to rigorously capture the notion of a "reasonable commute", I've suggested we stop thinking in terms of nominal wages and start thinking in terms of "DIPHLoW": [real] discretionary income per hour lost to work.

Discretionary income = subtract off taxes and housing.

Hours lost to work = time at work plus time commuting or anything you have to regularly do to be able to work.

That way, the measure is less susceptible to the dismissal of "just move farther out" -- that has a cost in terms of increasing hours lost to work and therefore decreasing DIPHLoW.

It also highlights the impact of housing costs -- anything that keeps them from going down is effectively keeping DIPHloW down too.

I agree employers should pay that much, ethically and morally. I don't think legally they should be forced to pay that much.

Perhaps but consider even in developing economies these kinds of jobs aren't the ones which allow you to raise a middle class family, never mind a doing so in a developed economy.

Just to be clear - I'm not advocating for minimum wage jobs to put a family of 4 (or 5) in the middle class bracket.

What I'm advocating for is that (2!) minimum wage jobs should afford rent, food, and medical/dental expenses. There is absolutely no excuse why $75k combined income should afford a 2 or 3 br apartment, food, and to keep the kids healthy.

The only options are to a) either lower costs to make things affordable, b) raise the lower end of the pay scale, or c) sacrifice the luxuries/services that come with low paying jobs (fast food, manual labor services, etc).

a) will never happen, prices will only rise until all the tech companies go bust or move b) to raise the lower end of the pay scale the higher end would have to sacrifice salaries c) most likely to happen - or be replaced with automation -driving these families and jobs out of the area completely.

I'm interested to see how SV will develop over the next 15-20 years. It will probably end up being over paid tech-workers and robots automating everything else.

Low end jobs that can be automated will be automated. Only reason they have not is because wages have been depressed via replenishment of the low end of the worker pool from underdeveloped economies. If you look at Japan lots of the fast food stuff is automated. We will see more automation in agriculture. No kids will grow up wanting to pick vegetables, quite reasonably but they still need harvesting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com