Amazon fears it will run out of workers in the US due to very high churn

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
N

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,947
2,558
136
ivwshane said:
Sure guy. Where did I lie?
Click to expand...
Post #147, or are you so far gone you can't even comprehend when you are assuming shit so you believe you weren't, even though you admitted you assumed in a prior post? The whole conversation is in black and white, so you can read it all over again starting with #124, and maybe you will comprehend that your position is all based off assumptions. Hell, I even explained it to you, and you still don't get it...

edit: Now that I have had a few hours of sleep and not pissed, I will retract that you are a liar, but rather you are heavily in denial.
 
Last edited:
vi edit

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,387
8,154
126
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba
blackangst1

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
vi edit said:
No argument on the pay. Not sure I like the idea of sticking a teenager out there to deal with shitters over masks or being responsible for cash on hand. Also think that's a full time job pay and they should be finishing up high school at a minimum.
Click to expand...
What choice do they have though? Obviously they arent the ideal management material, but if its either teens or no one, well, their choice is obvious.
 
N

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,947
2,558
136
blackangst1 said:
Relevant:

Texas fast-food chain paying teenagers $50,000 salaries to manage restaurants amid labor shortage (msn.com)

Pretty good wage for a youngster!
Click to expand...
Did you read the article? The very first sentence, and one other, that are critical, which indicates they are all 18+, and have been trained and given the skills for that position. The Majority of them are most likely not going to school because managing restaurants is 50+ hours a week as an assistant, and 60+ hours a week as a General Manager. $50K a year working 50 hours at straight hourly rate (not calculating the extra 10 hours a week as overtime) is $19.25...The owner even stated he "normally pays" entry level $12 an hour. So once you put all the pieces together, he isn't paying these young adults (not youngsters) much more than what he pays his regular help normally. AS normally restaurant management does not get overtime pay when on salary. It also shows that since he "normally pays" $12 an hour, and the Texas minimum wage is $7.25 that he has had trouble finding help for a very long time, long before the pandemic, he is located in an area that is the "Normal" minimum wage for that area, or he is a business man who understands that the federal minimum wage is crap.. Which I doubt is the case... I guess my point is you shouldn't get so hung up on that $50k without taking into account all the relievent facts.

Btw, the majority of fast food management are normally late teens early 20 year olds, with a few who spend their older years in that career choice, which are the general managers and district managers. (the McDonald's my son works at, the general manager there is 25 years old, which is common).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane
Jaskalas

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,446
7,508
136
NWRMidnight said:
you are the exception which is far and few now days because majority of wages paid today to the majority of people won't substain it. Where in the 50's, it was opposite, where it was nearly unheard of having the wife work to survive.
Click to expand...

That's the hilarity about the child labor topic.

If it ever became a regular thing, everyone's wages would just be lowered further. Until both working parents earn so little that their children have to work and pay for themselves. Start them off in life with a debt... you know, grab a loan so you can provide food/shelter, then the child gets to spend the next 30 years paying it off.

When women entered the work force, wages stagnated (read: lowered over time) to the point where both parents working was no longer a choice. Children get left to raise themselves now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba
N

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,947
2,558
136
Jaskalas said:
That's the hilarity about the child labor topic.

If it ever became a regular thing, everyone's wages would just be lowered further. Until both working parents earn so little that their children have to work and pay for themselves. Start them off in life with a debt... you know, grab a loan so you can provide food/shelter, then the child gets to spend the next 30 years paying it off.
Click to expand...

I don't completely understand your point. But children working to help support their family, has been a common practice for centuries, (yes hundreds of years) specially in lower income, poor areas, etc. The "pay" could be money, or something the family needed.

No minor is responsible for debt till after they turn 18, that is all on the parents, so I am am not sure how they could take on debt that they would have to pay on for 30 years. No child is responsible for their parents debt, except in some situations tied to medical/elderly care.

The problem is, wages have been stagnet for decades. Child labor laws in many states have become stricter which has made it harder for these kids to help their families.

But in all reality, child labor has nothing to do with the wealth gap that is growing exponentially, other than the states/businesses that allow exploiting child labor. There are states that allow businesses to pay minors less than minimum wage and have light child labor laws, which means they will use children rather than paying an adult if they can get away with it. Which in turn actually hurts wages for adults because it creates a larger available adult workforce than there are jobs, allowing employers to exploit it and keep wages Low.

If no minor was allowed to work, it would cause wages to increase (in theory/supply and demand) because the available adult workforce would shrink in comparison to available jobs.
 
Last edited:
Meghan54

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,528
5,045
136
Jaskalas said:
That's the hilarity about the child labor topic.

If it ever became a regular thing, everyone's wages would just be lowered further. Until both working parents earn so little that their children have to work and pay for themselves. Start them off in life with a debt... you know, grab a loan so you can provide food/shelter, then the child gets to spend the next 30 years paying it off.

When women entered the work force, wages stagnated (read: lowered over time) to the point where both parents working was no longer a choice. Children get left to raise themselves now.
Click to expand...

So women first entered the workforce just after 1981?
 
sportage

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,493
3,159
136
Funny.... congress nor republican governors never gripe about their massive salaries or their life long pension plans for service of what? A minimum of four years? Can you imagine a waiter working for 4 years then retiring on a life long pension of a years salary? Crap.... I'm surprised anyone is even willing to take on the job as a governor or a congress person. Oh I get it, it's not the salary or the pension, it's all that under the table cash and why a senator serving for 20 years has suddenly become a multi millionaire off a "government job". I dare Mitch McConnell or old Chuck Grassley to look into THAT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo and pcgeek11
Lost_in_the_HTTP

Lost_in_the_HTTP

Lifer
Nov 17, 2019
10,811
6,474
136
Jaskalas said:
That's the hilarity about the child labor topic.

If it ever became a regular thing, everyone's wages would just be lowered further.
Click to expand...
'Children' have worked for as long as I can remember. Whether it's mowing lawns, delivering papers (remember those?), bagging or stocking at grocery stores after school or on weekends, at the family business or in the family farm fields or many others.

I probably started around 12 or 14.
 
Meghan54

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,528
5,045
136
Lost_in_the_HTTP said:
40s. Rosey the Riveter and all. Some stopped afterwards for a while, but by the late 50s into the 60s, they started going back.
Click to expand...

Women had a workforce participation rate of 28% in 1940, rose to ~ 38% by 1945 and then fell to ~ 33% in 1950. Of course, it just climbed after that…but mostly from married women at first.

More interesting is the difference between men’s and women’s workforce participation rates over the years.

1950 it was 52.5%. 1960 was 45.6%. In 1970, the difference dropped to 36.3%. 1980 and it was down to 25.9%. 1990 and a difference of 18.6% and 14.5% in 2000. Projected to hover around 10-12%.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom