Low-Wage Jobs Cause More Problems Than They Solve

[dmcowen674]

12-3-2012

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-...-cause-more-problems-solve-014044384.html?l=1

Low-Wage Jobs Cause More Problems Than They Solve



In the wake of strikes by Walmart workers last week and fast food workers in New York City this past Thursday, the issue of low-wage work is slowly becoming more prominent.


Analyzing over 100 different data sources, the new study, How Youth Are Put At Risk by Parents' Low-Wage Jobs, estimates that nearly 16 million U.S. families are headed by parents working low-wage jobs and that 1 in 6 adolescents alone live in such households.


The Boston College and UMass study shows that parents earning low wages often cannot meet essential expenses, let alone pay for after-school programs, enrichment activities, or services to support the basic health and well-being of their children. It also finds that, since low-wage jobs often have inflexible schedules, parents working in low-wage jobs are often denied time with their children and therefore miss critical opportunities to encourage and support them.


These harsh realities of low-wage life have important short and long-term consequences. According to the Boston College study, youth in low-wage families are more likely to drop out of school. They also have a greater chance of having health problems like childhood obesity, and they are more likely to bear children at a young age. Living in a low-wage household also robs children of their youth. As parents work long hours for little pay, children are forced to care for themselves or care for younger sibling. As a result, they take on adult roles early, diverting time and attention from their education, extracurricular activities, and social and personal development.

Many people who did not grow up working class often end up shaking their heads at this point. Low-wage work is often judged as low-skill work, and the obvious solution is to get training and to get a better job. But this is much easier said than done in many cases.

How do you find the time and money to get training when you are struggling to survive, and when you already have precious little time to spend with your children?

Also, how do you find a better job when the economy is not producing one?

Estimates show that low-wage work is projected to account for two of every three new jobs in the United States over the next decade.

Unless we begin to listen to striking workers and to the research that is piling up, the negative consequences of low-wage employment will be amplified across generations.

 

[dmcowen674]

I posted about this train wreck coming over 10 years ago.

Obviously answers like not allowing people making minimum wage to procreate or shipping them to Countries where we have shipped the jobs to.

 

[nehalem256]

These harsh realities of low-wage life have important short and long-term consequences. According to the Boston College study, youth in low-wage families are more likely to drop out of school. They also have a greater chance of having health problems like childhood obesity, and they are more likely to bear children at a young age. Living in a low-wage household also robs children of their youth. As parents work long hours for little pay, children are forced to care for themselves or care for younger sibling. As a result, they take on adult roles early, diverting time and attention from their education, extracurricular activities, and social and personal development.
/QUOTE]

Maybe parents should not being having multiple kids they cannot take care of.

Also I wonder in how many cases the children are living in a single parent household.

How do you find the time and money to get training when you are struggling to survive, and when you already have precious little time to spend with your children?
/QUOTE]

You get the training before you start popping kids out

 

[EagleKeeper]

How do you find the time and money to get training when you are struggling to survive, and when you already have precious little time to spend with your children?

You get the training before you start popping kids out

If you are able to produce kids; you are able to know what the result can be; especially if you come from that type of living environment.

 

[OverVolt]

Middle class jobs were lost and low wage jobs replaced them.

SSDD

 

[Ausm]

You would think Rightists would be up in arms when we as American Tax payers have to subsidize these people look no further than Walmart of which we subsidize 70% of their workforce.

 

[Exterous]

What an odd study. I find it unusual that the study is partially about 'Low Wage Jobs' yet no where does it define a low wage job. It also has statements like this:
"Many low-wage parents’ earnings are so low they cannot cover the basics"
"Low-wage jobs often have inflexible schedules"

Many? Often? In college my research papers would get ripped to shreds for including such vague terms

"Almost one out of every five children (18 percent) ages 12-17 lives in a low-income family supported by a low-wage parent (authors’ calculations)."

I was also required to show my work and not just put in 'author's calculations'. It also seems as there may be a math error somewhere as this is posted earlier:

"Of the 20 million adolescents with working parents, 3.6 million (one out of every six) are in low-income families where parents have low-wage jobs."

Is it 1 in 5 or 1 in 6? They can't even keep the story consistent! Perhaps the age range they used was different, although 12-17 could certainly fit the bill as 'adolescent'. If only we knew the author's calculations so we could know for sure!

'We identify three, sometimes overlapping, aspects of low-wage work that create particular burdens on low-wage parents as they seek to take care of children and youth. These job qualities are non-standard work hours, inflexible work times, and few employer-based benefits.'

While I will certainly give them the lack of benefits, non-standard work hours and inflexible work times are hardly to province of low wage jobs alone.

The report notes that children of low wage earners are more likely to drop out of high school and tries to draw the link to non-standard/non-flexible work hours. Unfortunately there are no numbers that say how many of the parents are:
Low wage earners + job with non-standard work hours + have a kids that drops out of HS

Nor does the report bother to compare those children with children from higher wage earners that also have jobs with non-standard work hours

It does note that 38% of HS drop outs say they had too much freedom and not enough structure but then goes on to say that parents working MIGHT have an impact on this. Might? Here - I am going to include this study in my paper that may or may not have any bearing what-so-ever

I see no reference in this story to broken homes, parental substance abuse, or parental apathy. All numbers of children having developmental/educational problems are being tied to 'low wage jobs' by this study. It also doesn't really seem to distinguish between low wage jobs and low wage household income. IMO many of the points made can be distorted by one parent working a low wage job while the otherone works a medium wage job

I will freely admit my own bias from my own work in a low income school district. The ones who have the most issues don't tend to have them because their parent is working a low wage job (whatever that is) when their child is home - its because their parent doesn't care or has an abuse problem. I do readily acknowledge that this is anecdotal experience in the grand scheme of things and would like to think I approached this with an open mind. However I find the study too limited in hard data, instead relying on vague terms like 'might' or 'often' and requires us to accept the author's calculations on faith alone.

 

[kache]

Automate everything, provide everyone with minimum wage. This way they can sustain themselves and have plenty of time for family and training for a better job (which would allow them to live better and enjoy more stuff).

 

[OverVolt]

What an odd study. I find it unusual that the study is partially about 'Low Wage Jobs' yet no where does it define a low wage job. It also has statements like this:
"Many low-wage parents’ earnings are so low they cannot cover the basics"
"Low-wage jobs often have inflexible schedules"

Many? Often? In college my research papers would get ripped to shreds for including such vague terms

"Almost one out of every five children (18 percent) ages 12-17 lives in a low-income family supported by a low-wage parent (authors’ calculations)."

I was also required to show my work and not just put in 'author's calculations'. It also seems as there may be a math error somewhere as this is posted earlier:

"Of the 20 million adolescents with working parents, 3.6 million (one out of every six) are in low-income families where parents have low-wage jobs."

Is it 1 in 5 or 1 in 6? They can't even keep the story consistent! Perhaps the age range they used was different, although 12-17 could certainly fit the bill as 'adolescent'. If only we knew the author's calculations so we could know for sure!

'We identify three, sometimes overlapping, aspects of low-wage work that create particular burdens on low-wage parents as they seek to take care of children and youth. These job qualities are non-standard work hours, inflexible work times, and few employer-based benefits.'

While I will certainly give them the lack of benefits, non-standard work hours and inflexible work times are hardly to province of low wage jobs alone.

The report notes that children of low wage earners are more likely to drop out of high school and tries to draw the link to non-standard/non-flexible work hours. Unfortunately there are no numbers that say how many of the parents are:
Low wage earners + job with non-standard work hours + have a kids that drops out of HS

Nor does the report bother to compare those children with children from higher wage earners that also have jobs with non-standard work hours

It does note that 38% of HS drop outs say they had too much freedom and not enough structure but then goes on to say that parents working MIGHT have an impact on this. Might? Here - I am going to include this study in my paper that may or may not have any bearing what-so-ever

I see no reference in this story to broken homes, parental substance abuse, or parental apathy. All numbers of children having developmental/educational problems are being tied to 'low wage jobs' by this study. It also doesn't really seem to distinguish between low wage jobs and low wage household income. IMO many of the points made can be distorted by one parent working a low wage job while the otherone works a medium wage job

I will freely admit my own bias from my own work in a low income school district. The ones who have the most issues don't tend to have them because their parent is working a low wage job (whatever that is) when their child is home - its because their parent doesn't care or has an abuse problem. I do readily acknowledge that this is anecdotal experience in the grand scheme of things and would like to think I approached this with an open mind. However I find the study too limited in hard data, instead relying on vague terms like 'might' or 'often' and requires us to accept the author's calculations on faith alone.

87/100

Should use 'one' instead of 'I' You were lucky to get a B, honestly.

 

[Exterous]

87/100

Should use 'one' instead of 'I' You were lucky to get a B, honestly.

:awe: Heh - that is actually something I had issues with. I would have to carefully proofread as I would inconsistently remember to use 'one' instead of 'I'

 

[Matt1970]

Ironic, these 2 threads in one day. It is safe to assume you just don't get it.

"Low-Wage Jobs Cause More Problems Than They Solve"
"Just Say No To College"

 

[Baptismbyfire]

You would think Rightists would be up in arms when we as American Tax payers have to subsidize these people look no further than Walmart of which we subsidize 70% of their workforce.

Yeah, it's really messed up how the personal burden of each consumer is much greater than we suppose it to be when you take into account indirect costs of the products we buy because of the workings of crafty politicians and corporate lobbyists. Like for instance, even though we are led to believe that beef is cheap, the government subsidizes much of the costs of raising a cattle, such as corn, and so we pay much more than the sticker price at the supermarket through an increase in taxes.

 

[chucky2]

Here's a radical thought:

If you're in a low wage job, and can't really afford yourself, make 110% certain you don't have kids. Crazy, I know...

Chuck

 

[Olikan]

Maybe parents should not being having multiple kids they cannot take care of.

probably the parent know this... but you know, sex happends

China idea doesn't sound bad right?

 

[soulcougher73]

Most are too pussy to do anything about this issue anyways, they just want to argue about it. Im not, but most are.

Solution: Every female from the age or 13 (guessing here) gets a birth control shot from the governement. I dont know how long it lasts (well say 6 months for arguements sake). They get them every 6 months until the time comes that they would like to have a child AND they meet the minimum required financials to do so. Yes it has to be a shot form. Cant give pills as some people wont take them, thus nullifying the whole idea.

So at 22 if you have a good paying job and/or married at meet the requirement you can get off the BC shot and start having 1 kid. If you want more you have to meet the next financial requirement. (these would vary depending where you live obviously). If you have twins or triplets etc you can get gov assistance to help with the so called extras (unless you already make enough money).

Tada!! Easy as pie. Ill take my prize now, thanks

P.S. yes there are lots of little details left out but they can be managed.

 

[Texashiker]

Many people who did not grow up working class often end up shaking their heads at this point. Low-wage work is often judged as low-skill work, and the obvious solution is to get training and to get a better job. But this is much easier said than done in many cases.

I spent 15 years in the welding field, was an ASME certified welder, built ASME certified pressure vessels and heat exchangers.

From 1986 - 1999 I saw wages eroded by inflation and greed by the employer.

Today (2012), I would have to make between $66,000 - $67,000 to have the same standard of living that I had in 1990 when I was 22 years old. That $66,000 - $67,000 is just to maintain that standard of living, and not to improve it.

Welding shops in the area are not paying anywhere near that much these days.

Its not just a matter of low-skill jobs being associated with low wages, wages for skilled craftsmen have not kept with with inflation or minimum wage.

In 1987 I went to work for a certain comapny, at that time their top pay was 3.3X minimum wage.

Today, top pay at that same company is 2X minimum wage.

 

[OverVolt]

Most are too pussy to do anything about this issue anyways, they just want to argue about it. Im not, but most are.

Solution: Every female from the age or 13 (guessing here) gets a birth control shot from the governement. I dont know how long it lasts (well say 6 months for arguements sake). They get them every 6 months until the time comes that they would like to have a child AND they meet the minimum required financials to do so. Yes it has to be a shot form. Cant give pills as some people wont take them, thus nullifying the whole idea.

So at 22 if you have a good paying job and/or married at meet the requirement you can get off the BC shot and start having 1 kid. If you want more you have to meet the next financial requirement. (these would vary depending where you live obviously). If you have twins or triplets etc you can get gov assistance to help with the so called extras (unless you already make enough money).

Tada!! Easy as pie. Ill take my prize now, thanks

P.S. yes there are lots of little details left out but they can be managed.

Like how the shot causes massive side effects

 

[soulcougher73]

Like how the shot causes massive side effects

Depends which shot. Ive been out of that scene for awhile, but back in the navy girls were on i think the DEPO shot. Never really heard anything bad about it at that time.

But im sure times have changed. There has to be a reliable shot that is not harmful.

 

[piasabird]

Well the Earned income credit was one way the Government tried to help lower income single parents. However, you often can not get this if you are married. All these socialist solutions have one common thread. They all promote single parent groups and demoralize the family. They all punish poor people if they get married. Unequal treatment under the law. Another way of saying this is it rewards bad behaviour. Of course if people were married the family income could be as high as $40,000 and they would be ineligible for EIC. You could say the real problem is a morality problem and not a low wage problem. Everyone of course wants to make more money. Single parents are a drain on society.

 

[nehalem256]

Well the Earned income credit was one way the Government tried to help lower income single parents. However, you often can not get this if you are married. All these socialist solutions have one common thread. They all promote single parent groups and demoralize the family. They all punish poor people if they get married. Unequal treatment under the law. Another way of saying this is it rewards bad behaviour. Of course if people were married the family income could be as high as $40,000 and they would be ineligible for EIC. You could say the real problem is a morality problem and not a low wage problem. Everyone of course wants to make more money. Single parents are a drain on society.

It makes you wonder how liberals can claim that they care about children when they so clearly favor programs that are detrimental to children.

 

[Incorruptible]

Here's a radical thought:

If you're in a low wage job, and can't really afford yourself, make 110% certain you don't have kids. Crazy, I know...

Chuck

But moronic liberals will start complaining that they should be able to do what they want

 

[Ausm]

Ironic, these 2 threads in one day. It is safe to assume you just don't get it.

"Low-Wage Jobs Cause More Problems Than They Solve"
"Just Say No To College"

Don't you fall into both categories?

 

[Matt1970]

Don't you fall into both categories?

No, I am not considered a low wage earner and I would never advocate college as a bad choice, unless you plan to rack up $200K in debt to get a Masters in Art History and then bitch about your own career choice.

 

[Ausm]

No, I am not considered a low wage earner and I would never advocate college as a bad choice, unless you plan to rack up $200K in debt to get a Masters in Art History and then bitch about your own career choice.

LOL Ok was just checking.

 

[OverVolt]

Hmm

the negative consequences of low-wage employment will be amplified across generations.

Yes it will

Alot of what is going to happen is rather inevitable. Economy keeps going south, all of Gen-Y gets trapped into a huge pile of debt from college (non-dis-chargeable in bankruptcy). And people will clamor for more intervention, not less and we go positive feedback from there. Economy worse, rally for more intervention, economy worse, rally for more intervention, etc.