It's almost as if extended poverty has ruined people's ability to function in a job market that wasn't there for them sooner. Poverty is called a trap for a reason. It's a self-reinforcing cycle as much as it's an income bracket.
They say "There are no bad dogs, just bad owners." I think the problems are cultural.
(a) Two working parents or a single parent family may result in children "being raised by wolves" to some extent. These are good parents/people but child rearing is a time intensive business.
(b) Lack of jobs for young people. In my neighborhood, a lot of lawn mowing jobs are done by services instead of the neighborhood kid. The "entry level" jobs are often taken by older people who can't afford to retire.
(c) Single child families where parents spoil their children resulting in a sort of learned helplessness. I can't think of anyone of my friends children that mows their parents lawn of shovels the driveway. The dad or mows the lawn and snow blows the driveway. My brothers kids are the exception.
(d) Lack of exposure to real world failure or responsibilities. How many parents are going to let their kids walk to school never mind use a chainsaw or go hunting by themselves?
That's a good list...a lot of it rings true, especially point B. The chances for me to work when I was young were everywhere. I did mow lawns, I raked leaves, painted houses, and every other odd job that a 13 year old would be allowed to do.
Now I imagine explaining to my friends or wife that I hired a 13 year old to paint our house. With 0/0 stars on google, angies list, etc. It's hard for young people to "break in" to something as mundane as yard work and painting.
It's funny- I was an unlicensed grey market house painter for a while in college. I booked most of my jobs while standing on top of a ladder, where somebody would stroll up asking me if I'd do their house next.
Yep. When I was a teenager, I had a job delivering newspapers. I had to get up and out very early in the morning, even in bad weather, and deliver papers on my bike, and collect the payments for them in the evening.
Nowadays, far fewer people get newspapers, and the newspaper deliver jobs are looking for someone with a car. And I assume they pay for them online.
I think it's both the dog and the owner and our culture that looks down on the trades, or blue collar work. Kids are being raised and taught to work hard so they can avoid working with their hands. Trade jobs are almost seen as a punishment and schools do nothing but funnel all students into the college pipeline.
In the vision of life that is projected for students, the trades do not find themselves anywhere in that vision. It should come as no surprise that we have a shortage right now, it should only surprise us that it's not worse. Immigrant labor has long hidden the fact that American's are raising their kids to avoid the trades, and we will all pay the price for it.
Kids don't walk to school in many modern neighborhoods because they're not designed to be safe for walking, sliced through by wide high-speed arterials that encourage driving at dangerous speeds. I grew up in a 1900-1920s neighborhood and most kids walked to school.
For my first job out of highschool I applied to over 40 locations, and finally got an unpaid job tips only as a rickshaw driver. I'm pretty sure it was illegal for them to do that, but I also really needed a job. For context I'm 28 and live in the american south east.
You are right that this is a problem with personal responsibility.
Your parent comment is also right that this lack of personal responsibility is cultivated or exacerbated by poverty. Personal responsibility is as much a skill as it is a trait. Therefore, if one has neither work experience nor a role model for responsibility, one tends not to have good work ethics.
IMO, the solution is thus both to praise personal work ethics and to break the trap through social programs at the same time.
Wouldn't surprise me if this was achieved through apps as much as anything else in the future. Imagine an Uber-style app for odd jobs (lawns, etc) that focused on teen/young workers. The app could have gamification or reminders that if you commit to a job, you go hard and complete it well. If you don't have the energy or ability to keep performing jobs to that level, then take on fewer jobs or use a different app.
Sure, but personal responsibility is learned/cultural. It could take a while for people to break the cycle when they grew up seeing their parents make poor decisions, who also grew up seeing their own parents make poor decisions, etc. Not saying that all poverty is a result of poor decisions but that the two feed on each other
They do--but this (a difficulty in getting lower-paid workers to even show up) is a new phenomenon. We've always had lower-paid workers and poverty, but something else has changed.
My concern is that the "something else" might be counter-effective but well-intentioned policies intended to help.
Personally I don't think we should be incentivizing people to show up to work under threat of homelessness/starvation like we did in the past, even if it may be more effective. If people want to live their lives in the "comfort" of SNAP and SSI, I'm personally ok with it. The market will adjust and maybe those blue collar jobs will begin paying even more (or people will adapt)
Nobody questions your personal ability to voluntarily provide for them, though.
The question is how much the rest of us are involuntarily having to provide for them, and more relevantly, whether or not society is even really being improved if the result is an increasing number of people so unable / unwilling to contribute to society that they can't even be bothered to show up for an interview.
It is very easy to spend other people's money supporting people perceived as downtrodden. It just might not be the solution proponents think it is.
Well ok, but that's up to our votes to decide. You may vote one way and I will vote my way. If you don't want to provide for these people under these circumstances, vote for someone who will roll back welfare. The system wouldn't work if taxes were voluntary (how many people were poor before welfare when charity was the only way people got help?) so I see no moral hazard in coercing people who don't want to support the poor to do so
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the outcome".
I see no moral hazard in coercing people
and that's the problem. Coercion is inherently immoral as it denies agency, which is the very essence of humanity. Agency / self-control is the fundamental difference between being a human being, and being a piece of property.
I used coercion because I knew that was how libertarians/other people who generally don't agree with me see it. I actually see it in the following way: the world is not a perfect free market, and in many cases letting a free market run its course results in the poor/disabled/children of bad parents needlessly being hurt or dying. I think its more just to pay to feed 20 poor people than to let 1 die due to poverty. Its not like this imposes some seriously constrained living conditions on everybody. I earn income in the highest nominal tax bracket and nobody I know making this much, including myself, is hurting because of our current system
There's also the argument that the money you own isn't truly yours. It's the product of a large amount of investment on behalf of your parents (which varies for everybody) and the government in terms of education (of you and everyone else to create an economy where you're able to perform your current job) and infrastructure, with the end result of you being able to perform your job. So its taxation is not theft because you do owe that money back to the rest of society. I think preventing hunger/homelessness is in general a good way to spend that money
Coercion isn't immoral any more than breathing is immoral. It's been a part of the human condition since before we were human.
Living in groups--and people are very much social creatures--means there are rules you follow that you didn't necessarily decide on, or ultimately you get kicked out of the group and probably don't continue your genetic line.
Left unqualified, that's kind of a silly claim to make--it sounds good to some but doesn't really get us anywhere.
We don't know what the circumstances of the interview were, though. It easily could be a minimum wage job, and the other people just found something else.
In those other cases, was the offering better than other companies in the area? Was there a compelling reason to choose that company over the others, and yet a majority of applicants still didn't show up to interviews?
This is what's known as a collective action problem. I don't have the answers, and the few people who've actually tried solving it haven't had much luck.
