"america's Ignorance Of The World Is Now A

[clocker]

Even if the newly created jobs aren't minimum wage "starter" positions, things still aren't as rosy as the indices would indicate.

The trend is to make employees shoulder an increasing percentage of health care costs and retirement benefits aren't what they used to be either. So, what initially may look like a halfway decent wage is, in fact, closer to minimum wage than it may appear after subtracting those costs.

My parents generation expected to retire comfortably, my generation hopes to, and the next guys can just kiss the whole idea away. They'll have to work till death's doorstep just to support the burgeoning "baby boom" generation and to pay off all the "tax cuts" of the present administration.

[j2k4]

So it's not happening fast enough, huh?

Jobs you don't enjoy?

A small percentage of us (surely not me) has jobs they enjoy.

Wages are a relative thing, also.

These supermarket checkout clerks in California are on strike because their fringes were cut back a bit.

These are clerks, mind you-making $16-$18 an hour!

They are not joined in their picketing activities by the grocery baggers, who make $6-$7 an hour, but are not unionized, and so make less, and don't get strike pay while their co-workers have put them out of work.

Oddly enough, I heard one of the picketers interviewed say, "We'd all like better jobs, but there aren't any."

I should say not.

Pray tell, how many of these light manufacturing or even burger flipping jobs are manned by someone trying to support 2,3 or 4 kids?

Is there a problem with entry-level jobs to go along with other growth?

I've been in my share of burger joints.

They are not, in the main, staffed by late-twenties, early-thirties family men and women.

[MagicNakor]

There's nothing wrong with entry level jobs as part of economic growth. It's when it forms the bulk of the "oh look at all the new jobs we've created!" spiel when it becomes a problem.

Checkout clerks here don't make $16-$18 an hour Canadian. They (and most service-sector jobs) make $8-$9 ($8 is minimum wage here), if they aren't forced onto a $6 "training wage."

Where I am, these jobs are, in fact, manned by people trying to support a family. And it doesn't work out too well. Sure, you'll see a few teenagers here and there, but most of them aren't. Anyone that's able to leaves as fast as they can. Unemployment bounces from 11-17% (in my area, not provincial (which is 9.1%), or a nation-standard), and while the government says "look at the new jobs," they almost never come here, and they certainly don't pay enough to live from, even if you get 36-40 hours a week (which is almost unheard of). What happens is the companies fire one full-time employee to hire two part-time, and then they don't have to pay for health benefits either, if they even do in the first place.



Edit: Clarification.

[clocker]

Where in California are you talking about j2?

LA?

$16-18/hour will barely put gas in your tank there.

When Wal-Mart announced the job fair for their new Super Center here recently, they had over 3000 applicants ( it made the nightly news), many of whom were middle aged professionals laid off from tech/aerospace jobs. They were trying to support families and keep their homes together.

I'm sure that they found the news about the upswing in the economy richly ironic as they were fitted for their new red vests...

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by clocker@29 November 2003 - 23:05
When Wal-Mart announced the job fair for their new Super Center here recently, they had over 3000 applicants ( it made the nightly news), many of whom were middle aged professionals laid off from tech/aerospace jobs. They were trying to support families and keep their homes together.

I'm sure that they found the news about the upswing in the economy richly ironic as they were fitted for their new red vests...

actually, those would be blue vests. the red shirts are a few blocks away at target.

a comparative review of shopping at wal mart vs shopping at target, from some chick's blog:

Friday, October 31, 2003

WalMart versus Target. There's a huge difference, but I've had trouble putting my finger on it exactly. All I know is that when I walk into WalMart, I feel utterly overwhelmed by the mass of humanity and screaming children and crap for sale as cheap as possible. I hate the feeling I get when I walk in there. On the flipside, I really enjoy shopping at Target most of the time. It's easy to find what I'm looking for. The prices seem reasonable without screaming at me about how low they are. The store feels clean and easy to navigate. And it has a warmer feel to it. Less sterile and warehouse-like.

There's a couple of things I've been able to pinpoint. At WalMart, many of the shelves are very high. So high, that you can't possibly see over them even when standing at a distance. This leads to a sort of claustrophobic feeling. Also, WalMart has a tendency to place large displays in the aisles even when there's no room to pass comfortably. Beyond that, it's smaller things. Target seems to use more color, especially rich reds and blues. While Target puts sale prices on things in font about 3 inches high, WalMart tends to put up big plastic numbers that are a foot tall. WalMart seems to focus exclusively on low prices where Target also seems to have a desire for some level of quality. Employees at Target are easy to spot by their red shirts and khaki pants with a small name badge, but at WalMart, employees must wear incredibly tacky blue vests with "How May I Help You" in huge block letters on the back. That doesn't make WalMart employees any more helpful (especially as evidenced by the pregnant woman asking one about microwaves on Sunday, who completely ignored her and kept walking). It does increase the load as far as visual stimulus goes. And I think that's one of basic problems with WalMart. There is just too much text, too big, too omnipresent. Add to that the towering shelves and narrow, cluttered aisles, and it just feels oppressive. Add to that hoardes of bargain-seeking parents dragging their squalid packs of children of dirty children behind them.

All I know is that from the moment I walked into WalMart on Sunday, it felt overwhelming. We left without purchasing what we'd planned to purchase, and drove a mile to the Target, found what we wanted quickly and easily, and left very happy.

[clocker]

Ah.

I can't afford either.
No one wears vests of any color while dumpster diving...

[MagicNakor]

I've seen those reflective-florescent ones being worn. I think maybe it serves to "call" a particular dumpster.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@30 November 2003 - 07:16

a comparative review of shopping at wal mart vs shopping at target, from some chick's blog:

Friday, October 31, 2003

WalMart versus Target. There's a huge difference, but I've had trouble putting my finger on it exactly. All I know is that when I walk into WalMart, I feel utterly overwhelmed by the mass of humanity and screaming children and crap for sale as cheap as possible. I hate the feeling I get when I walk in there. On the flipside, I really enjoy shopping at Target most of the time. It's easy to find what I'm looking for. The prices seem reasonable without screaming at me about how low they are. The store feels clean and easy to navigate. And it has a warmer feel to it. Less sterile and warehouse-like.

There's a couple of things I've been able to pinpoint. At WalMart, many of the shelves are very high. So high, that you can't possibly see over them even when standing at a distance. This leads to a sort of claustrophobic feeling. Also, WalMart has a tendency to place large displays in the aisles even when there's no room to pass comfortably. Beyond that, it's smaller things. Target seems to use more color, especially rich reds and blues. While Target puts sale prices on things in font about 3 inches high, WalMart tends to put up big plastic numbers that are a foot tall. WalMart seems to focus exclusively on low prices where Target also seems to have a desire for some level of quality. Employees at Target are easy to spot by their red shirts and khaki pants with a small name badge, but at WalMart, employees must wear incredibly tacky blue vests with "How May I Help You" in huge block letters on the back. That doesn't make WalMart employees any more helpful (especially as evidenced by the pregnant woman asking one about microwaves on Sunday, who completely ignored her and kept walking). It does increase the load as far as visual stimulus goes. And I think that's one of basic problems with WalMart. There is just too much text, too big, too omnipresent. Add to that the towering shelves and narrow, cluttered aisles, and it just feels oppressive. Add to that hoardes of bargain-seeking parents dragging their squalid packs of children of dirty children behind them.

All I know is that from the moment I walked into WalMart on Sunday, it felt overwhelming. We left without purchasing what we'd planned to purchase, and drove a mile to the Target, found what we wanted quickly and easily, and left very happy.

Wal-mart in the UK (ASDA) isnt like that

Sounds like KwikSave or Netto...

[Alex H]

@ j2k4 - you're economy ain't that great. The only reason it would be on the "upswing" would be because America started a war (always goes down) the war ended (always goes up) and Bush got his oil (up again).

Think about where the economy of the most powerful nation on earth should be. It may be ok, but its not meeting it's potential.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Alex H@30 November 2003 - 19:31
@ j2k4 - you're economy ain't that great. The only reason it would be on the "upswing" would be because America started a war (always goes down) the war ended (always goes up) and Bush got his oil (up again).

Think about where the economy of the most powerful nation on earth should be. It may be ok, but its not meeting it's potential.

Alex-

In order, then:

Right, wrong, wrong, and, to conclude, right.

As to your whiffs-

The war (such as it is) ain't over.

Bush didn't get any oil.

And, to your last:

Our economy has never met it's "potential".

If it did, I reckon we'd be hearing complaints about that, so......