College Grads in Minimum Wage Jobs

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 01, 2013 7:49 PM GMT
    Unsustainable.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/03/30/number-of-the-week-college-grads-in-minimum-wage-jobs/?mod=e2fb

    OB-WW709_NUMBER_E_20130329191231.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 01, 2013 8:15 PM GMT
    Hey, at least you can discuss the theory of relativity with the drive-thru worker.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Apr 01, 2013 8:20 PM GMT
    Small gubmit!

    Jawbs!

    Because Bible!
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Apr 02, 2013 1:09 PM GMT
    Some times one needs a well educated person to work through the confusion at the typical McDounald's. One would think that many students, like the ones in Atlanta who were the beneficiaries of the cheating scandal, would at least learn to read at a sixth grade level while in college, thus making them employable at McDonald's.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2013 2:11 PM GMT
    bosjock90 said"While the raw number of college grads stuck in minimum-wage jobs remains elevated, their share of such jobs is at more or less its 10-year average. About 8% of all minimum-wage workers held at least a bachelor’s degree in 2012, a figure that has bounced around over the past decade with no clear trend. Given that the share of the labor force with a college degree has been rising steadily over the same period, the lack of a parallel trend among minimum-wage workers suggests that grads aren’t generally ending up at the absolute bottom of the earnings ladder."

    I think that paragraph is most important, though. Statistics need to be interpreted.


    Very true.

    But Generation Y has some weird challenges. Unprecedented student and personal debt (something like 164% of disposable income here in Canada), an economy that isn't built to accept a glut of bachelor and master degrees, and more political apathy than ever before. Generation Y will also be responsible, when the time comes, to take over the political system although many think this will happen during or after the political system is geared towards the interests of the elderly, effectively siphoning vast portions of public wealth towards the aging Baby Boomer generation.

    They are going to be the most educated working class we've ever seen. Now THAT isn't sustainable.

    Where there are increases in job numbers in North America, they usually happen in the service sector, whose industries uniformly will pay minimum wage and have very limited space for social mobility. The minimum wage is hardly a living wage.

    In terms of numbers there are more educated people than there are places in the economy for them, and I have to wonder whether globalization has a role in keeping wages down in North America (to be competitive, they say, though with people who make 2$ a day) and whether sending for expertise overseas means we are not giving individuals room in our own countries to grow their own expertise and contribute to the home nation's economy.

    There's a variety of answers out there, like the Third Industrial Revolution espoused by Jeremy Rifkin, and certain European practices of ensuring every child going to school also learns a trade, a practical means of sustaining themselves, among others.

    One thing is certain though, I think, it's that the old politics we know that focuses inordinately on interests dressed in rhetoric needs to end, and the structure of politics needs to focus on issues so as to deliver to the people those individuals who will go to government and parliaments and assemblies and actually dig into these problems in a meaningful way.

    People need to start talking about society again.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2013 2:47 PM GMT
    makavelli, I think, you may be surprised at how much this won't be happening.

    "...effectively siphoning vast portions of public wealth towards the aging Baby Boomer generation."

    The amount Bill and I have paid in taxes over our working lives is nothing short of impressive. The gov't was also socking our high tax money away during those years of double digit compounding interest rates. We paid about 20 k each into EI (which we will never see but that's OK: it's for gen X and Y).
    Boomers are also starting to inherit, in Canada alone, over a trillion dollars over the next 20 years. If your income is over a certain amount (interest you earn on your inheritances count) there is no OAP.
    The maximum CPP anyone can get, no matter how much they put in or for how long, is about 1,200 a month. The current national average is about 500 a month.

    The boomers are beginning to retire now. It will be interesting to see how many X and Ys with educations are going to snap up those jobs/careers. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2013 2:52 PM GMT
    meninlove said makavelli, I think, you may be surprised at how much this won't be happening.

    "...effectively siphoning vast portions of public wealth towards the aging Baby Boomer generation."

    The amount Bill and I have paid in taxes over our working lives is nothing short of impressive. The gov't was also socking our high tax money away during those years of double digit compounding interest rates. We paid about 20 k each into EI (which we will never see but that's OK: it's for gen X and Y).
    Boomers are also starting to inherit, in Canada alone, over a trillion dollars over the next 20 years. If your income is over a certain amount (interest you earn on your inheritances count) there is no OAP.
    The maximum CPP anyone can get, no matter how much they put in or for how long, is about 1,200 a month. The current national average is about 500 a month.

    The boomers are beginning to retire now. It will be interesting to see how many X and Ys with educations are going to snap up those jobs/careers. icon_wink.gif


    "The gov't was also socking our high tax money away during those years of double digit compounding interest rates." Wow. I'm guessing you actually believe this despite the fact that by definition, social security and CPP have massive unfunded liabilities and largely unfunded. Those funds you think were "socked away" were actually spent on boon doggles and social programs that you so cherish.

    http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/app/DocRepository/1/eng/oca/studies/cppas10_e.pdf

    Do please look up the words "pay-as-you-go" and "unfunded liabilities"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2013 3:02 PM GMT


    Uh huh. Whatever Riddler.



    ..the most important years of the high interest rates were during the Mulroney years - a majority Conservative gov't.

    btw, the current Harper Conservative gov't did the following in 2010.


    "Predictably -- and, some could argue, with good reason -- politicians used this huge pool of money as a source of general revenue and not to fund EI benefits during the current recession as promised. In 2010, with a stroke of the legislative pen, the $57-billion EI surplus was formally reduced to $2-billion. Meanwhile, $55-billion went into general revenues and the EI Account quickly went into debt as the recession started."


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2013 3:07 PM GMT
    I thought the conclusion said the CPP is sustainable? (Table 17 looks pretty healthy to me)
    http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/app/DocRepository/1/eng/oca/studies/cppas10_e.pdfMajor amendments in 1997 led to the change in financing of the Canada Pension Plan from a pay-as-you-go basis to a form of partial funding called steady-state funding. The 1997 Amendments, and particularly steady-state funding, restored the Plan’s financial sustainability for current and future generations. The purpose of the steady-state financing methodology is to produce an asset/expenditure ratio that is relatively stable over time.
    From its inception, the CPP was never intended to be a fully funded plan. Instead, under steady-state funding, the goal is to build a reserve of assets such that investment income on this pool of assets will help to pay benefits when needed (for example, as the large cohort of baby boomers retires). From 2000 to 2020, the net cash flows of the Plan, that is, contributions less expenditures, are expected to be positive, resulting in an increase in the Plan’s assets and asset/expenditure ratio.
    ...
    Given the long-term nature of the CPP, the fact that its stewards are the federal, provincial and territorial governments, and the strong governance and accountability framework of the Plan, it is unlikely that the Plan would become insolvent. Therefore, if the Plan’s financial sustainability is to be measured based on its asset excess or shortfall, it should be done so on an open group basis that reflects the partially funded nature of the Plan, that is, its reliance on both future contributions and invested assets as means of financing future expenditures. The inclusion of future contributions and benefits with respect to both current and future contributors in the assessment of the Plan’s financial status shows that the Plan is able to meet its financial obligations and is sustainable over the long term.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2013 3:08 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    Uh huh. Whatever Riddler.



    ..the most important years of the high interest rates were during the Mulroney years - a majority Conservative gov't.

    btw, the current Harper Conservative gov't did the following in 2010.


    "Predictably -- and, some could argue, with good reason -- politicians used this huge pool of money as a source of general revenue and not to fund EI benefits during the current recession as promised. In 2010, with a stroke of the legislative pen, the $57-billion EI surplus was formally reduced to $2-billion. Meanwhile, $55-billion went into general revenues and the EI Account quickly went into debt as the recession started."




    And you think money in that era of high interest rates was actually used to save for EI today? What pray tell was inflation during those years? Do you also believe in magical unicorns?

    Now, as for Harper - given that EI will be paid for out of general revenues, why wouldn't you consolidate the accounting versus the separation of unfunded liabilities well into the future? Your understanding on this issue needs to be "developed."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2013 3:12 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidI thought the conclusion said the CPP is sustainable? (Table 17 looks pretty healthy to me)
    http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/app/DocRepository/1/eng/oca/studies/cppas10_e.pdfMajor amendments in 1997 led to the change in financing of the Canada Pension Plan from a pay-as-you-go basis to a form of partial funding called steady-state funding. The 1997 Amendments, and particularly steady-state funding, restored the Plan’s financial sustainability for current and future generations. The purpose of the steady-state financing methodology is to produce an asset/expenditure ratio that is relatively stable over time.
    From its inception, the CPP was never intended to be a fully funded plan. Instead, under steady-state funding, the goal is to build a reserve of assets such that investment income on this pool of assets will help to pay benefits when needed (for example, as the large cohort of baby boomers retires). From 2000 to 2020, the net cash flows of the Plan, that is, contributions less expenditures, are expected to be positive, resulting in an increase in the Plan’s assets and asset/expenditure ratio.
    ...
    Given the long-term nature of the CPP, the fact that its stewards are the federal, provincial and territorial governments, and the strong governance and accountability framework of the Plan, it is unlikely that the Plan would become insolvent. Therefore, if the Plan’s financial sustainability is to be measured based on its asset excess or shortfall, it should be done so on an open group basis that reflects the partially funded nature of the Plan, that is, its reliance on both future contributions and invested assets as means of financing future expenditures. The inclusion of future contributions and benefits with respect to both current and future contributors in the assessment of the Plan’s financial status shows that the Plan is able to meet its financial obligations and is sustainable over the long term.


    Canada's plan is "sustainable" because it is partially funded - and I use that in brackets because it is still partially pay as you go - and Canada has a significantly more pronounced baby boom generation - to say nothing of the healthcare costs this will have on the system. And that - the healthcare system sadly is not sustainable nor have contingencies been made.

    While Canada's CPP is relatively sustainable, that's unfortunately not the case for the US which isn't. And it's certainly not because the plan collected massive interest rates during the 80s either as meninlove would like to fantasize (the changes that made the fund partially funded happened in 1996 under Paul Martin - http://rgafinancial.com/articles/will-pension-plan.pdf)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2013 3:29 PM GMT
    Wow, love the nasty rhetoric. So much for Q's request of forbearance.

    " Do you also believe in magical unicorns?"

    Discussion over.

    By now it's becoming apparent that you not only don't like boomers, but hold them responsible in some way though they paid good money over their years in the work force, and for a great many of us, will not be getting back what we put in, but we don't whine incessantly over it.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2013 3:32 PM GMT
    meninlove said Wow, love the nasty rhetoric. So much for Q's request of forbearance.

    " Do you also believe in magical unicorns?"

    Discussion over.


    That's only because I am absolutely incredulous at how willfully ignorant you are on this issue - and how selfish you are when it comes to entitlements. The discussion with you was over long ago when the ignorance took over.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2013 3:34 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said Wow, love the nasty rhetoric. So much for Q's request of forbearance.

    " Do you also believe in magical unicorns?"

    Discussion over.


    That's only because I am absolutely incredulous at how willfully ignorant you are on this issue - and how selfish you are when it comes to entitlements. The discussion with you was over long ago when the ignorance took over.


    Ignorant, selfish, yadayadayada. More nasty. Comes natural to you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2013 3:36 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said Wow, love the nasty rhetoric. So much for Q's request of forbearance.

    " Do you also believe in magical unicorns?"

    Discussion over.


    That's only because I am absolutely incredulous at how willfully ignorant you are on this issue - and how selfish you are when it comes to entitlements. The discussion with you was over long ago when the ignorance took over.


    Ignorant, selfish, yadayadayada. More nasty. Comes natural to you.


    Which is particularly ironic coming from you. How else can your approach to entitlement spending particularly ones that you feel unjustly entitled to be described as anything other than selfish? It also become clear that the question " Do you also believe in magical unicorns?" was less "nasty rhetoric" but relevant.
  • Saurion

    Posts: 29

    Apr 02, 2013 4:00 PM GMT
    Well, this also doesnt take into account majors. The bulk of college grads lack the kind of knowledge and skill necessary to compete. Things like psych, anthropology, english, etc. are being booted out in favor of STEM. Law school grads are woefully unemployed because of over-saturation in the labor market for lawyers. Humanities are succumbing more and more to structural unemployment.

    Engineers, actuaries, statisticians, pharmacists, etc.--frictional employment only. Some acquaintances of my family run a company, and they cannot find enough qualified matertials engineers.

    The good news, for those of us in these fields, is that the bulk of the population will never pursue those jobs/fields because, objectively, they can't. It takes more that rote learning to succeed in those areas.
  • carew28

    Posts: 660

    Apr 02, 2013 7:42 PM GMT
    College grads in minimum-wage jobs isn't anything new. It's been going on for years. A lot depends upon circumstances, and upon geographic location. Some localities have nothing but minimum-wage jobs available.

    But I agree with the article, I think it's an increasing trend. I myself don't think that the middle-class jobs that were lost in the Recession of the past 6 years are ever going to come back. I think that many of them are permanently gone, and society is just going to have to adjust. Which means that it's all the more important for the minimum-wage to go up, so that people working in these jobs can have some sort of reward for their labor, and can aspire to some day owning a home, having decent health-care, an annual vacation, sick-leave, and a decent retirement, in return for a lifetime of hard work in drudgery jobs, which are nevertheless necessary and worthwhile. These are things that aren't possible on the present-day minimum-wage, which is basically paycheck-to-paycheck.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2013 7:54 PM GMT
    Really only happens in the US. Move to another country and you'll be fine.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2013 8:14 PM GMT
    Saurion saidWell, this also doesnt take into account majors. The bulk of college grads lack the kind of knowledge and skill necessary to compete. Things like psych, anthropology, english, etc. are being booted out in favor of STEM. Law school grads are woefully unemployed because of over-saturation in the labor market for lawyers. Humanities are succumbing more and more to structural unemployment.

    Engineers, actuaries, statisticians, pharmacists, etc.--frictional employment only. Some acquaintances of my family run a company, and they cannot find enough qualified matertials engineers.

    The good news, for those of us in these fields, is that the bulk of the population will never pursue those jobs/fields because, objectively, they can't. It takes more that rote learning to succeed in those areas.


    Rote learning is in all disciples not just liberal arts, including engineering. Many people myself included could pursue structural employment its we choose not too for a more rewarding career with our liberal arts degree.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2013 8:15 PM GMT
    rickmenbashi saidReally only happens in the US. Move to another country and you'll be fine.


    It is similar in the UK.

    By the way I would say it is perfectly sustainable, just not very fair. When I graduated in 2002 I got invited for interview for pretty much every job I applied for during the following few years, even if I was not really 100% qualified for it. There was nothing particularly impressive about my educational achievements or prior work experience. People forget what it was like not that long ago.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2013 8:47 PM GMT
    paulflexes saidHey, at least you can discuss the theory of relativity with the drive-thru worker.


    Unlikely, because Physics majors go to the best jobs with some of the highest employabilities of any field.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2013 8:48 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    paulflexes saidHey, at least you can discuss the theory of relativity with the drive-thru worker.


    Unlikely, because Physics majors go to the best jobs with some of the highest employabilities of any field.



    Sarcasm icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2013 9:43 PM GMT
    Saurion saidWell, this also doesnt take into account majors. The bulk of college grads lack the kind of knowledge and skill necessary to compete. Things like psych, anthropology, english, etc. are being booted out in favor of STEM. Law school grads are woefully unemployed because of over-saturation in the labor market for lawyers. Humanities are succumbing more and more to structural unemployment.

    Engineers, actuaries, statisticians, pharmacists, etc.--frictional employment only. Some acquaintances of my family run a company, and they cannot find enough qualified matertials engineers.

    The good news, for those of us in these fields, is that the bulk of the population will never pursue those jobs/fields because, objectively, they can't. It takes more that rote learning to succeed in those areas.


    agree...back in the 80's, my peers were coming out of 4 yr college with a degree in english, history, social science, liberal arts and religion, these majors did not fit well in the actual working world with the advent of computer science just on the horizon, thus at my 5 & 10 year class reunions, most of these graduates some who got fancy scholarships are/were working in a shopping mall shoe store or other low paying jobs at minimum wage. As i was shocked i was doing better than they were with a learned trade, specialized degree and doing Co-Op at employer at the same time. I guess these college majors continue to be popular because they lack anything difficult and substance, got to make room for college parties while trying to get an easy degree.

    You fucked up in college, did not research the job market and majored in a dead end, your chances of landing a good paying job out of college is next to nothing, you have no work experience and expect to be paid top dollar for a liberal arts degree? Its funny, i worked with a bunch of Electrical Engineers who are not working in their field at the same employer, they were hired in as either an intern (doing basically nothing but paperwork) or have a lower administrative function that has nothing to do with EE in a totally different dept. When they were asked why they were not applying their engineering skills in the workplace, they usually reply, "this job is much easier", so the college grads who make it out of the more difficult majors, like engineering, dont want to do engineering in the real world, cause "its too difficult"...WTF?, in a sense, they are taking jobs away from the people who would really be qualified because they like many college people, want to "skate" in the working world, this slacker entitlement mentality had to be learned in college.

    "Law school grads are woefully unemployed because of over-saturation in the labor market for lawyers".....yes, this is unfortunate, its at least 6 years of college and bar exam, if you pass. Fortunately, the other way is for nurses and doctors, a shortage, but this reqires 8 years of college and internship rotations, really tough. This "flooding" of the job market also happened in the IT field a few years ago during tech bubble.

    engineering, computer science, analyst and medical professional are probably the best in todays job market that will pay the best right out of college, but still dont expect top dollar, that wil come with experience.

    There is always Business Admin, start your own business!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2013 10:07 PM GMT
    That's why people should stop going to school for English and Phisolophy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 02, 2013 10:18 PM GMT
    charlitos saidThat's why people should stop going to school for English and Phisolophy.


    These will prob land a teaching job, a unionized job, hey, they only work 9 months out of the year, pensions + 50k average, where else can you work and get a 3 month vacation and all holidays off, and they say these people are underpaid...lol icon_rolleyes.gif