I think it actually means redefining success. Today, success means having disposable income, but that's not the success that children need. They need stable households, and that can be obtained even with low paying jobs, though obviously it's easier with high paying jobs.

But it's impossible if the will to work isn't there, and the only way to get that will is to instill a good work ethic and proper, family-oriented goals.

> that can be obtained even with low paying jobs

Minimum wage workers can't afford rent anywhere in America. There's no stability to be found for low-paid workers.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/15/homes/rent-affordability-mini...

Its innumeracy propaganda.

There are no minimum wage jobs where I live anymore, and I live in a lower cost of living area (not Manhattan or silicon valley, LOL). I'm not surprised no one can afford rent at $7/hr when no one can find a job paying $7/hr. Costco has a sign up paying $19/hr to empty trash cans and they can't hire people at that low of pay and the article claims its a tragedy that a middle tier single bedroom would take $21 as a nationwide average; although I live in a lower cost of living area.

The government "Fair Market Rent" is sort of median quality housing. If the goal is to demand that even people at the literal bottom of the barrel of income in the 0-th percentile live in 50th percentile housing, then who will live in the 0th to 50th percentile of housing. A goal of having the lowest percentile in any group meet median achievements is inherently impossible.

There does not seem to be any actionable plan proposed; to me its obvious that raising the legal minimum wage from $7 to perhaps $8 will not improve anything if the absolute bottom of the barrel of jobs in low paying areas is already $19/hr AND there is no supply so there are unfilled jobs. Another obvious proposal is building more housing to crash the price, and the ownership class is not going to tolerate that behavior LOL.

As a thought experiment, if the living conditions are indeed unlivable as the guilt inducing article proposes, fine, lets run with that theory that its true nobody can live that way, then how are so many people living that way?

> Costco has a sign up paying $19/hr to empty trash cans

I am getting really tired of people casually talking about jobs like this as if they are easy. Do they require a ton of professional knowledge or skills? Nope. Are they way harder than your job? In all likelihood.

I mean, all the proof you need is literally in the fact that Costco can't find workers willing to do the job for that wage. The conditions suck for how hard the job is.

I seriously doubt they "can't find workers." I have a friend who works at a rural Tim Hortons and he described to me the massive stack of applications he spotted as "thicker than the phone book. Like two new packs of printer paper." Despite multiple interviews per week nobody gets hired. They've been on a skeleton crew since last summer. I think it's a total crock that they can't find anyone. More like they can't find anyone good enough, and good enough means willing/able to do 4x more work than anybody with the same job had to do previously. I want to start my own million dollar paranormal challenge, but it's for anyone who can prove a non striking non startup company has suffered due to not being able to find workers. I don't think it's happened a single time since 9/11.

I've heard the same thing on a recent NPR Planet Money podcast: No Shortage of Labor Stories (Dec 2021): https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1065332194

Employers were saying they're desperate to hire, and there are plenty of people applying and not getting hired. It makes no sense. I hear more and more of these mismatched supply-demand anecdata. I can only conclude that there are not honest conversations around hiring; that is, the real requirement for the job is not being conveyed, or at least written down or said out loud. Like you said, if an employer such as Tim Horton has a desperate need for labor but is turning down large number of applicants, the labor being asked for is not being proffered at the wage being paid, and the alternative (not filling the position and then complaining that you can't help) is better than hiring. That is the only reasonable conclusion I can draw.

The epitome of privilege is assuming everyone has house servants to empty their trash cans. My trash cans at home do not empty themselves, nor do I have my hired man do it for me.

Yes, I admit elderly living in nursing homes do have hired help empty their trash cans.

Is it a sign of society collapse that one-armed individuals and those lacking any upper body strength cannot live in the lap of luxury? Nah, they go be cashiers at the same store. Well, whatabout those too dumb to make change but too smart to get SSDI disability? Whataboutism has become tiresome and as such is no longer effective propaganda.

I have worked a job where emptying trash cans was one of my responsibilities, and it is nothing like emptying the trash at home. They're enormous, heavy, usually leaking putrid liquid, and you have to lift them above your head to dump them in a dumpster. Some of the putrid liquid will get in your hair every day, and you won't be able to get rid of the smell until you get to go home and shower in the evening. It's hard to appreciate how bad of a job it is if you haven't done it.

the worst thing about that smell is it follows you even after the shower.

2% of hourly workers make federal minimum wage or lower according to BLS numbers. Many lower paying jobs (Walmart, McDonalds, etc) pay about $10 an hour. They generally don't provide benefits. So even if you get two jobs to fill a 40hr week, you're stuck with the medical costs. Good luck paying for housing and medical coverage (transportation, taxes, retirement, etc) at $20k per year in most areas. Hopefully you can get on assistance to help out.

There are a variety of issues and possible improvements to help the situation, not just the two you mentioned.

That 2% consists of people like my teenagers, both of which cannot afford housing and medical coverage by themselves and as Dad, I'm personally quite well acquainted with how they get financial assistance (LOL).

And no, McD does not pay $10/hr, I live in a low cost of living area away from the coasts and the sign on the door opposite my grocery store lists $15/hr right next to the sign that they're cutting hours due to lack of employees. On the coasts I'm sure its higher although cost of living is probably higher.

Your teenagers work fulltime? The BLS numbers for that 2% was looking at fulltime hourly workers. I'm sure there are plenty of part time people that would increase that 2%.

That 2% also includes disabled people where they can legally be paid below minimum wage. E.g. Walmart greeters with downs sydrome...

Speaking of innumeracy, how would a person afford to save for a homeloan deposit, while also paying for health insurance, rent, food, and vehicle maintenance. With kids? Might as well hang yourself, before the kids hang themselves.

I'm in Australia, so the numbers are approximately similar, our minimum wage is $20.33 an hour, our public health care system had been eroded by successive governments, and never included non-emergency dental so you probably want to spend around $40 to $60 or more a week on health insurance.

No one on $19 an hour is buying houses.

If your minimum wage is $7 an hour, but the lowest paying job currently advertised is $19 an hour, let's just call the effective minimum wage $19 an hour, and base or assumptions off that.

Many people are living that way, sure, but, man, both the USA and Australia have turned to shit. Fuck being a young person today without the good fortune of being born with good genes in to a good family. People can't find places to rent even in the small city I live in, families are living out of their cars, or in tents under bridges.

In Australian! It's not like we're short on land, or wealth.

Half the issue is that people have been indoctrinated to expect home ownership and long for some golden age seen on TV that never existed.

Home ownership was never universal in the US. It has been within a few percent of 65% since the 1960s[1]. It was always out of reach for the lowest earners, like those that make minimum wage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home-ownership_in_the_United_S...

What you're saying surely has elements of truth, in average the struggle is real and it's hard.

But it's also a matter of perspective. Here's a few additional perspectives, none of them the whole answer. But possibly provide insights and even hope for those who are most motivated.

Creating a house is a huge achievement, if you had to build it, and it's components, yourself, you would spend decades building a modern style house. It's unrealistic to expect that everyone can get this easily and early in life. Our mortgage system allows people to own earlier while paying it off to make that possible, but otherwise this is something that only a skilled person after decades of work would achieve.

Minimum wage isn't expected to be the maximum income achievement for someone who works hard, the idea is to find a niche where you can make more than minimum wage. This takes time of hard work, but it's patently still very possible in Australia, and much harder in many other countries overseas.

People who bought houses in the past had it easier in some ways, but lived a much much more basic standard of life. If you talk to average (ie not wealthy) people who bought houses from 50 to 20 years ago, it was incredibly hard for them, and involved sacrifice of pretty much everything to the mortgage for a decade of their life, while working hard and supporting a family. No overseas holidays, computers phones and entertainment, paying for kids sports programs, home delivery of meals etc etc. The standard of entitlement has raised incredibly decade on decade - in the past it was Expected to sacrifice to afford a home.

Some people still, despite the challenges were buying homes on minimum wage jobs in the last decade, before the current waves of price rises, and some probably are still buying now. But those people who did structured their life in a way to reduce every expense and save then buy modest places, away from conveniences and lifestyle areas. Similar sorts of sacrifices that people of the past would have done, just they are living in an era of inflated lifestyle expectations so they socially making more sacrifices even if the actual physical sacrifices are less in that they e.g. still have a phone and more entertainment than the past.

>Creating a house is a huge achievement, if you had to build it, and it's components, yourself, you would spend decades building a modern style house.

In my country the houses in the villages used to be built with local materials by the owners themselves, with some help from family and neighbors. The vast majority were very small even if the families were large but it didn't take decades or even many years to build them. Now houses are larger and built by dedicated teams or companies, families smaller and many moved into towns where they live in an apartment building. Most people I know, younger or older, either live in apartment buildings or they live in house in a village near the town, because owning a house in the town is terribly expensive. Either way, they are paying for the place with credit or they are renting. For many people, owning a home means paying rates 20 to 30 years.

So if you are 20 and feel entitled to a 5 bedroom house in one of the best areas the people who educated you did a poor job. B

So basically what you're saying is that there should in theory be no floor to QOL, but then tacitly agreeing with the hand-wringing about how society (a construct based almost entirely around QOL) is faltering?

First, it's not federal minimum wage, it's minimum wage for each jurisdiction. So Washington state being $11 or whatever it is, not the federal min.

Second, for some reason I believe the propaganda that city living is inherently less costly despite it being pricier everywhere in the USA, so I believe rich city liberals need to change zoning to allow cheap housing to be built.

Finally, they're living that way by getting ostensibly making minimum wage, but with so high of commuting time and cost as to be making less per hour but working more than 40. Or by living in miserable conditions: in an RV, 8 people to a 3-bedroom house, etc

"First, it's not federal minimum wage, it's minimum wage for each jurisdiction. So Washington state being $11 or whatever it is, not the federal min."

The BLS data was only tracking federal minimum. I would like to the state minimum wage earners, but that wasn't in that report.

"so I believe rich city liberals need to change zoning to allow cheap housing to be built."

I believe it's all due to preferences. The preference for sfh, preference for better schools, preference for low crime, etc. It's pretty cheap to live in many north Philly neighborhoods. Many people don't want to.

I agree with the final part. I turned down jobs in college due to the commute cost.

> Many people don't want to.

They'd like their kids to go to school without bad influences. You can't watch your kids 24/7 so choosing the kind of people they'll be around is one of the few levers you have as a parent.

Now, if we had a national ethos/culture which the government was empowered to enforce (like Denmark, Japan, etc) then it doesn't matter as much which neighborhood you live in. But living in North Philly is basically dooming your children, what we might call "intergenerational poverty".

Yes, and those empowered schools would be a much better fix than the one parroted around about just fix zoning so we can build more housing in the desirable areas.

If both parents are spending all their time at work just to make ends meet (or workaholic executives), how can that be stable? When will they have time to guide and develop the child?

In a dystopic society, women would use sperm banks to get pregnant and then give the children to be raised by the state, "in the spirit of a liberal society". Rules will tell how many girls are needed and how many boys are needed. Rules will also avoid overpopulation in order to reduce pollution and protect the nature.

Meanwhile men will work full time in order to maintain such a noble society. Being a man and not working would be a crime.

Leaders would be appointed only amongst females because men are oppressive and violent.

True. But people also just give up if they're constantly told that all the opportunities are gone, whether or not it's true. If you combine "there are no opportunities for me" with "there are no expectations for me", you get "I'll do nothing".

Even if you have expectations, many opportunities may be gone. Just look at the lack of non-college work in the US that pays a living wage. Now try to get one of those jobs if you're competing against others who have no criminal history if you have a minor one.

I have a job as a dev and even I'm tired of this treadmill. Taxes, COL, healthcare, etc. No time/money to do the things I want. No real career, just a job. Lies and discrimination at work. I don't blame others for giving up when their circumstances might mean that's the best option for them.

What are you talking about? Just try and find a plumber, carpenter or contractor that isn’t backlogged for months.

There’s a ton of really good blue collar jobs, often where you are your own boss. Unfortunately, society is pushing everyone to college.

Sort of.

Many trades here in Australia spent two decades employing apprentices in insufficient numbers, for whatever reasons, to meet projected requirements.

Now we have insufficient tradespeople to meet demand, blowing out wait times to things like "not gonna happen this year mate" to repair a roof, and 7 months to fabricate new windows. The builders, roofers, and glaziers that do exist would prefer to work on green fields developments where they can do the same thing 50 times without moving their tools and equipment further than next door, so prices on minor repairs to existing houses have increased by a factor of "don't want the work, multiple the cost by five and quote at that" and that capacity is being eaten up by people borrowing $700,000 to fully renovate.

It doesn't help that the building and fabrication trades have been run almost entirely by obnoxiously unbearable pricks, and when you spend twenty years telling everyone bullying isn't ok, is it any wonder young people don't want to do physically demanding work in terrible conditions working with obnoxiously unbearable pricks? When it's -10 degrees C outside, it's minus -10 in your work environment, when it's 40 plus degrees C it's 40 plus degrees in your work environment, and people rarely make big changes to themselves, so here we are.

You're right.

At the same time the common alternatives of computer games and tiktok aren't going to build much of a future.

Then for those that are motivated or smart there's plenty of other pathways in Australia today.

This is really only true for certain locations. Also, to be your own boss means you have to understand how to obtain the licenses, start the business, etc. Many of the people who could do the actual job may not be able to the overhead to be their own boss. The companies do background checks and most don't really train. The overall percentage of these blue collar jobs are a much lower percentage than they used to be. So there's more competition. Good luck getting hired with even a minor criminal record or it you don't have a driver's license.

I would quit my job today if I could make $100k

It's possible that most people just dont want to be plumbers, right? Maybe they would like a chance to do something they think is more interesting.

To suggest people just do the thing that makes them money highlights another problem if you ask me.

The question at hand is whether there are opportunities for people to make a living and support a family, not whether everyone can have a dream job. For the majority of humans throughout time, work has never been something that people do because they couldn't think of anything they'd rather be doing. It's always been a means to an end.

Your comment suggests that it's not opportunities that have been lost in recent decades, it's that the younger generations' expectations for what life owes them have changed.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, to a point. But it's not accurate to claim that the lack of dream jobs out there means that there are fewer opportunities for gainful employment than in generations prior.

I think I'd rather be a plumber or electrician than a dev. I'm so tired of all the BS at work. At least in those jobs you aren't sedentary and you actually get to see the positive impact you make on someone's life. Sure you might get some difficult customers occasionally, or be dealing with literal shit.

I think this speaks to the heart of the matter, the expectations that people want.

Yes it's beyond possible, it's clear that's the case, otherwise there wouldn't be a shortage of plumbers given they can make money to live or even raise a family on.

But the sense of expectation has grown way beyond that, everyone wants to be an actor so they spend their time on tiktok, which is a winners market, and then the leftover masses that didn't build skills or work ethic complain about having to start at the bottom of the more 'realworld' pathways available.

For most of human history people just did what made them money to live, and were glad if they have the chance to do just that. Go and spend six months in a third world country and you will see this is true.

The fact that people long for fun and interesting jobs that don't exist, is indeed a sperate problem.

It does not negate the fact that there are high paying jobs available without college degrees.

So people should do only what they like and society is to fulfill anyone's wish and expectation?

How would this be doable?

Here's an alternative: everyone is responsible for himself, society is responsible only for the ill end disabled. Everyone is provided with a framework that enables him to learn, work and find himself a way to live and fulfill his wishes.

> Just look at the lack of non-college work in the US that pays a living wage.

A problem that doesn't exist. Plenty of that work out there.

Try to get a custom 3-phase power line run in the datacenter. Average age of electricians is about 55 around here. Nobody goes into the trades because the trades will "destroy your body before you're 35" yet all the thin healthy tradesmen around here are mid-50s boomers. Hmm. The union local total compensation package for mere journeymen is a hair over $65/hr because of mandatory health care and retirement extras that most people can only dream of, but even the takehome pay alone is still over $45/hr. On one hand that's only about twice what you'd get for emptying trash cans at Costco. On the other hand, you don't have to empty trash cans at costco AND you get a cooler more interesting job. Either way that power line isn't going to install itself.

The real mystery is all it takes to be an electrician is ambition, low time preference, agency, self discipline, motivation, concentration and study, and especially staying away from drugs, so how do you find people like that in a culture that glorifies the opposite and vilifies those values? Well, you don't ... thus they end up very unsuccessful in life and my power line ends up not installed.

If doing what you are told leaves you unsuccessful, maybe time to start distrusting those people when they give life advice. That's going to be the real turmoil and rebellion point in the next decade. "We were promised all our lives that self destructive behavior and self destructive beliefs would lead to a pleasant mirage."

Or maybe that the majority that possess those traits go into other higher paying jobs that also require those traits. Starting around here for electricians is closer to $25-35. If you are concentrating and studying the NEC, you could alternatively study to be a dev and make more.

Union elections in the bay area rake in about 140k/year after 5 years on the job. Highly competitive, but no college required.

That's in a HCOL and about half the starting salary of a FAANG dev, probably about the same as starting for a non-FAANG dev in that area, right?

If I could be reasonably expected to make that in my area (Philly region), then that sounds great and is substantially more than I make as a dev.

That sounds about right.

Im not saying it is the best job in the region, just demonstrate that blue collar jobs can still provide a comfortable living with such salaries.

I would expect it to scale by regional COL.

And this is perhaps the issue, people compare expectations against 'best' much more than they did in the past, because of all the (soc)media pushing it at them.

>especially staying away from drugs

We know very different electricians ;). But seriously, I wonder how much of the 'conservatives are uneducated!' trope that gets thrown around in conversations like this is due to conservatives in high school placing a higher value on providing for a family, doing the math, and consequently getting into the trades rather than university.

> Nobody goes into the trades because the trades will "destroy your body before you're 35" yet all the thin healthy tradesmen around here are mid-50s boomers.

I just wanted to point out that this is quite literally textbook survivorship bias. Instead of looking around and talking to the people that made it that far, you should try talking to those that didn't.

To be fair, I feel that the sedentary lifestyle of being a dev is just as damaging. Heart surgery vs joint replacement basically.

You can't replace your back.

And if you become obese from a sedentary job, it is easy to herniate the disks in your back doing ordinary things.

People doing manual labor are just as obese as us office workers.

I live in a poor country than US and skilled car mechanics, skilled construction workers and skilled nurses are able to make a decent living. Some even better than people with an University degree.

Maybe you mean both non-college work and non-skilled work?

Yes, opportunity is a belief, in reality there are plenty of opportunities, it takes imagination and hope

It depends if they're realistic or not. Without that, the hope portion disappears.

Then one has to weigh if the job is worth it. With the high cost of modern living (shelter, taxes, healthcare) one might decide it's better not to work and just rely on assistance programs (I know someone like that).

It takes imagination and determination. Finding the windows when the doors are closed. Not giving up on failures.

Unless you're locked in a room with no doors or windows.

The funny part about expectations is they don't have to match reality to have an impact. If you raise a child telling them they have no opportunity, their chance of success is quite low.

That may work for a single generation. And the child soon grows up and meets reality. We are in a situation that has been developing for multiple generations

Edit: I agree with the replies and I’m not one for shirking personal responsibility to change your lot in life, nor not instilling an eye for opportunity in children. We are at a point where more may be necessary

I've thought about this a lot. It's so much more than "every generation thinks the next is awful" - that's too glib. By my count we've had 3 consecutive generations disaffected, disillusioned, and alienated. It's as if, figuratively speaking, everyone born after 1970 is a 'latchkey kid' because the parent archetype still hasn’t come home or sobered up yet.

Even still, it's best to teach kids that they have more say than any other individual about their own future, and that anything is possible. If you must teach them that the world is hostile, you must also teach them how to beat it. You wouldn't refrain from teaching them tiger evasion just because the tiger is probably going to get them.

Of course we can do more to have a robust economic ladder, but I dont think it is nearly as bleak and binary as people make it out to be. If you look at the actual data, there is still a lot up upward mobility. 60% of people who grow up in the bottom economic quintile improve their situation. [1] When thinking about the 40% that dont, there are a few notable facts:

20% of children in the bottom quintile dont graduate highschool.[2]

8% of men born into the bottom quintile are currently incarcerated.[3]

The traditional advice to children for how to be in the 60% that escape poverty is still true. Stay in highschool, stay away from drugs and crime, and go to college if possible. If poor children can do this, their chances of improving are actually quite good and not at all hopeless.

https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/~/media/images/...

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/High-school-graduation-r...

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/es_2018...

I disagree with the headline in that chart. What I see is 60% chance (i.e. more likely than not) of mobility up or down

Edit: you edited your post to be more than just a link

I added a lot of text to get my point across more clearly

The old Brookings Institute factoid is that the vast majority of the poor who graduate from high school; get a full-time job; don’t have a child before age 21 and get married before childbearing; move into the middle class.

You’ve provided some good research. Still I wonder how quickly it becomes outdated in today’s world.

No Solution to this massive multigenerational problem involves teaching children to not try and give up.

That only works in one direction though. If opportunity doesn't exist, it doesn't matter if you set expectations that it does.

Still better to instill expectations even if opportunity currently does not exist. If it arises one day that person will do better.

Until then they'll be crushed and/or feel lied to.

I'm talking from experience, my drive to succeed helped me to take an opportunity when it came. Otherwise I'd probably be selling weed on the corner.

Or you think its better to evade temporary failure by embracing permanent failure?

There's a difference between being ready to seize a realilistic opportunity if it comes along and being told that there will be opportunities if only they work hard. I'm guessing that opportunity that came along just happened to better than the opportunity to sell weed on the corner, right? I'm guessing there are others who see an opportunity to work a low paying job as being less of an opportunity than selling weed.

I don't think it is nearly as bleak and binary as people make it out to be. If you look at the actual data, there is still a lot of opportunity for upward mobility. 60% of people who grow up in the bottom economic quintile improve their situation. [1] When thinking about the 40% that dont, there are a few notable facts:

20% of children in the bottom quintile dont graduate highschool.[2]

8% of men born into the bottom quintile are currently incarcerated.[3]

The traditional advice to children for how to be in the 60% that escape poverty is still true. Stay in highschool, stay away from drugs and crime, and go to college if possible. If poor children can do this, their chances of improving are actually quite good and not at all hopeless.

https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/~/media/images/...

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/High-school-graduation-r...

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/es_2018...

Of course, better opportunities may come without working hard. But in my case the opportunity was only realistic as I spent years preparing for it. If I'd spent those years doing and selling drugs the opportunity would've came but it would have not been realistic for me to seize it.

Is it really better to never try than risk disappointment?

>If you have no hope of success, then people just give up.

Success doesn't come from hope. It comes from hard work and fighting every day for something better.

Luck might help, but is neither required nor enough for success.

I was from a poor background and fighting for a better future was the only thing that brought me some kind of success.

You can work hard and still lose hope. Just look at the suicide rates in the farming community. You'd be hard pressed to find a group that works harder than that. Hope is a huge factor. Hard work can only do so much if the system is failing and there's no hope.

It depends on the circumstance. I'm also from a poor background in a third world country (so super poor by Western standards), and although I did work both very hard and very smart, if I had not moved to a first world country there's no way I would have achieved much. Sometimes your environment can make it that hopeless, and I've seen it in many of the younger people back in my home country now. They've essentially just "checked out" of society, which leads to higher crime and unemployment overall.

That's great for you, but go tell that to someone who's lost all hope. If there's no hope then there's little incentive to work hard.

I bet you had hope that your fighting would be worth it. What the GP is saying that if you don’t have hope then you have no incentive to work hard, because the lack of hope literally means that you don’t believe there’s a realistic chance it will lead to success. You need that belief to get going and to keep going.

If by hope you mean realizing that chances of success do exist, then you are right.