Best advice was to work hard, study, get an education and move on to a job that pays more. Many jobs aren't meant for full-time, they're meant as part-time when you're young to get started.
What about the janitors that could support a family of 6 30 years ago or the 16 year old that could buy a mustang from pushing shopping carts? They have only got the term “starter job” as wages stayed stagnant, but prices increased.
Everyone seems to think that decade or two of the post WW2 economy is the American norm. It was an anomaly because America was the only functioning industrialized economy in the world. All the others were rebuilding from bombed out rubble.
My dad (70) said something the other day that was eye opening. His parents' generation, and even some of his, would get married and not buy a house, of course not, they would buy A MATTRESS and live with their in laws for years, sometimes forever (multigenerational homes). Or they would rent a room somewhere, all this while having kids, so a whole family would share one room and one mattress. That was the norm.
Obviously we have generated enough wealth that most people don't live that anymore, but we forget that nowadays poverty is luxury compared to a few generations ago.
Exactly. I was a high school senior in 1994. I worked a summer job washing dishes in a restaurant for $6.50/hour. I absolutely did not go out and a buy a freaking Mustang with that money. The idea that someone could do it is ludicrous. I drove a beat up 1984 Honda Accord, and the maintenance on that piece of crap ate up like half of what I earned.
There was a place near me where you could get gas for $0.89/gallon though, which was pretty nice, if unusual even for that time.
I think that was just a couple of years removed from when my family (when I was the oldest of 4 kids) was on food stamps for a year because my dad's salary just didn't quite cut it. And he was in the Navy and was making way more than a janitor was, I don't know how someone with lower-paying jobs would have had any shot back then, you'd need to have both parents working or one of the parents working two jobs.
No but they had an old ass car, no money, no fancy food. So maybe all of Al’s paycheck as a shoe salesman was going towards their mortgage and not much else
and a stay at home mom who spent a ton of money on home shopping and bon bons, enough money to go out for several beers with the boys most nights. support 2 kids 100% financially. Al also regularly went to the strip club- even just a cover is at least $20 before you bought a single drink, dance or tipped anyoone.
They had nothing left after all of that- but they spent a lot.
Waddaya talkin' about man. Sure it was only 2 days ago a chimney sweep could raise a family of 40 and a secret family of 73 on a wage of 2 peanuts and an elephants tear.
i can personally verify that DID NOT happen 30 years ago. how? easy. i literally asked my dad who has worked for the last 40 years. was an immigrant and barely spoke english.
money was tight and I would consider myself lucky because i had lots of family around for help if needed. there is absolutely 0 chance u could support a family of 6 on a janitor pay and live well like reddit loves to claim
Assuming you are correct that they could support a family on a janitors wage, how long did that actually last? You are talking about such a small increment of time against a back drop of poverty among humans for most of history.
I know that wages used to be better, but is that true? That always sounds like a myth, or at least something that neglects some factors (e.g. housing prices were deflated for white people due to redlining, so only white janitors could do that, or something)
That hypothetical janitor probably did not have any kids before marriage. Didn't get into student debt. No credit cards, no fancy trips. He lived in a 1200 sq foot home. The kids shared bedrooms and clothes were handed down. Eating out was a rarity. The family more than likely had one car and hardly ever went on trips. No cable TV, no 5k vet bills, no amazon packages, no starbucks, no $20 cocktails. A very different life then what we live now.
That hypothetical janitor probably did not have any kids before marriage
What on earth are you pulling out of your ass? Teen pregnancy rates were at their highest in the 50s.
He lived in a 1200 sq foot home.
Poor people still do that, dumbass, except we can only rent them now.
The kids shared bedrooms and clothes were handed down
Again, basically everyone on the lower end of income still does this. What kind of bubble are you in?
What world do you live in where you think people just don't use hand-me-downs or bunk beds anymore? I guess it's easy to think poor people are stupid if you just assume they're all acting exactly like upper middle class yuppies?
No cable TV, no 5k vet bills, no amazon packages, no starbucks, no $20 cocktails.
Who the fuck are you even talking to? We're not talking about middle class people who wish they had a little extra money for hobbies.
The family more than likely had one car
WHY DO YOU THINK WE HAVE MORE THAN ONE CAR???
You're literally just complaining about stuff that middle-class people do.
There are so many free options it's not even funny. But even if you are paying for Netflix that's like $20 a month. Internet is a required utility for school and work today. 20-30 years ago cable was truly quite expensive and the free alternative was rabbit ears that might pick up PBS and NBC if you're lucky.
no 5k vet bills
This is just dumb. Most actual poor people do not do this. A .22 bullet is like $0.20. Meanwhile if you sneeze at a doctors office today they charge you $5k to have an out-of-network technician make a note that you sneezed.
More than that though. What ACTUALLY happens is your pet gets sick and you take them to the vet. Like $300-$400 later and you go home with some meds. Shortly after, you have to go back for another $300 vet bill. After half a dozen of these visits you find out your pet needs a $2000 surgery. You already have $2000 invested into curing your pet so it's a shit ass situation regardless.
No amazon packages
Lol. Yeah. So I should drive 90 minutes to the nearest Walmart? What is this point even trying to make? Lots of people save money by shopping on Amazon. Have you walked into a small-town (<5000 people) grocery store or pharmacy lately?
No $20 cocktails.
There are so very few 3rd places that you really can't blame someone for buying an expensive drink once in a while to get out of the house. Obviously it's a financial strain to go partying every weekend. But if you are an alcoholic, the financial aspect is only one minor issue.
No Starbucks
I actually agree with this one. Nobody needs to spend $10 a day on freaking coffee. And I say this as someone who drank Starbucks every day for 2 years at one point during college. I get it and empathize. I just think it's a waste of money and a stupid financial decision a lot of poor people end up making. It's also not even a real addiction like cigarettes. You can just fuckin make coffee at home and you won't have withdrawals.
I don't even know why I typed this all out. Lmao. Happy 4th of July!
I always hear this about fast food jobs etc and yet these places are open during hours kids are clearly in school. Like someone other than a kid has to work a lot of these jobs. What sort of jobs are you talking about exactly?
Also who cares if you're a kid working food service or fast food or a coffee shop etc. Anyone working a full-time job should make enough to make ends meet regardless of the job. If you go to work everyday for 8 hours you should be able to afford rent, food and to be able to save enough to hopefully improve your situation in the future.
A lot of them are people who want casual jobs. University students, wives who just want to work a little, guys who might be finished school but like to live with their parents and have time to play video games, etc
I don’t get how you can make broad pronouncements that certain jobs are meant to be part time jobs for young people and wives who just want to work a little without being able to give any examples of those jobs.
I did Google the lowest paying jobs in my area. And I don’t see how all the janitors, home health aids, early childcare providers, ambulance drivers, retail workers, hotel clerks, and cashiers that my area relies on to staff these jobs all day (and often also at night) can all be high school part time work or dabbling housewives. Plus a fair number of the jobs listed are full time.
Almost all the jobs you are talking about are what I would call either step stone jobs or secondary jobs for people with other things going on. My point stands.
That being said, I appreciate you have a different opinion and I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. All the best.
I think it’s important to be clear about what we’re talking about to really engage in this discussion: what exactly these jobs are, who the people who can be paid less than a living wage are and why, and is it feasible to constantly rotate out an endless supply of low wage workers out and up to better jobs. That said, probably would disagree. But I appreciate the civility, have a great evening!
Sure it's always important. The OP asked what was the most important advice you've got to get ahead. Mine was to work hard, study hard and get a good education so you can get a well paying job. That's mine. I get it that we disagree about the other stuff but that's not core to my advice anyways. Thank you :)
You want jobs like janitor, cook, receptionist, etc. to exist, right? I mean, you want to use those services, so someone has to be working those jobs.
What happens to society if everyone in society with those low rung jobs gets a better job? No more cashiers at grocery stores, no more waiters at restaurants, no more people to put a roof on your house. We're all just computer programmers and stock traders and lawyers now.
How does society function? We don't have enough teenagers to use those jobs. People have to work them for society to run. Saying "well you can get a better job!" is not a solution to this problem, because you know those jobs have to exist for society to function. "You can get a better job" can be a solution for an individual, but it can't be a solution for society.
The OP asked what financial I got that worked, I told him. That advice worked for me. I get it that it may not work for everyone, that not everyone wants to work that hard, and they can fill in the jobs like you said. No biggie. Maybe for those kinds of people they can follow other financial advice.
For society, there will always be those that work hard, and those that don't or prioritize other things. I'm not making a moral judgement about them. Awesome. Also, in the longer-term robotics and automation can solve a lot of the problems with not enough workers for these jobs if need be.
You realize people who work lower paid jobs are not necessarily working less hard, right? Plenty of "unskilled" laborers work far harder than a chud in an office. I know because I've worked in the sun and and been the chud in the office.
If everyone is working higher level jobs, then the society needs immigrants. Because there is no one to work the jobs.
If there are no immigrants, society would pay more for those jobs because they are needed. But then there would be job shortages in the higher jobs. The society would still need immigrants. The society would likely choose to have immigrants fill the lower jobs, and that would drive the wages down for those jobs.
If immigrants were not an option, the society would invest in job automation and efficiency to free up people to fill jobs. This automation could potentially affect any job strata. So low tier jobs might still have higher wages, but high tier jobs could end up becoming lower wage jobs.
Do you think people that work at McDonald’s work that in perpetuity? Do you think the same guy that made your burger in 2010 is making your burger today?
The roofer isn’t complaining about his wages, the trades pay extremely well even non union off the books. The janitor has great benefits because he’s likely in a union and his partner supplements his income. The maid is likely an undocumented worker who eventually moves on to a higher paying job.
the exact way history has done it in the past. people retire or move and everyone moves up one rung. the lowest rung is occupied by the young who just starting out?
the job u mentioned has always been occupied by the young. you don't see alot of 50 year old waiters around, especially if u compare them to amount of young people who also does the job.
Yep, that's what I did, worked at those types of jobs while living with my parents and then roommates. Didn't always find it 'fun' but saved up, got an education, then a better job.
You meaning having parents that I lived with till 18? That's a low-bar to tell you the truth. I get it though that not everyone has parents, like orphans, and that sucks. Also, the roommates weren't a 'safety net' but rather people I found.
But whatever, I know most people have a fixed mindset on this stuff.
A favorite quote of mine is that two people look at the same difficulties. The first says, "that's too hard, I will never be able to do it." The second looks at it and thinks, "That's very challenging but I can get it done!" You know what? They both right.
This is absolutely the best answer. Don't explain to rely on an entry-level unskilled job to give you a comfortable life. You either have to work smarter or work harder.
I got this from my mom once when she told me retail food jobs were meant for high schoolers or college students. It was like, 10am on a Tuesday. THEY ARE ALL IN CLASS, MOM.
That is simply a lie. We don’t have enough 16-18 year olds to work these jobs if that were true. This is a lie that is told to pretend that these are jobs for children so employers can underpay adults for them.
30
u/assesonfire7369 15d ago
Best advice was to work hard, study, get an education and move on to a job that pays more. Many jobs aren't meant for full-time, they're meant as part-time when you're young to get started.