[TheAdamAndChe]

> The younger crowd seems to be largely detached from the idea of responsibility that was drilled into previous generations.

My father graduated college making $42k/yr. Inflation adjusted, that was about $60k/yr in today's dollars. I just graduated, have experience in the field, and am getting a salary of $35k/yr in today's dollars. Meanwhile, upper management is getting millions.

In that kind of work environment, why _should_ I care? It's not like they're going to fire me.

[DavidWoof]

I'm always kind of fascinated by posts like this on this site. Could I ask what field you're in that pays 35k/yr, apparently in the US, is in the field of your degree, and yet is somewhat related to Hacker News? Or are you not in tech at all and this site is an outside interest? Or maybe you're just in a rural area?

I don't mean this to sound challenging out all, I'm just kind of curious.

[ashark]

$35k isn't an unusually low starting salary for lots of tech jobs outside major hubs. IT positions, starting network techs/sysadmins, hacking on PHP/Wordpress, that kind of thing.

Under the broad umbrella of jobs-you-can-land-with-a-degree-containing-the-word-"computer", there are a great many that aren't making Facebook creepier, or making Gmail's interface worse, or other, similar, very high-paying jobs.

There are even, believe it or not, many that don't pay as well as not really understanding how to write code, but nonetheless somehow landing a position writing enterprise Java or DotNet at some boring bigcorp, then never leaving because you never actually get any better at programming than when you started, but these people don't seem to care and there are a few competent people here picking up your slack, so why risk going somewhere else? AKA the broad middle-tier of people working as software developers.

[TheAdamAndChe]

I work IT in Springfield, MO. Most lower level positions here have been outsourced or centralized to a tech hub of the country, so to get an "entry level" position requires a four year degree plus a year or two of experience. IT contracting jobs also just pay $10-12/hr here.

> Or maybe you're just in a rural area?

It's rural compared to the big coastal cities, but is still the third biggest city in my state. IMO, it shouldn't just be giant cities that experience economic growth, it should be everyone. The fact that this hasn't been the case in my area leaves me and many in my area bitter about the state of the economy.

Relocation isn't an option. My family lives here, my wife's family lives here, she has a career started here, and we can't afford the massive amount of instability that a move to a high COL area would bring.

Feel free to ask more questions. The more that rich people hear from folks like me, the more they'll understand the current political climate.

[DavidWoof]

Thanks for the response. I was really just curious, I didn't mean to set off a mini-storm. It's just interesting who reads this site, since the topics are pretty highly directed towards startup and developer culture.

IT support in a rural area is more or less what I was suspecting (yes, Springfield is Country). It's ironic that the tech age was supposed to bring in an era of telecommuting, when in fact it's brought in an era of greatly increased centralization. Small towns needed doctors and lawyers, they don't need software developers or high end tech support.

In theory the increase in cloud services could change that, but I don't really see the trend changing.

[Jach]

"Relocation isn't an option", well not with that attitude. Your excuse for why doesn't seem very good. In this thread about blue collar jobs, how many blue collar workers are in the US illegally and working their butts off in order to send just about everything they make to their family back across the border? They often have wives, sometimes children, extended family, depending on them. Quite a number of people here legally do the same, too. All relocated despite the same or worse conditions you use as excuses. Maybe they're just not as selfish? Selfishness isn't necessarily a bad thing but it's important to recognize.

Suppose you could find a job elsewhere for $90k+. If you can't, sure, that's a good reason why relocation isn't an option, and finding a job in a location you don't live in is by no means easy. But if you can, then you ought to consider moving, by yourself (since your wife is busy with a career), live in an apartment with one or two other roommates, and live frugally saving/investing as much as you can. Make visits back home when you can, but at $90k+/yr that shouldn't be so hard, depends on how you want to balance your triple sized income. (Higher COL areas will eat into that, but living frugally, not very much.) Do this for 3-4 years, you'll have made more than 10 years at your current location and pay, handwaving away taxes/bonuses/raises/better opportunities. Then quit and relocate back, except now you have a savings cushion and it only cost you another few years of your time.

[TheAdamAndChe]

Telling everyone to just move where the jobs are and live like an immigrant within your own country is why Trump got elected, and will by why similar candidates get elected in the future. Economic growth and development shouldn't be limited to only a handful of cities in the country. It's not good for our workers, society, or culture in general.

[Jach]

Well, if you want, you can live quite better than most immigrants at $90k+, even in the expensive coastal cities, it's just that you're setting yourself up for having to work throughout your 30s and 40s and maybe your 50s. A lot of people are fine with that. But if people took frugality more seriously, they could plan for retirement by their 40s or earlier. Working 3 years out West gives you several years to spend back home with your family without having to work during that time.

Sounds like you want to redistribute the economic gains? Good luck with that, we know where that leads. Economic inequality is fine if people are also raised out of poverty, like over a billion people have been since 1990 while inequality has raised. Inequality can be a good sign. (http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html http://www.paulgraham.com/ineq.html)

At the very least, America can't have it both ways, being an economic power house and evenly redistributing the fruits internally. You might have a shot if you require Americans roll back into a farming economy where half the population farms for each other and the other half, but you'll have to kill a lot of people and take and salt a lot of land and forbid a lot of machinery to get it done. I don't think that's why Trump got elected. The voters don't tend to want handouts, they just want certain existing handouts to other parties to go away so they can effectively compete again in certain domains. Dissatisfaction with the economy in their area is a big component, sure, and Trump actually cares about making the country's economy better, and he's already done good things to help some areas out, but neither he nor anyone else will ever make e.g. all the state capitals equally economically viable with similar growth rates. Physics is against them, math is against them, human nature is against them, morality is against them. SV and other tech hubs will pass one day, too, just like the ghost towns you can visit all over the western states albeit probably not so dramatically, but that'll just be because the economic centers have moved elsewhere, not because they've been redistributed. Exploit their opportunities while they're there.

[upvotinglurker]

Not the GP, but I'm not a hacker, not rich, have a marginally IT-related job - but find the non-tech discussion on HN far better than most news/discussion web sites.

I do find it ironic for a commenter to be surprised at a lower-wage worker reading a thread about, per the title, blue collar wages. (And that a thread with such a title inevitably turns into a discussion of programmer wages ;-)

[TheAdamAndChe]

To be fair, it would be fairly unusual for a blue collar worker to be a regular member of a website focused on tech and venture capitalism. I'm sure the primary demographics of this site lean rich and urban.

[jaymzcampbell]

Not OP but I've worked places that in London (not exactly cheap to live), they pay a junior developer £18,000 or so - which is under $23,000. In ad agencies, in particular, this seems quite common. Usually by job hopping said junior can bump that by £10k in one go but it doesn't stop the fact people will try it and see if they can get away with it.

[walshemj]

Yeh the trouble is Advertising and Marketing where used to employing Graduates with liberal arts degrees for low wages.

With the move to digital when rigor and having tech people who really know there shit Is now important they don't want to pay the rate.

[turc1656]

I'm not surprised. There are a lot of jobs outside of the main metro areas that don't pay that much. They could be, for example, a DB admin for a non-tech company where their priority is not IT because IT is viewed as a cost center. Or perhaps a third party B2B company that is the low cost solution for a larger, more recognized company. You might be surprised what some people make in those cases.

[chefkoch]

DB Admin is perhabs not the best example as this is one of the highest paid admin specialisation.

[turc1656]

Maybe not. I have no idea. I'm not in the field. I'm probably confusing it with another DB role.

[turc1656]

I'm not sure how someone can just graduate and yet have meaningful experience in the field. Seems like only a very, very select few people can every really say that. Also, it's not clear if you and your father have degrees in the same field. If you do, part of it could easily be a supply/demand issue. I've heard similar stories from lawyers who enter the field and find it very difficult to get anything above 50k for a starting salary unless you went to a top school.

Those issues aside, your answer is basically my entire point: "why _should_ I care? It's not like they're going to fire me." I'm not sure why your employer won't fire you. Maybe they have trouble finding decent people to fill positions. I honestly don't know since I don't know what you do or who you work for. But regardless, your comment goes straight to the concept of work ethic.

It sounds like you are throwing work ethic to the wayside simply because you don't feel you get paid enough. That, in my opinion, is not the way to do things. Guess what, a lot of people are underpaid. I also have the viewpoint that you agreed to accepting the salary you are getting paid. They made an offer and you accepted it, presumably because it was the prevailing market rate for your skill set. If you feel that your compensation package is not appropriate then you should have a conversation about that with your manager - and leave the firm if necessary. It wasn't that long ago that I made about 45k. For the first 5 years out of school (starting in 2007) I worked for around that pay level. I did the daily grind and I tried hard to add value to the business where I could, because I wanted to not stagnate and just go through the motions because I viewed that as the worse path to take. I stayed late when necessary. Eventually another firm interviewed a bunch of people in my office, myself included, for a position that paid significantly more because they wanted to poach the right person to take onto their team. Guess who got the job. I even found out about 6 months later when speaking to the MD of my new employer that the CFO called him up and congratulated him on hiring me. I had no idea the CFO of my old company had me on his radar or was the type to make that kind of call. 3 years after that another opportunity presented itself solely because I had a strong reputation. That was another substantial bump on the pay ladder.

My point with the personal story is not to brag at all - hell, I certainly don't have some sort of prestigious job and there are plenty of people on this board alone that make more than I do. My point is that I highly recommend you change your mindset and the way you approach all of this. Ask yourself this. If I didn't work for the man, so to speak, as an underpaid entry level grunt for those 5 years, do you think I would have gotten that other job over my colleagues? That also would have not made the second job change (and pay increase) possible. Bringing it a little closer to home for you...if an employer interviewed you and your colleagues and had a job which paid a lot more, do you think you would get the offer or would someone else? Also, take a look at how someone successful in your line of work operates (a Director or MD, perhaps). Are they the kind of person that would share the same attitude as you? I imagine not. They would most likely either renegotiate their compensation or they would leave. I know that's how the higher ups would act where I am. The idea with all of this is to think and act like a successful person so that you can greatly increase your odds of success. It also has the benefit, in many cases, of also being the "right thing" to do. Contrary to popular belief, being a "company man" is usually still rewarded as long as you work for an employer which has basic common sense when it comes to employee compensation and morale.

And if all of that has not resonated with you at all, then consider this alternative argument. You can view it as that old joke about the two friends who are hiking and they come across a bear and one of them puts on running shoes. The other friend explains they can't outrun the bear and the first guy responds, "I don't need to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you". What I mean by this is that you are always viewed relative to your colleagues. So the first thing you want to ensure is that you are thought well of enough so that if the layoffs come around, you won't be on the list. That might be the case with you since you said they wouldn't fire you. The second part of that is to make it so that when an opportunity arises, you are on that list, whether for promotion, project, etc. My guess here is that you are not. So I assume that you are currently headed towards no-man's-land with your approach. They won't fire you but you will not be given the chance to shine because they see no upside in taking any risk on you. But if you really apply yourself you just might find that after a while your situation is looking very different. I sincerely hope this helps you in some way.

[harrumph]

> Guess what, a lot of people are underpaid.

> Contrary to popular belief, being a "company man" is usually still rewarded as long as you work for an employer which has basic common sense when it comes to employee compensation and morale.

It is mind-blowing that anyone could write this summary, expecting it to be generally applicable, when every study of wages shows they have stagnated since the 1970s, and at the same time every study of production through the same time shows it is through the roof.

In short, you advocate enshrining a work ethic, while pretending it's okay for ownership to totally ignore a pay ethic.

It's something akin to Stockholm Syndrome, if you ask me.

[turc1656]

I did mention a pay ethic and you even quoted it - "...basic common sense when it comes to employee compensation and morale." I also indicated that if the OP didn't feel they were being fairly compensated they should have a discussion about it and if the outcome is not appropriate that they should leave, presumably because there is either a mismatch of opinion regarding OP's skill set and what it is worth, or that employer is part of the ones that don't have common sense. Employees leaving is one of the natural checks on the power balance between employees and employers in the free market. And in the industry that most here on HN work for, it is easier than most to find a job elsewhere as the tech industry is in high demand for skilled employees.

It's not mind-blowing when you consider that productivity is heavily linked to technological advances. Let's take a historical example - the barcode scanner. Prior to its creation, cashiers had to know the price of all items or check the price tags that were manually stickered onto every item by someone else in the store. Then someone came along and made it possible to have UPC's printed right onto the original packaging and then scanned instantaneously at the register, with essentially no errors ever. That both reduced the skill required by the cashiers as well as boosting (drastically) productivity. Yet no additional effort, creativity, or skill was required on the part of the cashier. If a tool comes along that makes my job easier and/or more accurate my employer will pay for it, but I'd be really surprised if they suddenly gave me a pay boost because of it.

The other half of this is that welfare programs subsidize the lower income workers. WalMart would not be able to pay <$10 an hour if welfare did not exist. If people didn't have the government as a backstop, you can guarantee they would stand up and demand a higher wage so that they could meet their basic needs.

[harrumph]

I think we should not use terms like "common sense" when describing totally uncommon practices.

Wages aren't stagnant by accident -- far from it. The constantly repeated, default decision by boardrooms to unlink compensation from productivity and thereby suppress wages is in fact the overwhelming, prevailing "common sense" of the really existing world. This goes hand in hand with the systematic expropriation by ownership of the surplus value created by workers.

This situation persists because persons with your perspective cheerlead it on, in part by moralizing on worker compensation while totally ignoring the moral calculus of ownership's claim to the surplus value created by workers. That's what you did here:

>Yet no additional effort, creativity, or skill was required on the part of the cashier [...] [therefore they deserve no share of their expanded productivity]

Fact: if additional effort, creativity and skill was a bona fide prerequisite for receiving expanded compensation linked to productivity, then dividend compensation for nonworking stockholders would never flow -- let alone grow to the astronomic, middle-class-savaging intensity it has today.

[turc1656]

I've taken several days to consider your comment. I believe you are largely correct after giving it some thorough thought. Workers should receive additional compensation for increased productivity. Obviously, they would not receive the entire productivity gain, but they should receive some portion of it. If they can use new technology to create an additional $5 an hour in value, maybe they should receive something like $2 in additional compensation.

Where we probably disagree on the reason, though. To me, it comes down to an individual's overall slice of the monetary pie. Since money is just a representation of value, it's basically just a number inside of a larger system that we utilize. All that matters really is your portion of the whole. Let's use GDP as a gauge. The US has ~18.5T in GDP per year. Let's cut off some zeroes (6 of them) to get some more usable numbers. For a person making $10 an hour, that's about 20k a year, or 20,000/18,500,000=0.108%. If GDP increases 4% in 2 years but their wage only goes up 2.5% that would be 20,500/19,240,000=0.1065%. This means that they now have lost some purchasing power relative to everyone else because their share of GDP has decreased.

Now that's a moral argument, to be sure, because there is still supply and demand for labor that is a dominant for in the labor markets. So if someone else is going to work for $9 an hour, that's going to be a problem. There are many factors at at play.

But thanks for getting me to re-think my position on this.

[harrumph]

>But thanks for getting me to re-think my position on this.

I'm equally grateful you considered our conversation.

Worker ownership and worker governance of enterprises, in my view, is the general way forward. I suggest to anybody reconsidering commerce under capitalism take a look at the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation for a living example of super-productive commerce and industry that employs tens of thousands without the baked-in inequality that drives so many social ills.

Cheers!

[crankylinuxuser]

"Work Ethic".

I work because this society threatens us with destitution if we do not. I have plenty of ideas, things to do. I have to put them aside for much of each week because I want to survive.

[turc1656]

And? That's true of a lot of people, including myself. Do you think that's a new thing? As if not being a productive member of society leading to poverty is this evil new capitalistic creation? Or that pursuing your own ideas should not include the risk it does? It's amazing to me that you choose to work for someone for an agreed upon salary, providing stability and security to you, and then have an issue with the concept of work ethic because if you don't work for them or someone else you will be poor.

I work on side projects as I can. I don't quit my job because I don't know if I can survive as easily with my other ideas. It's a risky proposition. I choose less risk. You do the same, but seem upset at that concept.

[crankylinuxuser]

> Do you think that's a new thing?

No, but the extreme automation and beginning of human-like skills across all domains of knowledge are a new thing.

With automation of the essentials plus a bit more, we can finally start free ourselves from a lifetime of work. The wealthy already have, and choose what they wish to do. I only want that.

> As if not being a productive member of society leading to poverty is this evil new capitalistic creation?

No. That threat's always been there. But there wasn't a good answer how to fix it. Communism (ala USSR) certainly didn't work. They just changed the owner from a capitalist to a uncaring state. But one thing Marx failed to grasp was that computerization and automation was the way out of both old systems. That way, there's no compulsed labor.

> It's amazing to me that you choose to work for someone for an agreed upon salary, providing stability and security to you, and then have an issue with the concept of work ethic because if you don't work for them or someone else you will be poor.

Because it's not so egalitarian like you put it. You should full realize that there's a tremendous amount of asymmetry - They have the money, the legal, the govt clout. What do you have? Your labor. That's it. And you, the individual are expendable. I mean, who cares about where you sleep, what you eat, and basic necessities of life? I guess sleeping under a bridge is illegal for both the poor as it is the rich.

Unions served as a balance to that implicit, ever present threat. But they've been demonized long enough in this country, that US union membership is what, 15%? And in the tech sector, unions are non-existent. I certainly would want one myself.

[turc1656]

I fully believe that the asymmetry that exists is due nearly entirely to government. It's hard to have big business without big government. And many of the regulations and barriers to entry are created at the hands of government. I take issue with that entity before private business in most cases.

Let's also not forget that the government has effectively stolen a large portion of the additional wealth/productivity generated over the past several decades via deficit spending. Mathematically, that's no different than a tax in the end. The only difference is that the tax is not felt immediately.

FWIW - I worked for a union once due to a peculiarity in one of my employer's older business units to which I was lumped purely due to legacy reasons. It was awful. And I wasn't the only one who thought so. It was one of the rare instances that people actually voted out their union. It happened only when we separated from the older business unit and were split into a separate LLC as part of a new business venture. 74% voted the union out. It was glorious.

[dbingham]

> It's hard to have big business without big government.

The internet provides the perfect counter example to this. It was (and remains) nearly entirely unregulated. And yet Google and Facebook are monsters with immense anti-competitive power.

The evidence really does not support the idea that big business is entirely the result of big government. Quite the opposite in fact. The last time we had this much concentration of economic power was the gilded age, an age of relatively small government. We had a period of lower wealth/power concentration in the 50s and 60s, but that was linked to strong anti-trust laws (administered by government) and 90% top marginal tax laws. Since then, neoliberal ideology has been used to chip away at the restraints on big business in government and now we currently have the worst of both worlds -- corrupt government beholden to vast concentration of economic power generated by big business.

Personally, I am of the opinion that the only way to avoid this is to look at the core of the systematic issue -- allowing equity financing concentrates wealth. Concentrating wealth concentrates power and naturally causes consolidation and centralization. In a world with equity financing, the only way to keep business small and competitive is with strong anti-trust laws and highly progressive taxation.

I think we could have a world of small government and small business, but only if we universally replace the Stock Corporation with the Worker Cooperative. That, of course, is a novel idea and requires a lot more support than I can put in HN post. Maybe some day I'll get to a point where I can stop developing full time to support myself and write that book...

[harrumph]

>74% voted the union out. It was glorious.

http://www.industryweek.com/sites/industryweek.com/files/upl...

Take a close look at what you are cheerleading: Crushing student debt. Opioid abuse. Medical bankruptcy. Social immobility. Poverty.

No, really.

[s73ver_]

If the employer is not paying what the "work ethic" is worth, then why should they get it?

[turc1656]

If the employee knows that at the time the offer is made, then why would they accept it?

Because it actually is the prevailing market rate for their role and they know that. Also, let's not forget that there is always a large risk when hiring someone, especially as in the OPs case where they are recently graduated. The value can't be certain, so businesses are conservative until it can be proven to be higher. This is logical and expected.

[s73ver_]

But, they don't. And there's also a large risk when taking a job, especially when one is recently graduated.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy this idea that the business, the entity with all the power in the relationship, is entitled to be conservative but no one else is.

[guardiangod]

>not paying what the "work ethic" is worth

My mind is blown at reading this sentence.

My 'ethic' cannot be measured (or compensated, or matched) with money, no matter much money is offered; I dearly hope yours' the same.

If I don't think the pay is fair, I will just quit the job. I won't bother with complaining to the employer about money=work ethics.

I will decide what my ethic is, thank you.

Edit: And I am getting down mod for saying my ethics can't be bought. Jesus.

[Danihan]

Waste of time spending this much effort on ppl w/ entitlement issues.

[s73ver_]

You mean the employers who don't want to pay for decent employees?