[quantumBerry]

It's treated as a bridge for those who need some life skills before moving onto something else. A lot of jobs requiring responsibility don't want to hire a kid who has no experience other than smoking dope and video games, and retail will give them some proof they can deal with some progressive responsibility.

Not a bridge for others. It's fine that it's a bridge for some and not one for others. If stores decide retail is a career job, then they will pay career ladder wages, otherwise market forces make retail as a bridge a self fulfilling prophecy.

The issue is if the government dictates a certain minimum wage for retail workers, then they've just outlawed any jobs that provide less value than that wage. You don't gain jobs by outlawing jobs, and those desiring the bridge to something more will be hurt the worst.

[ketzo]

> make retail as a bridge a self fulfilling prophecy

And what if that prophecy is not fulfilled?

What if, because you work 50 hours a week but make poverty-level wages, you can't bridge your way out?

What if, because you're considered "part-time" at three different jobs, you don't have any form of healthcare or savings (because hey, we decided for you that this isn't a "career job")?

What if you spend four years of your life being treated as disposable trash, and for some reason that has an impact on your self-esteem and work ethic?

You are looking at this from a purely individual standpoint. It is irresponsible to acknowledge that there are not systemic factors at play here. Markets are doing what markets do, and that is maximize profit, not optimize for human life.

Edit: if people tell you (as they are telling everyone!) that they're miserable in retail jobs, that they can't pay their rent, that they can't support a family, and your response is, "don't worry -- that's the system working as intended! it's supposed to be a bad job! just bridge your way out!" that is a bad response.

[quantumBerry]

>And what if that prophecy is not fulfilled?

If you've gained no skills vs a fresh person with no experience that you can use to gain a better paying job, then you're doing the best you don't benefit financially from your job being outlawed.

>What if, because you work 50 hours a week but make poverty-level wages, you can't bridge your way out?

If you work 50 hours a week in a capacity where you are offered the most available to you and you are incapable of starting a business that offers any more value, then you're doing the best you can. Many people strive to earn the most they can, and if that is dead end retail that's ok.

In my youth in the wake of the 2009 recession I used to wake up drunk out of a ditch and show up at the day labor agency with a completely unverifiable employment background (read between the lines there) making $17/hr alongside felons and drug addicts moving drywall for the oil worker camps, but I guess there are a lot less enterprising people than me out there -- but I don't think their job should be outlawed. I know there are some people out there that can't even be bothered to wake up drunk out of a ditch and walk to the day labor agency and move some drywall.

>What if you spend four years of your life being treated as disposable trash, and for some reason that has an impact on your self-esteem and work ethic?

What if you choose to find meaning in life somewhere other than work, like your family or friends. What if you find one of the other 10,000 employers also offering shit wages and work for them instead. I used to work at a taco shop for $7/hr, and even though the job sucked the boss at least was pleasant and offered me a shot of tequila at the end of the night. What if you take pride in yourself for not your job or earnings but by engaging with the community, or playing with your children, or worshipping your chosen deity or playing basketball on the corner. What if you sign up to be apprentice roofer, a job always hiring even in the worst of economic times and offering full time plus benefits.

> Markets are doing what markets do, and that is maximize profit, not optimize for human life.

And yet there has been unprecedented life expectancy, total wealth of society, educational offering and attainment, and medical breakthroughs in the past 200 years thanks to markets that optimize for profit.

[bmicraft]

There was a time when corporations didn't have revenues to rival big countries, when they couldn't just buy laws at will.

Unfortunately that time is over, and life expectancy has been going down in the US for years now[1]

[1] https://img.datawrapper.de/2wczw/full.png

[rubicon33]

No surprise you are getting downvoted. Nobody wants to hear anything about personal responsibility these days. The second you highlight that someone’s life position might be due to in part to some of their own decisions, you get downvoted. Today, everyone is seen as infallible by nature and surely their current lot in life is entirely unfair and based on some history of prejudice/luck/system failure.

It’s a completely toxic mindset, but one that has taken hold culturally and only time will illuminate how detrimental it is. Belief that ones circumstances are entirely outside of their control (even if mostly true) is a surefire way to kill the determination and motivation of even the most driven individual.

[burntwater]

I know few people that believes that all of the "unfairness" in life is based entirely on history of prejudice/luck/system.

I do know many people who believe that prejudice/luck/system has a very strong influence on one's lot in life. To deny that reality is just as toxic a mindset.

[newfriend]

> To deny that reality is just as toxic a mindset.

It's not actually. One produces individuals who constantly complain about any perceived injustice. And another produces people who strive to improve themselves in the face of adversity.

[bmicraft]

One produces individuals who will fight to fix an unjust system. And another produces people who will sacrifice their health for a job that does not care about them and still end up poor while feeling guilty because it supposedly is their own fault.

FTFY

[newfriend]

Just because a system produces different outcomes doesn't mean it's unjust. For example, people complain about taking out $100k+ loans for some degree, and then they complain that they can't get a job. Meanwhile other degrees or even people coming out of bootcamps are able to get great jobs. Is that an unjust system? Do they bear any responsibility in this case?

> And another produces people who will sacrifice their health for a job that does not care about them and still end up poor while feeling guilty because it supposedly is their own fault.

Does striving to improve yourself only include mindlessly working a job detrimental to your health? Is there any scenario where an individual is responsible for their own lot in life?

[Lammy]

Which one of these are you?

[burntwater]

Does it? How?

[robocat]

Most people I know seem to believe in a mixture of personal responsibility and circumstantial luck.

There is an abundance of evidence that those born into a poor family do not gain the same opportunities as those born into a wealthy family.

Blaming the poor for their condition has a long tradition. Blaming shop-workers for their lack of “personal responsibility” seems to be the current thinking of many selfish people: “it is their choice to be poor”.

Note that I find your writing to be disturbingly black and white thinking - absolutely a signal of a toxic mindset to me. “Nobody wants” and “everyone is” just show your own prejudices and are completely non-factual.

https://www.socialworkdegreecenter.com/10-common-misconcepti...

[Clubber]

Real life is somewhere in between. Some people are lazy and expect $150k/yr jobs for doing nothing, but many people work their ass off to barely get by because low wages, or cutting hours deliberately to pad the bottom line, and many other nefarious reasons. It's the latter most people are concerned about.

If you don't go through high school and into college in a specific degree, chances are, you're hosed. There are of course outliers, but most people with just a high school degree, or even a college degree in something that isn't in high demand are hosed for life. That wasn't always the case.

[merpnderp]

Those latter people have avenues to growth they likely just don't know about or don't understand are near sure fire ways to advance. A local fast food chain pains its store managers 1.5x the median household income in my state. Anyone who can run a construction crew can earn real money. In my city you can't find anyone to put up fencing for any price.

And your comment points out the real villain in our economy. Institutions that happily accept 20 year loans from students in exchange for a degree that will never earn them a dime. How evil to sell a degree program as a pathway to a successful career, knowing the opportunities to actually make use of that degree are statistically zero.

[Clubber]

>A local fast food chain pains its store managers 1.5x the median household income in my state. Anyone who can run a construction crew can earn real money. In my city you can't find anyone to put up fencing for any price.

What you said is true, but for every manager, there are 20 people under him that don't make a good living and that's just the nature of the pyramid structure. All of those 20 people can't be managers or foreman, so 19 out of 20 are stuck every cycle, until the manager quits or moves or whatever.

It's like the lottery, anyone can win the lottery and be rich, but it doesn't mean everyone will.

It wasn't always like this, but business practices moved to squeeze every dollar out of every resource in the name of efficiency regardless of the human cost in most cases. That's certainly a cause.

[rubicon33]

Absolutely.

I agree completely that the current economy only serves a smaller and smaller subset of the population. Each decade that passes seems to squeeze the middle class tighter and tighter. It’s emblematic of a totally derailed system.

That said, I don’t think we should be downvoting into oblivion everyone who calls for some notion of personal responsibility and growth. You need to believe that life isn’t stacked against you to have any chance of succeeding in this word. We shouldn’t be ostracizing someone because they propose that another’s position is due to their own lack of work ethic. The truth may be somewhere in the middle between character and circumstance.

[Clubber]

>That said, I don’t think we should be downvoting into oblivion everyone who calls for some notion of personal responsibility and growth.

Agree. People downvoted mine to oblivion as well. All it does is devalue the voting system, stifle rational discussion, and push groupthink. It's the internet and HN isn't immune to that sort of thing, so it is what it is.

It's not like I get to turn in karma for an eraser or anything, so to hell with the down voters.

[KittenInABox]

> Belief that ones circumstances are entirely outside of their control (even if mostly true) is a surefire way to kill the determination and motivation of even the most driven individual.

Wait, so people shouldn't believe something that is mostly true? Genuinely asking. I agree that we we shouldn't absolve people of all personal responsibility, but rhetorically the quoted statement appears to suggest people shouldn't believe things that are true.

[rubicon33]

There are countless examples in life where choosing optimism over pessimism will serve you well. Sometimes, being pessimistic is the “realistic” and “right” outlook, but entirely destructive to personal growth.

So yes, there are times when you should choose ideals that support a healthy mind, like believing for example that life is not entirely random, that your circumstances ARE malleable, and that despite whatever histories suggest your disadvantage you can’t let it control your destiny.

As a collective culture we have swung way too far toward this idea of explaining away everyone’s situation based on factors outside of their control. I’ve heard it used to justify some truly disgusting behavior. The truth is that someone’s lot in life is some blend of chance and self determination.

[robocat]

Your fallacy is in your statement “choosing optimism over pessimism”.

Have you ever tried to help somebody “choose” optimism? Have you ever struggled yourself to choose to have some trait you desire in yourself?

Have you ever had an intimate friend struggle with low self-esteem, and did you manage to help them? If you succeeded, do you think that the majority of us have that ability to help others?

I watch my friend teaching/helping the unwell, and I understand just how difficult it is to change what appear to be the most simple and obvious patterns of damaging behaviour. We all have our own flaws that we struggle with.

[KittenInABox]

I think you're using phrases like "sometimes" and "mostly" and "some blend of" to advocate for a position that fundamentally promotes toxic positivity.

I agree with certain aspects of what you say, such as that it's inappropriate to justify disgusting behavior (which I assume you mean assaulting/harming others) and attribute it purely to circumstance as a way of avoiding consequences. I however vehemently disagree with the notion that a healthy mind is a mind that ignores basic facts of reality, such as how much influence randomness and luck have on our quality of life.

There are going to be circumstances in which people's lives objectively suck in a way that isn't their fault and they can still be optimistic about it in a way that acknowledges basic facts of one's living circumstances. There are going to be circumstances in which people's lives are objectively awesome in a way that they didn't do very much work to achieve and acknowledging that has nothing to do with whether or not they're an optimist.