[Loughla]

Those positions require very little skill, and provide very little pay. Correct. The next part is where most people today get the argument wrong; it isn't that those jobs should pay more for the arbitrary sake of paying more.

Those type of jobs are the step for many people that not just have no more steps to take, but have never had any walkway to stand on. Their entire lives have been spent just trying to make it to the next day.

The argument is that those positions are part of a larger, predatory economy or society seemingly designed to keep a certain subset of the country/world subjugated to another. When you see protests about a higher wage at entry level positions such as fast-food and retail, what you're really seeing is the confused, leaderless argument that life sucks for many people and shows no signs of relenting. It's a first world suck, but suck nonetheless.

Source: research into lower-socioeconomic lifestyles while attaining advanced degrees (and living that life when young; thank God for scholarships).

[nhangen]

You're right. Been there done that. During a period in my twenties, I had lost my job, had a negative bank balance, and two kids to feed. I was on foodstamps while I worked at the Olive Garden making very little while spending far too long in college subsidized by grants and student loans. I finally graduated, got another job, and was let go within a year.

I now had tons of debt and a degree that was almost worthless. So I joined the Army and left my kids for 16 weeks to attend bootcamp and AIT. Spent 5 years, including a stint in Afghanistan.

Needless to say, I recovered, taught myself how to program, and now run a software company.

Life sucks. For many, it sucks hard. But there are ways out. Most people just don't want to make the sacrifices necessary to do so.

Btw, I'm speaking of 1st world. 3rd world is obviously a different story.

[mkr-hn]

"I did, therefore everyone can" is my favorite fallacy.

[eli_gottlieb]

The fact that "make the sacrifices necessary" is a useful attitude for you does not mean the cost-benefit/risk structure is actually adequate for everyone else.

[nhangen]

Which proves my point exactly.

[eli_gottlieb]

Not at all. I'm referring to many people in the First World.

There's also the structural issue: not everyone can be an entrepreneur, because companies need worker bees to run. You can't run such a strongly hierarchical system as capitalism without some level of social-democratic concessions to enforce that, outside the workplace, my boss and I really are equal human beings.

[gh322]

Natural selection then takes hold.

[eli_gottlieb]

Care to elaborate? I can't glean your meaning.