Getting a Job at Walmart Is Harder than Getting into Harvard

[finehoe]

[The D.C. area's seeming prosperity and dropping unemployment rate] hides a reality in this economy. The labor market is actually several labor markets in one. And some of those markets are doing quite poorly, even in booming areas with comparatively tight labor markets. We know, for example, that in October the unemployment rate for people with bachelor's degrees (or more) was 3.8 percent, while the unemployment rate for those whose highest level of education was completing high school was 7.3 percent, and the rate for those who hadn't completed high school was 10.9 percent. Put another way, people who haven't completed high school are nearly three times more likely to be out of work than those who have completed college. And people who haven't attended college are twice as likely to be out of work as those who have completed college. Among African-Americans, the unemployment rate is 13.2 percent, while the unemployment rate for whites is 6.2 percent.

Slack in the labor market—and the continuing weakness of unions—makes it very difficult for all but the most skilled workers to negotiate higher wages. And the intense competition for positions at the lower rungs of the labor market mean companies can have their pick of candidates while offering comparatively low wages. It's good for Walmart that the company is finally making inroads into Washington. Perhaps the new stores will help boost the chain's stagnant domestic sales. It's good for the 600 new hires to have jobs at a stable company. And there's more where that came from. Walmart said it hopes to open three more stores in D.C. in coming years, which will employ another 900 people. But the fact that the chances of getting a job at Walmart are far lower than the chances of getting into Georgetown Law School highlights a continuing problem.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/19/getting-a-job-at-walmart-is-harder-than-getting-into-harvard.html

[CityLife]

Man...what was I thinking when I worked at Wal-Mart for a few months at 19 (true story)...should have just applied to Harvard instead.

[Traveller]

Many cities have lost their manufacturing bases over the years.  D.C. never had one, so the job opportunities there for unskilled labor have always been limited.  Transportation, sanitation, food prep, and low-end retail seem to be it.  Everything else requires at least a bachelor's degree, and probably even a graduate degree and/or security clearance.

[fsquid]

[The D.C. area's seeming prosperity and dropping unemployment rate] hides a reality in this economy. The labor market is actually several labor markets in one. And some of those markets are doing quite poorly, even in booming areas with comparatively tight labor markets. We know, for example, that in October the unemployment rate for people with bachelor's degrees (or more) was 3.8 percent, while the unemployment rate for those whose highest level of education was completing high school was 7.3 percent, and the rate for those who hadn't completed high school was 10.9 percent. Put another way, people who haven't completed high school are nearly three times more likely to be out of work than those who have completed college. And people who haven't attended college are twice as likely to be out of work as those who have completed college. Among African-Americans, the unemployment rate is 13.2 percent, while the unemployment rate for whites is 6.2 percent.

Slack in the labor market—and the continuing weakness of unions—makes it very difficult for all but the most skilled workers to negotiate higher wages. And the intense competition for positions at the lower rungs of the labor market mean companies can have their pick of candidates while offering comparatively low wages. It's good for Walmart that the company is finally making inroads into Washington. Perhaps the new stores will help boost the chain's stagnant domestic sales. It's good for the 600 new hires to have jobs at a stable company. And there's more where that came from. Walmart said it hopes to open three more stores in D.C. in coming years, which will employ another 900 people. But the fact that the chances of getting a job at Walmart are far lower than the chances of getting into Georgetown Law School highlights a continuing problem.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/19/getting-a-job-at-walmart-is-harder-than-getting-into-harvard.html

small sample size

[Overstreet]

Numbers speaking perhaps with a crupted use of statistics. How many of the successful Walmart job applicants do you suppose could actually be admitted to Harvard. Skip the cost, the number of applicants just use the academics demographics.

[finehoe]

How many of the successful Walmart job applicants do you suppose could actually be admitted to Harvard.

What difference does that make?  The point is that 23,000 people applied for 600 jobs.  We, as a society, have a huge number of people who only have the skills to work in low-wage positions, and there is nowhere near as many positions as there are people.  What do we do about it?  On another thread, some posters said the answer is for those people to get better educated.  Well, that may be great advice on an individual level, but not everybody has the desire, means, or ability to do that.  The sad truth is that stupid people need jobs too.  How do we deal with that when demand far outstrips supply?

[finehoe]

How much do you think the government should force a business to pay a "stupid" person? Or a person that doesn't have the desire for higher education or specific trade training.

Well, they are already forcing the taxpayer to cover the difference via food stamps, housing subsidies, and medicaid, which are provided to working people who don't make enough to cover basic expenses.  Should the employer who is getting their labor bear the full costs or should the rest of us continue to do it?  Or do we just accept a group of people living in the streets begging for food?  What is the best choice for all concerned?

[finehoe]

Where would you draw the living wage line. Every job doesn't "deserve" living wage does it?
Should the cashier at Yobe earn 40k.

I don't know.  I don't have the answer.  My initial reaction is that anyone who works 40 hours should be paid enough to cover basic expenses, but I realize there are all kinds of gray areas and "what ifs".

[jaxnative]

The answer is simple, do the things necessary to incentivize the return of manufacturing and relight the entrepreneurial fires.  The hard part, get governments foot off the throat of business.  This is an interesting tidbit from one of the liberal left heroes of another generation who would probably be elected if he ran in the present, sadly ignorant culture:

George McGovern is probably farther to the left than any other candidate nominated by a major political party. His faith in government, however, was checked by his life experience as a small businessman. It made him suspicious of government control of business decisions, as he explains in a WSJ op-ed today:

After leaving the Senate in 1981, I spent some time running a hotel. It was an eye-opening introduction to something most business operators are all-too familiar with -- the difficulty of controlling costs and setting prices in a weak economy. Despite my trust in government, I would have been alarmed by an outsider taking control of basic management decisions that determine success or failure in a business where I had invested my life savings.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/should-government-officials-be-required-to-start-businesses-2009-5#ixzz2lK9VFIJF

Since his time, government control of the economy has increased exponentially and has been given a shot of adrenaline with the present disaster of an administration and the senate. 

If present trends continue all I see is the status quo and more of an equal share of misery for all. 

[BridgeTroll]

Where would you draw the living wage line. Every job doesn't "deserve" living wage does it?
Should the cashier at Yobe earn 40k.

I don't know.  I don't have the answer.  My initial reaction is that anyone who works 40 hours should be paid enough to cover basic expenses, but I realize there are all kinds of gray areas and "what ifs".

Everyones "initial reaction" is that they should be paid enough to cover expenses.  I quickly move beyond "initial reaction" and realize my initial reaction is an emotional mistake.  Anyone who works... should be paid what the job is worth... and that is the market price.  Some may get a bit above or below and that would constitute the only "gray area".

What are basic expenses?  What if I spend my basic expense money on a 85 inch TV, and concert tickets?  What if I max my credit card and now my "basic expense" money only pays my minimum payment?  Is "basic expense" based on just the one person?  What about a child, or two, or three, or four?  Does my pay go up because I am fertile?

[Traveller]

The answer is simple, do the things necessary to incentivize the return of manufacturing

It's my understanding that U.S. manufacturing output is as high as it's ever been, but it's now so automated that manufacturing employment is at its lowest point in decades.  Instead of having 100 people on the floor doing menial tasks, those tasks are done by machine or robot, with a handful of technicians on-site to program and/or maintain them.  Thus, simply bringing more manufacturing to American soil is not going to help the semi-literate high school dropout find meaningful employment, other than maybe providing low-wage services to those technicians.

[finehoe]

I quickly move beyond "initial reaction" and realize my initial reaction is an emotional mistake.  Anyone who works... should be paid what the job is worth... and that is the market price.  Some may get a bit above or below and that would constitute the only "gray area".

So what would be your preferred solution?  The status-quo?

[ChriswUfGator]

How can you determine what the job is worth when the employer is foisting half the cost off on government aid programs? Are we talking the actual worth, or the worth with the rest of us taxpayers subsidizing a private business?

[JayBird]

Just out of curiosity, how many people would you say work AND have to claim food stamps? The number of ppl in Florida who recieve ACCESS Benefits (Cash Assistance/Food Stamps/Medicaid) hovers around 3.4 million Sunshine State residents (about 1.8M households is the avg for the state because even 3 day old Betsy Lou is considered a resident but obviously cannot earn an income.) This is the breakdown of how you recieve food stamps.

1 person in household will recieve $200/month.
2 = $367
3 = $526
4 = $668
5 = $793
6 = $952
7 = $1052
8 = $1202
Each additional person +$150

Now that is only for those that have no (zero)(nil)(notta)income. As soon as you recieve a paycheck, the entire pay for the household is multiplied by 0.3 and that number is deducted from eligible benefits. For example, Joe Blow works at walmart 20 hours a week for 7.35 an hour. After two weeks he gets a check stub that shows he earned $294 before FICA and everyone took their piece. The big computers for the state talk to the IRS and determine that means he will gross $637 a month (294x26/12). Applying the algorithm to Joe Blows benefits, (637x0.3-200) his benefits for food purchases just dropped to $8.91 per month. Yes, not even a full $10.

Medicaid costs are astronomical but vary case by case and cash assistance in Florida is available only through WIC program for moms and moms to be and a select few that collect SSI due to discrepancy in Florida's wording of the law.

So those "masses" that work and need to collect benefits that your tax dollars paid for, well in the case of Joe Blow if he worked just two more hours a week stocking camping supplies at walmart he would be making more income than the job plus those benefits could provide him with.

Secondly, as for the raising of minimum wage or living wage, I fully agree it should be because it makes logical sense .... On paper. The problem is, as has happened repeatedly in the years since Clinton adminstration got the increases bumping up ... When people have more money, retailers raise their prices. Now they say it is because they have to increase their workers pay, which I guess is true. But therein lies the catch-22, how can you give a living wage increase across the board without companies raising their prices the same amount? An increase of $500 a month doesn't help me if my electric, cable, grocery, rent, and auto insurance all went up by $100 a month.

[finehoe]

Anyone who works... should be paid what the job is worth... and that is the market price. 

One only has to go to the opposite end of the pay scale to see how meaningless that statement is.  When the Steve Ballmers, Edward Lamperts, Mike Dukes, Jeffrey Immelts, and John Chambers of the world continue to be paid outrageous sums for driving their companies into the ground, it's pretty clear that the "market price" of a job isn't obvious.